Archives for the month of: January, 2016

The Néw York Times reviewed 274 pages of emails released by Governor Snyder’s office about the Flint water crisis. Confronted with multiple claims that something was wrong with the water, the Snyder administration belittled the critics.

“The correspondence records mounting complaints by the public and elected officials, as well as growing irritation by state officials over the reluctance to accept their assurances.

“It was not until late in 2015, after months of complaints, that state officials finally conceded what critics had been contending: that Flint was in the midst of a major public health emergency, as tap water pouring into families’ homes contained enough lead to show up in the blood of dozens of people in the city. Even small amounts of lead could cause lasting health and developmental problems in children….

“Though Mr. Snyder issued the emails as part of an effort to reveal the administration’s transparency on the matter, the documents provide a glimpse of state leaders who were at times dismissive of the concerns of residents, seemed eager to place responsibility with local government and, even as the scientific testing was hinting at a larger problem, were reluctant to acknowledge it.

“The messages show that from the moment Flint decided to draw its water from a new source, the Flint River, officials were discounting concerns about its quality and celebrating a change meant to save the cash-starved city millions of dollars. From 2011 to 2015, Flint was in state receivership, its finances controlled by a succession of four emergency managers appointed by Mr. Snyder’s administration.

“That upbeat mood lasted for months, even as residents began complaining about the new water’s foul odor, odd color and strange health effects, and began showing up at events with “jugs of brownish water.”

The governor has apologized.

He should be charged with willfully endangering the lives of the citizens of Flint and held accountable for his administration’s criminal negligence.

This is the third in a series of exchanges with the staff of Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee. David P. Cleary, chief of staff, responded to my questions.

What about the bottom 5% of schools by test scores? There is always a bottom 5%. Close them and another group will be the bottom 5%. What does the law say about the way these schools are treated?

States are required to identify the lowest performing 5 percent of schools every 3 years, based on the state’s individual accountability system. From there, a state will decide what to do about helping those schools improve. We ended the NCLB model of prescribing one-size-fits all solutions to apply to poorly performing schools, and we ended the requirement that states determine which schools are poorly performing based just on the federally required tests.

ESSA does not require states to close the schools in the 5 percent category, or convert them to charters, or fire the teachers or the principal, or any of the sanctions required under NCLB. States will now have the flexibility to determine what to do about these schools. In fact, the law explicitly prohibits the Secretary from specifying how states identify the bottom 5 percent of schools and any school improvement strategy or activity that a state or school district uses to improve those schools in section 1111(e)(1)(B)(iii)(V) and (VI) of the new law. Some states will choose to keep the existing types of sanctions, others will take entirely different approaches, but the key issue is that it is now for the state—and not Washington, D.C—to decide what to do about these schools that are struggling with improving student achievement.

Additionally, the law does not require that a new bottom 5 percent of schools be identified every 3 years. States determine what schools are identified as the bottom 5 percent, and some of these schools may still be in the bottom 5 percent 3 years later. All decisions about identification of schools are left up to the states.

John Ogozolek, a teacher in upstate New York, watched a news show and hit the ceiling. He wrote:

“CBS reporter Scott Pelley put Governor Rick Snyder on the hot seat yesterday, asking him repeatedly why he apparently still doesn’t have a handle on the specifics of Flint, Michigan’s poisoned water. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/michigan-gov-at-least-100-kids-affected-by-lead-in-flint-water/
“PELLEY: So fair to say you don’t know what the lead content is in the water?
“SNYDER:Well, again — we don’t want people to believe it’s safe. Extensive testing is going on, has been going on for some time. And we are seeing improvements in the water supply. But we don’t want people to believe it’s appropriate to drink at this point in time, and that’s why I’m proud to have the National Guard out there working hard.
“PELLEY: I don’t understand why you can’t give us the latest testing data and what it shows for the water in Flint. What is the number?
“SNYDER:I don’t have the number at the top of my head of the very latest data. And it varies by parts of the city.
“PELLEY: I would think that the governor of Michigan would have those numbers at the top of his mind right now.”
“Later on , Pelley changes the subject to the deplorable conditions in Detroit’s public schools and the protest by teachers to call attention to the tragic situation: a classroom ceiling caving in, maggots in a toilet and little kids bundled up to ward off freezing temperatures as they try to learn.
“CBS PELLEY: In terms of the sickout in the Detroit schools [Wednesday], what is your message to the teachers?
“SNYDER: I would hope you would stop harming the children. I appreciate the fact that people have strong feelings on different issues. But to do it at the expense of affecting the school day for the children, I don’t think that’s appropriate.”
“Boy, oh, boy….it’s times like this when I feel like kicking in my TV screen. It’s a 30-year-old set, about the size of big pumpkin. Makes me want to punt it across the front yard.
“WHAT???? Is this guy Snyder crazy? He oversees the poisoning of an entire city’s water supply including what appears to be permanent injury to children…..and then he turns around and has the gall to blame teachers for “harming” kids. These are the same teachers who are trying to call attention to the actual damage that is being done to children day after day in Detroit’s public schools….harm that Snyder is still turning a blind eye to.
“Meanwhile, in another story, there was President Obama prowling around the Detroit Auto Show, taking time out to criticize the handling of the water situation in Flint. Teachers’ union members were on hand to protest outside in the bitter cold.
“Union spokeswoman Ann Mitchell told The Associated Press that teachers “couldn’t miss the opportunity” with the president in the city to say they “really need someone to help focus on the schools.”
“We have got to stop this whole business by Snyder, which is an attempt just further the charters and further, really, the destruction of education in the city. We are determined to win that fight. The whole next generation relies on it,” Cass Tech teacher and activist Steve Conn told CBS affiliate WWJ.” http://www.cbsnews.com/news/detroit-schools-sue-to-get-teachers-back-in-classrooms/
“News to President Obama: your policies have helped aid and abet the destruction of public schools in places like Detroit. If you want to see who is also responsible for the disasters in Michigan, look in the mirror. It’s happened on YOUR watch.”

Leonie Haimson has posted the full text of the parents’ complaint against Success Academy charters. You can read it here.
A number of readers have asked why charter schools should be allowed to break federal laws and why they call themselves public schools when they are not subject to same expectations and legal requirements as public schools. Should they be allowed to operate as private schools with public money?

Columnist Juan Gonzalez of the New York Daily News reported that parents of children with disabilities have filed a federal civil rights complaint against Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter chain for systematically violating the rights of their children.

 

“The city’s largest charter school chain has been violating the civil rights of students with disabilities for years, a group of parents say in a formal complaint lodged Wednesday with the U.S. Department of Education.

 

“The parents of 13 special needs students claim the Success Charter Network, which is run by former City Councilwoman Eva Moskowitz, “has engaged in ongoing systemic policies that violate” federal laws protecting the disabled. It cites eight Success schools in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx where the parents’ children were enrolled.

 

“The allegations include:

 

*refusing to provide special education pupils appropriate services required by law, while often retaining the students to repeat a grade;
*multiple suspensions of students without keeping formal records of all those actions, without the due process required by federal law, and without providing alternative instruction;
*harassing parents to transfer their children back into regular public schools; and even calling 911 to have children as young as 5 transported to emergency rooms when parents don’t pick them up immediately as requested.
“Charter schools like Success Academy should follow the same rules as traditional public schools and protect — not punish — children with disabilities,” Public Advocate Letitia James said.

 

“James joined the complaint, as did City Councilman Daniel Dromm, chair of the council’s Education Committee, and five private non-profit legal advocacy groups. All are calling for federal action.”

 

Gonzalez gives more detail in the story.

 

 

Lisa Guisbond of Fairtest wrote to inform me that the opt out movement in Massachusetts is growing and has noconnection whatever to the Gates Foundation. As we know, state officials are terrified of a massive parent opt out; they threaten, they cajole, they will try anything to con parents into staying away from opt out. The most powerful tool that parents have is opt out. The state can’t force your child to take the test. Parents have the Power of No. 
Fairtest released this statement. 

“This Saturday’s opt-out meeting is sponsored by Citizens for Public Schools and the Less Testing, More Learning Campaign and will be at the office of Center for Collaborative Education (CCE), 33 Harrison Ave., Boston, 6th floor.
“Because the meeting is at CCE, a few people have attacked LTML, Citizens for Public Schools and the meeting itself in a blog and on Facebook. It will take a lot of focused, hard work to get a strong opt-out campaign going. We want to include as many interested people as possible and don’t want misguided attacks to undermine and confuse activists. But because such attacks are circulating (in MA and even in other states), and to avoid confusion and damage, we want to clarify a few things.
“First, the main basis for the attacks is the list of funders on the CCE website, which includes Gates, the Boston Foundation, Barr and Nellie Mae. Dan French from CCE (who is on the CPS board and has for decades battled against MCAS and for locally-controlled performance assessment) has been open about when CCE received specific grants and for what. The Gates and Boston Foundation grants are not current (e.g., a Gates grant in 2000 to develop pilot schools, a Boston Foundation grant to support pilot schools granted before Boston Foundation switched to boosting charters). 
“At a minimum, attacking a meeting and a campaign because we are using an organization’s space is very misguided politics. Beyond that, CCE and Dan have been long-standing allies in the testing resistance and reform movement.
“These attacks are an unfortunate distraction. We’d rather use our energy and resources to build a strong opt-out campaign to stop the misuse and abuse of testing in our schools. We look forward to working with others who share these goals.”

Today the blog passed 25 million page views.
This is a testament to you, the readers. You send me links to news stories in your communities. Sometimes the blog has breaking news and scoops the national media, not because I have great prescience but because you alert me to what is happening in your state or city or community. For example, this blog reported the Flint water scandal at least a week before the national media, and with more context and background. For that news, I thank our Michigan connections, especially Tom Pedroni of Eclectblog. 

The purpose of the blog is to provide a platform where friends of public schools can get informed, make their views known, and discover that they are not alone. Sometimes when I read about the latest assault on public education or teachers, I think our country has gone mad. But I couldn’t keep up the blogging if I thought things were hopeless. I believe that common sense will return to replace the current punitive environment. It will happen because we won’t give up. We will encourage each other, we will discuss and debate tactics and strategy with allies. We will resist. We will not give up.

Diane

In a rare piece of good news from Indiana, the new mayor of Indianapolis made clear that the days of unchecked expansion of charter schools are over. He intends to be advocate for public schools, as compared to his predecessors, who wanted to turn Indianapolis in the charter capital of the nation.”

 

 

 

“Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett says he wants to focus on charter school quality “over and against quantity.” (IBJ file photo)
Newly installed Mayor Joe Hogsett had been in office only days when he brought together each of Marion County’s public school district superintendents at the City-County Building for a one-on-11 meeting.

 

“Hogsett and the 11 superintendents discussed the perils of poverty, the impact of property tax caps on school funding, state-mandated testing, and problems with ISTEP.

 

“But they didn’t discuss charter schools, Hogsett said after the private meeting adjourned.

 

“It was a big statement, if not a little unusual, from the only U.S. mayor with the authority to oversee what’s been a fast-growing portfolio of charter schools.

 

“But with that, Hogsett made clear how his education agenda would differ from his predecessors’—the last two of which prioritized and fast-tracked charter expansion.

 

“I think the emphasis needs to be on quality over and against quantity,” Hogsett said. “The emphasis will not be on adding more charter schools just to add more, but rather, holding the current charters appropriately accountable and making sure they have the resources they need to be successful.”

 

Hogsett doesn’t have direct control over any of the 11 traditional public districts—and says he doesn’t want it.

 

“Rather, he said he wants to build consensus around key issues, then use the mayor’s bully pulpit to talk about the successes and challenges of public schools and help them where he can.

 

“I want to be an outspoken advocate on behalf of public education,” Hogsett said”

 

What an amazing development: a mayor who wants to help public schools

 

 

 

Former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and even President Obama have done a victory dance about the “historic” rise in the graduation rate, but Robert Pondiscio of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute says that it is the “phoniest statistic” in American education.

 

Pondiscio writes:

 

According to federal data released late last year, and dutifully trumpeted ever since (including in last night’s State of the Union address), the nation’s high school graduation rate has hit an all-time high, with 82 percent of the Class of 2014 earning a diploma. “As a result, many more students will have a better chance of going to college, getting a good job, owning their own home, and supporting a family,” crowed then-Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

 

Isn’t it pretty to think so?

 

In fact, Secretary Duncan might be right for now. Confidence and good will are baked into a high school diploma. It is an academic promissory note that signals to college admissions staffers, employers, and others that the holder has achieved some reasonable level of academic proficiency. But it’s also a faith-based system. It only works if people believe it stands for something tangible.

 

Regarding the recent spike in graduation rates, good luck figuring out what it stands for. Not improved student proficiency, certainly. There has been no equally dramatic spike in SAT scores. Don’t look for a parallel uptick on seventeen-year-old NAEP, better performance on AP tests, or the ACT, either. You won’t find it. The only thing that appears to be rising is the number of students in need of remedial math and English in college. And the number of press releases bragging about huge increases in graduation rates.

 

Read the article to see the many links.

 

He adds:

 

To be sure, there are very good reasons for credit recovery: We should want students who fall behind on credits due to illness, pregnancy, or some other disruption to have the opportunity to catch up and graduate. Neither the child nor society benefits if we place barriers in the way of graduation. But problems with credit recovery are legion. There’s no clear definition of what it is, no good or consistent data on how often it’s used, and no way of knowing whether it’s academically rigorous or merely a failsafe to paper over failure and drag unprepared kids across the finish line to boost graduation rates.

 

The potential for abuse is rampant, whether through less-than-rigorous credit recovery schemes or (as in many of the cases detailed in the New York Post) a teacher holding his nose and passing a student for the sake of expedience. Has the student earned her diploma, or is she merely being handed a diploma as a parting gift?

 

The even bigger problem is that we might just be stuck with it. Refusing to confer even a debased, potentially meaningless credential on an eighteen-year-old is tantamount to publicly pronouncing him a failure—unfit for post-secondary education, entry-level employment, or military service. As one child advocate lamented to Chalkbeat this week, “Panera Bread asks if you have a high school diploma. What are the options for these kids?”

 

So here is the dilemma:

 

In years past, young people without a high school diploma could sell get a job, and often a job in a factory with decent wages. But no more. The factories have been outsources, and most employers expect a high school diploma, which they use as a proxy for “shows up for work every day.” Thus, the student without a high school diploma may be permanently unemployed or consigned to menial labor. As states ratchet up the standards for high school graduation, as they base them on end of course exams in Algebra and other tough subjects, more young people will drop out or have diplomas that signify attendance. Face it: the push for higher standards debases the high school diploma. The alternative is to have large numbers of young people who are permanently unemployed and unemployable.

 

 

 

 

Angie Sullivan, kindergarten teacher in Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada, works in a school that is eligible for “turnaround.” All the teachers were called for interviews. Here is her report on what happened:

 

 

The CCSD turnaround school selection process is a nonsensical destructive monster. They claim school turnaround is based on data – and this is a lie. This CCSD “empire” needs to be reviewed and reconsidered.

 

At a time when 30,000 CCSD students do not have a licensed teacher – the highly qualified fully licensed teachers at my school were “interviewed” yesterday. The main product of the turnaround interview: scaring real teachers who have been under threat of interview since December 15th.

 

There are plenty of schools in the district to “turnaround” since many places have only long term substitutes as staff. Opportunties for “take-over” are plentiful.

 

There is no good reason to threaten to implode a fully staffed CCSD school by interviewing us all day.

 

I was interviewed last year and this year. The strange turnaround interview questions are all about assessment and data driven instruction. I understand from the questioning – someone powerful thinks data is learning.

 

I will state here – it is not. Kids are more than a score. If the focus is only data – a full education is not obtained. Period. Many, many things are learned by students in my classroom everyday which will never be measured but are essential. Data is a tool – one tool. That is all. And computer data is only one snap-shot in time and measure what computer data can measure. That is all. Data will only measure a small piece of learning.

 

For those of you who do not know what turnaround is . . .

 

The district takes a school with low standardized scores and removes the principal and interviews the staff. Some staff are allowed to stay but many teachers have to find a new place to work. It implodes the school. Then “turns the school around” by over-testing and micro-managing the staff and students. It is not proven to be effective. If you study results of turnaround schools across the United States – it has not been a success. It is proven to be scary and disruptive – removing teachers and dispacing them. It is primarily used to re-organize schools with students and parents who cannot effectively advocate for themselves. Children of color re-organized into robotic scary testing scripted education environments. At a time when the teachers were fighting for pay and insurance, “turnaround” CCSD administrators were at the school board asking for another test for African American students. The turnaround focus is not on finding and retaining geat teachers or caring about students – the focus is improving testing scores.

 

Having gone through the turnaround interview process twice now – I am convinced it is most effective at targeting veteran teachers and harrassing them.

 

Why do I say this?

 

My school has not been able to use standardized tests for two years. We were a pilot school for SBAC in 2014 and it didn’t run. Then last year 2015 when SBAC was implemented for all Nevada – SBAC failed across the state. Our last valid standardized testing was three years ago 2013 because that was when the computers could run the test.

 

My school has no current standardized data.

 

Turnaround is based on standardized testing – but the testing hasn’t happened.

 

I was interviewed because of testing my school did three years ago in 2013? Mysterious data qualified my school for turnaround.

 

Some of the other assessments that could have been used are questionable as far as accuracy – I mentioned this openly to the interviewers. My direct langauage was: They are crap because they are.

 

There is an current environment in which we are not encouraged to openly question the validity of the tests we are mandated to use – but we should. Just because someone spent a lot of money doesn’t meanwhile it is a worthwhile test.

 

My school keeps having to interview because my school computers did not run the test in 2014 and 2015?

 

I kept asking at the interview which data was being used because we haven’t been able to test our kids for two years. We have a lot of data from other types of tests. Which mystery data was driving the turnaround selection process? No one could tell me why my school was selected or which data my school “failed” to be selected for turnaround.

 

Selection of my school to interview this year was random.

 

Admin used the words data to justify harrassing my school staff and no one was supposed to question. I am very angry. Being randomly interviewed based on events in 2013 is harrassment. And this was the answer I was given when I asked.

 

The turnaround interview team who was sent did not know why they were there. I asked them.

 

The turnaround interview team asks sterile weird questions about data and assessment and evalution. I told them many important things that would be helpful if people cared – but the computerized form did not allow for them to record this input. If it did not fit into the computerized interview slot – it was rejected and not needed. This was not an interview where I could particpate.

 

Some of the questions were encouraging staff to disparage each other. I don’t appreciate interviews that ask me to talk badly about the people I work with. Schools are a community and teachers should help each other.

 

Some of the questions were asking me to disparage my administrator. I felt like asking if I needed to invoke Weingarten Rights and get a union representative to help me. My adminstrator is excellent because kids come first.

 

Some of the questions were encouraging staff to evaluate each other by wandering around other classrooms. Teachers should not be encouraged to “spy” on each other – it destroys a schools environment when this happens. We learn best from each other but not if staff are encourage to report so teachers will be punished.

 

Some of the questions were degrading and insulting. Yes or No questions with no win-win answers. Totally frustrating because teaching is not black and white.

 

What are the components of an effective lesson? This old teacher would frankly state there are many effective ways to instruct – which one do you want? What subject are you teaching? What is the goal of the lesson? Again – no one right answer.

 

I consider the whole turnaround interview process harrassment. It felt like an attack on my due process and like I was set up to fail. The interview people were nice enough but sent to fill in the blanks not to help my school. The scare tactic of interviewing teaching staff with decades of experience is not nice. It is bullying and union-busting. Period.

 

I think the decision has already been made somewhere far away from my classroom – but they were instructed to torture us anyhow to prove some point or meet a random goal.

 

None of the questions asked about kids. I offered but it didn’t fit in the blank.

 

This interview was not about caring or authentic instruction which is essential to real learning. This interview could not provide any real information to anyone about what actually goes on in my classroom.

 

It was an investigation about my peers, my principal, and my data.

 

I feel like my union representation should have been there.

 

___________________

In summary:

 

Turnaround being data driven is a lie. It is random and scary. Any school could be selected at anytime and my school proves this. Current CCSD turnaround interviews are terrible data too – since the computer only allows certain answers to be recorded.

 

The district has many, many places which are ripe to “turnaround” because they are decimated already. Threatening to destroy my school so someone powerful can check off a box somewhere for money is ridiculous.

 

The computers not working at my school – this is a problem that is not solved by interviewing my staff. My school does not have the tools to give anyone reliable data.

 

Everyone needs to be asking frank questions about the turnaround selection process and this empire as a whole. CCSD turnaround grabbing a school like mine to interview makes absolutely zero sense unless something outside of valid data is actually the basis for being considered.

 

The CCSD turnaround monster is gobbling up real teachers and students. Is it making progress according to its own teribble strict data collection?

 

Someone needs to be asking questions. Big ones.

 

And I will state the obvious – we are short licensed highly qualified teachers.

 

Even on my worst day, I’m better than a long term sub who doesn’t have a college degree. You get rid of people like me and replace me with whom?

 

What are we doing?

 

Crazytown. Stressful. Waste of time and money.