Archives for the month of: January, 2016

Ken Wagner, who was deputy commissioner of education in New York when Jihn King was commissioner, is now commissioner in Rhode Island. He brings with him the tattered faith in charter schools and standardized testing that marked King’s tumultuous tenure.

 

Wagner wants public schools to be more like charter schools. It seems only fair that public schools should be freed of the mNdates that charter schools are relieved of.

 

 

However, some questions should be cleared up.

 

 

Will ill public schools be free to exclude students with disabilities, like charter schools?

 

Will they be free to exclude students who don’t speak English?

 

Will they be free to adopt “no excuses” disciplinary codes?

 

Will they they be free to suspend children as young as 5, repeatedly?

 

Will they be free to pay their CEO $400,000-500,000?

 

Will they be free to break their teachers’ contract?

 

These are a few questions that should be answered before moving forward.

So, what should business leaders and think tanks do when their state’s public schools are first in the nation? Disrupt them, of course. Demand more privately managed charters, more competition. Just make sure there is no praise for accomplishments. Complain, complain, complain, so the public thinks ill of the best schools in the nation.

Jean Haverhill writes about what is happening:

http://www.endcommoncorema.com I need to offer more time to this group. The MA Business Alliance brings in Sir Michael Barber with a phony study on “PARCC” superiority to MCAS. Measured Progress in NH (formerly a research firm) conveys the Sir Michael Barber infiltrating through MA Business Alliance directly to the Board of Ed. Fordham Institute is actively pursuing this avenue. David Driscoll, of NAEP, is going to be testing our kids on “grit”. The MA Business Alliance is tying up the grass roots effort of parents (in the courts) who have diligently gathered signatures to put common core/testing onto the November ballot. People in Worcester County, Essex County, Hampshire County may not be aware of all of the intricacies/ circumstances of groups in Boston but in particular, I prefer to spend my time on calling out (a) Fordham Institute and Education Next (Michael Petrilli, Andy Smarick, Education Next) for their constant pushing on vouchers/charters and tests (b) NAEP measurement of “grit” (thanks, David Driscoll) © Measured Progress ( a “research” firm tied up with West Ed and Pearson) and the (d) MA Business Alliance trying to defeat the grass roots efforts of parents. These are some pretty powerful foes or public education as I know it. If we fight amongst ourselves, these major elements will proceed with their own agenda and their own special interests.”

Warning: wherever Michael Barber goes, testing, ranking, and privatization follows.

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is thinking about an independent run for the Presidency, according to the Néw York Times.

He is annoyed that fellow billionaire Donald Trump is leading the GOP pack. He is disappointed in Hillary because she is not enthusiastic about charter schools. He disdains Sanders as a socialist.

He has a campaign staff ready to go and will announce his decision in March.

If he should be president, prepare for mass privatization of public education.

Ted Cruz’s father, Rafael, was interviewed and denounced public education as Communist.

 

 

“Rafael Cruz, the father of and top campaign surrogate for Sen. Ted Cruz, claimed today that the country’s public school system was founded by “a member of the American Communist Party.”

 

 

“The elder Cruz alleged in an interview on the Sirius XM program “Breitbart News Daily” this morning that public schools are brainwashing children into communism as a result of the work of education reformer John Dewey.”

 

 

Hmmm. By now, we must all be Communists. John Dewey died in 1952. So many years of indoctrination. If Senior Cruz is right (he is not), Junior Cruz will lose for sure.,

 

 

– See more at: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/rafael-cruz-public-education-communist-plot#sthash.G5LoIAVk.dpuf

Los Angeles blogger Karen Wolfe started the inquiry about the ethics of the Los Angeles Times accepting a subsidy from billionaire Eli Broad for its education coverage even as he is one of the major figures covered. She posted a statement by distinguished journalist Paul Sussman, who literally wrote the book on ethics in journalism; Sussman said the Times has “a massive conflict of interest” by accepting money from a person it covers on the issue he is engaged in.
Blogger Alexander Russo, who is funded by the AFT and Education Post (which is funded by Broad, among others) contends that the issue is more complex than it seems. He draws attention to many other major media that are subsidized by the wealthy.

 

 

Yes, others do it too. Last year, investigative reporter David Sirota caused PBS to return a multimillion dollar grant from the John Arnold Foundation. The program was going to reveal the”pension crisis,” a subject that Arnold feels strongly about. PBS was embarrassed by the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 

 

The he larger problem behinds these skirmishes is whether we have a free press, one that will dare to expose the misdeeds of the mighty. This will be hard to do if they are subsidized by the mighty.
Blogger Anthony Cody assesses the matter and, as usual, brings clarity to it.

 

 

“I want to add one additional point, which I made at some length in this earlier post. It is not “neutral” or “objective” to expand coverage of “innovation” in education. It is not “neutral” or “objective” to have sections of a publication focused on “what is working” in education. The Gates Foundation has made clear that they are very interested in promoting the idea that technology is of tremendous educational value. Stories that trumpet success in this arena are not neutral. They advance the agenda of those selling technological solutions to human problems in education. The act of “focusing on success” sidelines serious criticism of this approach. Journalism that focuses primarily on success misses one of the crucial roles that true journalists must play.

 

 

“Solutions to this may be, as Russo suggests, “unlikely or unworkable.” Undoing the corporate influence on the newsrooms of America is not going to be easy. But acknowledging we have a serious problem would be a valuable first step. An important second step would be to recognize independent bloggers as a critical part of the field of education journalism.”

Mercedes Schneider has posted a powerful visual description of conditions in Detroit’s battered and neglected public schools.

The emergency manager of DPS is Darnell Earley, who previously was EM in Flint. While in Flint, he was responsible for cutting off safe water and poisoning the people of Flint. He saved money, but the damage done by lead poisoning may cost the state hundreds of millions in litigation and corrective measures.

What might he do to the children of DPS?

 

Look at the pictures, see the video, and ask yourself: How could any state allow children to attend school in such dilapidated and filthy buildings? Who would willingly let their child go to schools that the state has shamefully abused and neglected?

 

In our federal system, the state is responsible for a system of public schools. Are Michigan officials allowing the public schools to rot so as to encourage flight to charter schools?

 

 

Blogger David Safier in Arizona noted that Governor Doug Ducey wants to start a social media campaign to publicly shame “deadbeat dads” who don’t pay child support. But as Safier explains, the biggest deadbeat dad in the state is Governor Ducey, who makes false promises about funding the education of Arizona’s children.

 

Safier has started a hashtag campaign naming Ducey as a #deadbeat.

 

Safier writes:

 

“Whenever Ducey talks about his commitment to education, people in the immediate vicinity should shout, “Bullshit!” For people who don’t like swearing in public, shout, “Deadbeat!” And for those who prefer tweeting to shouting, use the #deadbeat hashtag to comment on Ducey’s anti-education, anti-children agenda on Twitter.”

 

Here Safier gives the backstory on Ducey’s elaborate hoax:

 

“A new school funding plan was passed by the legislature and signed by Doug Ducey. Emphasis on the word “plan.” There’s no guarantee schools will get any more money than they’re getting now. The plan is to let voters decide whether or not to increase school budgets. Still, Ducey and his legislative buddies are risking injury by repeatedly patting themselves on the back for their generosity. “Landmark deal!” they proclaim. “We’ll lead the nation in the amount we’re increasing school funding!” “We support our children!” “We support our teachers!” “We support our schools!”

 

“Um, no. No congratulations are due. The people who have illegally underfunded our schools all these years deserve blame and shame, not congratulations.

 

“I like to use analogies to explain things, and my favorite on the education funding issue is to compare Arizona Republicans to deadbeat dads and moms. I like it because it’s not really an analogy. It’s a statement of fact. They’ve refused to spend $330 million a year in educational child support that’s required by law. According to the judge, they’re already more than a billion dollars behind on their child support payments, and counting.

 

“Here’s what they’re congratulating themselves for. If the voters give them they go-ahead, they’re willing to pay 70 cents on the dollar of what they owe, and 60 percent of it will come out of the kids’ trust fund.”

 

Ducey=#deadbeat

 

 

 

 

 

This is the fifth installment in a series of exchanges about the Every Student Succeeds Act. I asked the questions, and David P. Cleary, chief of staff to Senator Lamar Alexander, answered them.

*********

My question:

How does the law affect the testing of students with disabilities? I have heard that there is a limit of 1% of students who may be given alternative assessments due to their disabilities, but far more than 1% of students have IEPs. What does the law say?

*******************

The response:

The law allows students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to take alternate assessments aligned with alternate academic achievement standards.

The new law includes a cap on the total number of students that can take an alternate assessment aligned with alternate achievement standards. The cap is set at one percent of all students in the state, which equates to roughly 10 percent of students with disabilities. This is the same as the regulation under NCLB that has been in effect since January 8, 2004.

It’s important to remember that the overwhelming majority of students with Individualized Education Plans (IEP) take regular assessments, and do not take an alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic achievement standards.

The new law reaffirms and makes clear that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act law requires that the IEP team determine when a child with a significant cognitive disability should take an alternate assessment aligned with alternate achievement standards.

The new law also prohibits the federal government or the state from imposing a cap on a school district regarding the percentage of students who may be administered an alternate assessment. Therefore, a school district or school could administer an alternate assessment to more than 1 percent of students.


One of Chicago’s most celebrated charter schools–Urban Prep–has been fighting its teachers’ effort to form a union. Mike Klonsky reports that UP even had professional development about the evils of unions.

 

It failed. UP fired 17 teachers–mostly African American–for their union activities. They complained to the NLRB, which ordered UP to rehire them and pay back wages.

Deborah Meier, a long-time leader of genuine school reform and an opponent of standardized testing, read an article by Jim Horn of “Schools Matter” that referenced a simmering feud among allies. The basis for the article was a series of posts (see here and here) and comments on this blog. Several readers watched the angry comments and wondered what was going on.
As you will see in Horn’s piece, he and others are angry at Fairtest, which has led the fight against high-stakes testing for many years. Horn, Mary Porter, and Emily Talmadge warned that Fairtest was taking Gates money and was no longer trustworthy. Lisa Guisbond of Fairtest replied several times on the blog, insisting that Fairtest had not sold out, that it had taken a one-times Gates grant of $5,000 to study performance assessment. There was a lot of back and forth.
Deb Meier wrote this email to me:
“Wow. Shades of past history.
“Many decisions go into finding and financing different strategies. But if we decide its worth attacking each other rather than trying to persuade each other we are truly killing ourselves. Surely some of you have held views that have over time changed…
“I could weep.
“FairTest and Monty have a long long history of exposing bad tests, long before many others were even worrying about the subject. Neither FairTest, nor Monty nor Bob nor Lisa are getting wealthy doing this for so many years, years, and years. They may even occasionally be wrong. I know I have. I amstill unsettled re the issue of the use of choice, for example. And I took money for our small schools from many sources, as long as they didn’t compromise our work. Maybe we shouldn’t have? I’m not sure.
“CCE was founded in the early 90s to support the work of Coalition of Essential Schools that pioneered a very different form of “high stakes” assessment–what we call Portfolio reviews by Panels. (Read the work of Ted Sizer) They were the upfront fighters on behalf of the Pilot schools, and while Dan French and I disagree now and then, I’ve yet to find an ally that I always agree with. If I did I suspect they’d just be holding back to avoid an argument=-hardly the way to build a strong movement. (I actually love argument–especially among friends..)
“Let’s build our alliances in the spirit in which we build our schools–having honest conversation, hearing out those we disagree with, being thoughtful and temperate about our disagreements, and working together wherever we can: holding off creating more enemies than we need. A little affection, even when we disagree, wouldn’t do any harm.
“Let’s cut this tone out–without succumbing to ideas we disagree with. We can’t afford to fight our allies–the real, true long-time historic reformers like Fairtest —and the rich, wealthy, corporate so-called reformers at the same time.
deb