Archives for the month of: January, 2016

Peg Robertson is a teacher in Colorado and a national leader of the Opt Out movement (she co-founded United Opt Out). In this post, she describes what happens to teachers in schools that are supposedly “turnaround schools.” They are “gaslighted.” Anyone who has seen the famous George Cukor film of the same name knows what it means to be “gaslighted.” Ingrid Bergman’s husband wants to kill her, and he tries to convince her that she is going mad. In Peg’s school, teachers are told that they caused low test scores, and officialdom works hard to persuade them that they cause failure.

 

She writes:

 

Gaslighting is such an insane reality to live in that it becomes incredibly difficult to focus on anything else except the ability to get through the day- it is designed intentionally so.

 

 

So let’s try to take a look at what’s really happening.

 

 

The first stage of Gaslighting is described as disbelief. Strange events, behaviors, and actions by others begin to occur. Perhaps you are told something that doesn’t seem true to you or simply just sounds bizarre. Perhaps someone you trusted speaks to you in a manner that seems fake, or staged.

 

 

In my case, the “disbelief” began with the supposed root cause of our turnaround status.

 

 

We were told: Students experienced lower-quality and less rigorous instruction that did not accelerate them to proficiency and beyond, because the CCSS was not used to guide instruction in all content areas.

 

 

Now, for someone like myself, who has spent hours upon hours researching and advocating for the end of corporate education reform this “root cause” at first, is quite laughable. We know that standards – good, bad, and ugly, in no way increase student achievement. Quite honestly, there’s no correlation whatsoever between standards and student test scores. This has been clearly confirmed by looking at NAEP scores and the standards used in the various states. So, simply put, it’s a lie.

 

 

And therein follows the disbelief. You are told a lie about this so-called turnaround status. And I can assure you that nationwide there is no root cause – in a school improvement plan housed on a department of education website – that will state the truth – the truth is clearly poverty and that has been confirmed as well. But in this gut wrenching fast move to privatize our public schools it is necessary to lie and necessary to beat people into compliance in order to cash in quickly – using policies which gaslight educators who ultimately must carry out these actions of educational malpractice.

 

 

So, you sit in disbelief at these lies. At first you think, okay, whatever, we can play this game. We’ll continue to do right by children behind closed doors and the policy makers can go screw themselves. That’s the first reaction. At this point you still believe you have some autonomy and you think you might be able to reason with the powers that be in order to figure out a way to “tweak” this to make it doable.

 

 

But then, the gaslighting process continues. The policy makers have a strangle hold on our public schools, and they will find various ways to continue to push forward their measures in a turnaround school. Perhaps they will bring in an auditor who interviews (interrogates) each staff member in an attempt to expose weaknesses that might confirm the so-called root cause. Perhaps they will bring in district personnel to dig through your data and observe your classrooms nonstop in order to, once again, find confirmation that your root cause is true, valid and that ultimately – you, the educators, are to blame for your low test scores. Perhaps they will bring in consultants, books, videos, or additional training to lead you to see how embracing their root cause will fix your failure. There are many ways they might move forward as they gaslight you. In my school, we were enrolled in the Colorado Department of Education turnaround program. We were labeled a Relay Leadership School and Relay indoctrination became the vehicle for our gaslighting.

 

 

This is a gripping story, and I urge you to read it all in total.

This post was erroneously posted on December 20, 2015, because I scheduled it in advance for January 5, 2016, but forgot to change the year. So, instead of coming out when I planned, it came out the same day I posted it. If you tried to post a comment, you discovered that the comments were closed. That’s because the computer thought it had been posted 11 months earlier (January 5, 2015). If that sounds confusing, forget it. I made an error. Not unusual!

 

In a heated discussion of the Common Core’s recommendation of “close reading,” i.e., reading and analyzing what is on the page without reference to context or background knowledge, a reader who signs as Danielle sent this comment:

 

U.S. Poet Laureate, Billy Collins, writes about the over analysis of poetry in the poem below. Clearly David Coleman knows not what he is doing. He wants American students to beat literature, books and poetry with a hose to find out what it really means, which is exactly what the writers do not want.

 

 

 

Introduction to Poetry
By Billy Collins

 
I ask them to take a poem
and hold it up to the light
like a color slide

 

 

or press an ear against its hive.

 

 

I say drop a mouse into a poem
and watch him probe his way out,

 

 

or walk inside the poem’s room
and feel the walls for a light switch.

 

 

I want them to waterski
across the surface of a poem
waving at the author’s name on the shore.

 

 

But all they want to do
is tie the poem to a chair with rope
and torture a confession out of it.

 

 

They begin beating it with a hose
to find out what it really means.

A major new report from the progressive One Wisconsin Institute finds that the right-wing Bradley Foundation spent more than $108 million, working with 130 partner groups, to privatize public schools in Wisconsin between 2005 and 2014. During the same period, the state’s public schools experienced dramatic budget cuts.

 

Key findings of the updated “P Is For Payoff” report include:

 

 

Bradley Foundation head Michael Grebe, a political insider who chaired Gov. Walker’s presidential and gubernatorial campaigns, continues to orchestrate a massive propaganda campaign to advance the privatization of public education;

 
An analysis of IRS Form 990 records and Bradley Foundation reports reveals over 130 organizations supportive of their education privatization agenda and working to advance their cause have received over $108 million from 2005 through 2014;

 
Bradley’s tactics have continued to evolve, now featuring litigation to advance their privatization agenda and intimidate opponents. Leading the effort is the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty which since its inception in 2011 has been larded with over $2 million from Bradley;

 
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the voucher program will cost Wisconsin taxpayers over $1.1 billion from 2011 through the end of the 2015–17 budget cycle. Meanwhile, a new report found that Wisconsin schools have suffered the 4th biggest cuts in in the nation through 2014.

 

The Bradley Foundation is one of the nation’s most active reform organizations. It hopes to reform public education out of existence. Watch how skillfully the Bradley Foundation followed the usual reformer script:

 

Original research by One Wisconsin Institute in 2013 first exposed the Bradley Foundation as a leading player in the campaign to gut public education and promote the unaccountable, radical privatization of K-12 education. The Milwaukee-based group spent millions to support organizations, think tanks, journalists and right-wing academics. They engaged in a campaign that manufactured a crisis, singled out their enemies, generated a cure, justified their scheme with pseudo-science, broadcast their message through the media, helped elect politicians to advance their agenda and kept them in line with high-powered lobbyists and well-funded pressure campaigns. [Emphasis added by me.]

 

Ross concluded, “Wisconsin families and public schools are left paying the price as billions of dollars that could have been used for public education are siphoned off for the Bradley Foundation’s ideologically driven experiment. Until a majority of policy makers are willing to stand up to the Bradley Foundation’s millions, Wisconsin’s tradition of great public schools will remain under assault.”

Mark Naison, professor of African-American studies and history at Fordham University, suggests nine questions that need to be answered before evaluating the legacy of the Obama-Duncan Race to the Top:

 

How many schools were closed?

 
How many great teachers were fired or forced into retirement?

 
How many teachers still on the job were placed under a doctors care because test based accountability had destroyed their self-confidence?

 
How many communities experienced sharp declines in the number of teachers of color working in their schools?

 
How many new charter schools were created which were embroiled in controversy because of financial irregularities or abusive practices?

 
How many lucrative contracts were extended to test companies and consulting firms?

 
How many students were deprived of recess, physical education and the arts because they were forced to prepare for tests?

 
How many special needs or ELL students were unable to graduate because requirements were suddenly raised?

 
How many families with young children were filled with stress because testing had taken over their lives?

 

 

And finally, was the collateral damage to children, families, communities, and schools greater than any test score gains?

 

 

EduShyster has a fascinating and important interview with Preston Green, the John and Carla Klein Professor of Urban Education at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education, who explains why charter schools are the new subprime mortgages. Green says he used to be a strong charter supporter, but he has become wary because of the excesses of deregulation. He predicts that just as the subprime mortgage bubble burst, the same is likely to happen to the charter school bubble. Just like subprime mortgages, charters are expanding rapidly without oversight. Promoters of charters, often with the best of intentions, seek multiple authorizers so that oversight is slack. Parents in urban communities line up on the hope that they will get better education, but they often (usually?) don’t.

 

Green says:

 

Promoters of charter school expansion are calling for an increase in independent authorizers, such as nonprofits and universities. Supporters of charter school expansion believe that multiple authorizers will issue more charters, in part, because they are less hostile to charter schools than school districts. However, our research suggests another reason that multiple authorizers result in more charter schools: multiple authorizers are like mortgage originators with no skin in the game. In other words, these authorizers don’t assume the risk of charter school failure. That means that if something happens with the charter school, the authorizers don’t have to clean up the mess. Multiple authorizers may also weaken screening by giving charter schools the chance to find authorizers who *won’t ask questions.* In fact, CREDO has found that states with multiple authorizers experienced significantly lower academic growth. CREDO suggested that this finding might be due to the possibility that multiple authorizers gave charter schools the chance to shop around to find authorizers who wouldn’t provide rigorous oversight….

 

 

Where I see this playing out is that if you have too many charters or options that aren’t public having a negative impact on the education system as a whole, you may start seeing challenges in these communities saying that the state is failing to provide children with a system of public education, or that the options provided aren’t of sufficient quality to satisfy the state’s obligation to provide a public education. The assumption is that if kids fail to get an education in a charter school they can return to the traditional system. But what happens if you don’t have that option? You may soon see that develop in all of these urban settings. The really scary scenario that I could see happening is that you end up with all of these options that aren’t traditional public schools with insufficient oversight by the authorizers and no real pressure to get these schools to perform well….

 

If we’re going to have multiple authorizers, we have to impose standards to ensure that they do a good job, because without those standards there is really no incentive for them to ensure that these schools are operating in an acceptable manner. I should also mention putting sanctions in place to prevent the really squirrely practice of *authorizer hopping,* where schools are closed by one authorizer and then find another authorizer, which has happened quite a bit in places where oversight has been really weak, like Ohio. Further, authorizers should guard against predatory chartering practices, including fining students for discipline violations.

A letter in the Louisville Courier-Journal.

 

 

Despite declining enrollments, despite the closing of 50 public schools, the Chicago Public Schools board (hand-picked by Mayor Rahm Emanuel) is seeking to expand the number of charter schools. The great advantage of charters, from the Mayor’s point of view, is that they are mostly non-union. So think of it as payback to the Chicago Teachers Union for its insistence on adequate resources for the public schools.

 

Despite declining student enrollment and dozens of dramatically under-enrolled schools, Chicago is seeking potential new charter schools for the city.

 

 

In a Request for Proposals issued Wednesday, CPS says it’s looking for dual language schools, “Next Generation” schools that would blend technology and traditional teaching, and—in a first—it wants a “trauma-informed school,” where staff would get training to support students with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder or exposure to trauma.

 

 

The district is prepared to give charters that already run schools approval for up to four additional campuses. And it’s poised to grant approvals now for campuses that wouldn’t open for several years, to allow more time for planning a school’s opening, the district says in a press release.

 

 

In recent years, the district had named Neighborhood Advisory Councils where community members could give input into charter proposals. Those are now scrapped, saving roughly $170,000, CPS says. Instead, charter schools themselves will “directly engage residents in obtaining the support of their desired school community,” according to the release.

 
“It looks like they’re making it even less democratic,” said Wendy Katten, director of the parent group Raise Your Hand, which has had members serve on the advisory councils.

 

 

Katten says many considered the NACs “flawed” because CPS seemed frequently to ignore the advice of the councils, but “at least it was an opportunity to look at the proposal, to really scrutinize it as a community. To take (that) away—and to have the charter operators do the community engagement—that’s even more of a sham than what currently has existed. The real question is, our city needs a massive debate about opening any kind of new schools in a city that has just hemorrhaged students,” said Katten.

 

 

I try not to put up two posts by the same writer in the same day, but this one followed naturally from the one that precedes it.

 

Peter Greene reminds us that the SAT is not just a testing company; it is big business. Right now, the SAT is in hot competition for market share with ACT.

 

He writes:

 

When the company brought in Gasper Caperton to help solve some cash flow issues, he announced that he didn’t want to run just “a testing company.” Caperton boosted fees, increased market by (among other things) getting states to punch PSAT tickets for students, and selling student information to colleges. Revenue reports for the non-profit College Board run from “$500 million to $1 billion” The College Board’s Form 990 from 2013 shows total revenue of $840,672,990 with a whopping $98,894,865 left over after expenses.

 

The College Board is a non-profit, which means it doesn’t have to share any of that $100 million profit with shareholders or owners. When Caperton left, he was making more than the head of Harvard, more than the head of the American Red Cross. Nineteen other executives were making over $300K. David Coleman, in his first full year of head honchoship after being hired mid-2012, received a full $734,192 in compensation.

 

Meanwhile, the SAT is battling for market share with ACT. Part of that battle has involved a technique familiar to manufacturers of soft drinks and beer– create a larger line of products to suck up space in the store and build market loyalty among customers. To that end, the College Board has rolled out a full range of products, allowing students to start taking some version of the SAT as early as eighth grade.

 

Think of it. When your state, say, Connecticut or Colorado, makes a deal to test every student with an SAT product, you are aiding the corporation improve its bottom line. This has nothing to do with improving the education of your child. The state has decided to trust the standardized test more than its teachers and is willing to transfer millions of dollars to the corporation that might have gone to hire teachers of the arts or to reduce class size. The same goes for the ACT. You don’t get college-ready by taking tests more often or earlier. You get college-ready by reading more, writing more, and pursuing your interests more deeply.

 

Your child is neither a product, as Exxon chief Rex Tillerson believes, nor a consumer. He or she is a developing human being. Standardized tests give you standardized information that may be useful in limited settings. But no standardized test can measure his or her worth or potential or gifts. You cannot measure what you treasure.*

 

 

*I use that line from time to time because Peter Cunningham, who was Arne Duncan’s Assistant Secretary for Communications and now runs “Education Post,” once said to me in defense of testing that “you measure what you treasure.” I thought about it and decided that it was the other way around. What I treasure cannot be measured. Here is a trivial example: I adore my dog Mitzi and my cat Dandy. How can I measure my love for them? I love my children and my spouse. What scale should I weigh them on? How can I measure my love for them? The Data Gods speak, but they don’t speak for me.

This post arrived the day before Christmas. The author, teacher Michael P. Mazenko, says the decision took everyone by surprise.

Why did Colorado switch from the ACT to the SAT overnight? No one who knows will explain.

 

 

Michael P. Mazenko writes:

 

This week, David Coleman and College Board pulled off a big coup in both Illinois and Colorado by getting state departments of education to shift from the ACT to the SAT for the state-mandated junior college exam. These are the only two states to require a college test in high school, and both states had history with ACT going back more than a decade. In Colorado, this decision was announced yesterday, December 23, 2015, just as CDE closed for the holidays, and schools were out on break. While Eric Gorski of Chalkbeat did an admirable job reporting the news, there were few people around to answer significant questions. Many in Colorado’s education community are critical and suspicious of the unprofessional timing of the announcement.

http://co.chalkbeat.org/2015/12/23/goodbye-act-hello-sat-a-significant-change-for-colorado-high-schoolers/#.Vnw3rLHn_IV

 
Here in Colorado, the decision by CDE to contract with SAT rather than ACT was shocking to say the least. To begin, the state has been dragging its feet on this decision for nearly eight months for no clear reason. And, up until today, every indication was that the state would remain with ACT. Yet, here we are with a surprise announcement to switch testing companies in the middle of the year. The state has done a huge disservice to schools and students by voting for this significant change so late in the year with little time to prepare for it. And, it’s not just switching from ACT to SAT. College Board has announced a significant re-design of its test, the SAT. Thus this spring’s test is an entirely new SAT for which students and educators have no context, piloting, data, score comparison, training, or understanding of the new format. I am deeply concerned for junior-level students who will be asked to take an entirely new test, blind, and allow that test to become part of their permanent academic record.

In following the story, I am particularly bothered by mention of the decision being made by “a selection committee” that no one I know following the issue has heard of. When Colorado passed HB1323 which required that the junior level test be put out to bid, there was no talk of a committee. Previous coverage and discussion of the subject made no mention of the committee. With no names of members, no one was available for questions and comment beyond CDE’s spokesman. Additionally, I am troubled by the connection to the PARCC test and implication that the decision is an attempt to force Colorado to remain tied to PARCC. Just a couple weeks ago, CDE interim head Eliot Asp and State Board of Education President Steve Durham implied that Colorado would leave PARCC after this spring’s test. Durham noted that a majority on the Board are “opposed to this test.” Yet, shortly after those comments, the state named Rich Crandell – of Arizona and Wyoming – as the sole choice to head CDE. That surprised many in state, for Crandell was instrumental in promoting CCSS and PARCC in Arizona. Prior to this week, most people expected that Colorado would stay with ACT and withdraw from PARCC to replace it with the ACT-Aspire for grades 3-10. Now, everything is up in the air, and schools will scramble to prepare for an entirely new test and system in just three months.

Both ACT and SAT carry a significant decrease in test time, but the ACT is preferable for Colorado based on history and experience alone. ACT has been the state and national benchmark for “college readiness” for decades. It is a known commodity that is trusted by Colorado’s students, parents, teachers, and colleges. The state and Colorado schools also have fourteen years of data for student performance on the ACT, and numerous school districts have UIPs written around ACT data. And, now the ACT is aligned with Aspire for grades 3-10 with ACT at grade 11. Thus, the state could have had solid data for practically a child’s full career, and it would have synced with the 14 years of ACT data we already have. With the State Board and CDE indicating a probable withdrawal from PARCC, it only made sense to stay with ACT and use the Aspire for the grades 3-10 test. And those tests significantly decreased test times, which is what parents and the legislature voted for. Interestingly, Colorado’s new “graduation requirements” for the year 2021 according to CDE’s own document use ACT as one required benchmark. They’ve just contradicted their own plan. It seemed logical that Colorado would maintain a trusted relationship with ACT. Thus, the decision to switch to SAT is all the more baffling.

This decision is a problematic game-changer, and the most troubling part is the “newly designed” nature of the SAT. The SAT given this spring will be a new style and format with no piloting for test score comparison and data. Just like CDE did with PARCC, they are using Colorado’s students as guinea pigs for a new test. I know juniors who took the SAT this fall – which is early – because the test was familiar, and they wanted a score for a test style they knew and for which the scores were already established. They are wary of this new test because there is no data or experience with it, and we don’t really know what the scores will mean or what the cut points would be. Taking this new test for the state is risky. Obviously, many students will take this new SAT, but why would they take it as a school/state test, for which it will become their public record? As an educator, I must administer this test. But if my child were a junior, I would have serious reservations about taking this new test for the state. While I would encourage my child to take the ACT and SAT on a Saturday for which he can choose if he sends the scores, I would be wary of allowing the state to put scores for a brand new and unfamiliar test on his transcript. Colorado parents should be made aware of this concern.

 

In all, the decision by CDE to switch from the ACT to SAT should be met with suspicion and criticism. The majority of Colorado students have little history or familiarity with the SAT. The primary question we should all be asking is this: Who is benefiting from this decision? It’s not the schools or the students.

 

 

Michael P. Mazenko
Greenwood Village, CO 80111
A Teacher’s View
Twitter – @mmazenko

Nevada’s new voucher program is the most radical in the nation. Of course, it is not called a “voucher” program, but “education savings accounts.” A rose by any other name. A stinkweed by any other name. You can call a stinkweed a rose, but it is still a stinkweed. The ESA will accomplish the same purpose as vouchers, by transferring public funds to private and religious schools.

 

Since the Republicans took control of the Legislature, school choice has been their top priority in education. This is their answer to the financial woes of Nevada’s underfunded public schools.

 

Says the article, “Nevada’s public schools are in the toilet. The Silver State consistently ranks near the bottom when it comes to education spending. Things got so dreary in the mid-2000’s that the state even amended its constitution with “Nevada Fund Education First,” a measure to ensure the education budget is determined before all other items. Even worse, Education Week ranked Nevada dead last in 2014 in a “Chance for Success” analysis that combined data on student achievement, state spending, and standards and accountability.” 

 

But why fund the schools when you can pass a school choice measure instead? The bonus is that you can call yourself a reformer as you are drawing even more money away from the schools that the majority of the state’s children attend.

 

Funny, the Nevada state constitution bars the use of public money for religious schools. Two-thirds of the private schools in Nevada are religious schools.

 

The Nevada Constitution states that, “No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose.” Anything ambiguous about that?

 

Nevada law also states in NRS 387.045 that, “No portion of the public school funds shall in any way be segregated, divided or set apart for the use or benefit of any sectarian or secular society or association.” Anything ambiguous about that?

 

Remember when conservatives used to be “strict constructionists” of state and federal Constitutions?

 

But that was then. Now, conservatives, led by ALEC, have set their sights on privatizing public education.

 

Don’t expect vouchers to reduce the achievement gaps between rich and poor: “It doesn’t promote better schooling for low-income [kids],” said Martin Carnoy, a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education. “It’s going to benefit new private-school providers and current private-school providers…It’s welfare for the rich.”