Archives for the month of: May, 2016
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

San Diego: Yes, the Superintendent DID Scale Back Testing!

By dianeravitch
May 8, 2016 //
25

A few days ago, I posted that Cindy Marten, the superintendent of the San Diego Unified School District, was cutting back on the time spent testing kids.

 
This was good news. But some folks are certain that there can never be good news and that I must have been hoodwinked. The usually insightful blogger Emily Talmadge insisted that I was wrong.  San Diego was not abandoning high-stakes tests, she wrote, it was buying into “competency based education,” in which children are continually assessed by computers. Emily said that if something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t.

 
I went to my sources in San Diego, and the good news is that San Diego is cutting back on testing   and it is not adopting competency based education.

 
Don’t take it on my word alone.

 
Take it from the teachers’ union, the San Diego Educators Association.

 
This is their response to the District’s decision to reduce testing:

 
“After months of organizing and working to educate San Diego Unified School District parents and leaders on the negative impacts of high-stakes testing, the educators of San Diego Education Association applaud the District for today announcing the significant reduction in the amount of District-mandated standardized tests.”

 
“San Diego’s educators are thrilled to learn that the District has listened to the concerns of nearly 7,000 educators who have said the current system of high-stakes testing is broken,” said SDEA President Lindsay Burningham.

 

“Today’s announcement from Superintendent Cindy Marten and SDUSD shows the power that educators and parents have when we stand up together to support the true needs of our students.”
I trust the teachers know what is happening in their own district.
Did Superintendent Marten’s cancel the tests mandated by the state and federal governments? No. She does not have the power to do so. But she canceled district assessments and data collections.

 

Marten notifies parents every year that they have a right to opt out of state testing. Does your superintendent do that?
The San Diego Union-Tribune wrote recently:
“At the start of the last spring testing window, Marten sent a letter parents that all but apologized for the tests. In February of last year, the San Diego school board adopted a resolution calling on Congress and the Obama administration to eliminate federally mandated testing requirements for third- through ninth-graders.”
Did your school district do that?
Emily, you are a bright and passionate educator. Take a trip to San Diego. Meet Superintendent Marten. Visit the schools. Talk to teachers. But go in the winter, when it is 10 degrees in Maine and 70 degrees in SD.
I promise you won’t be disappointed.

Categories Education Reform, San Diego, Standardized Testing, Testing

Snopes: Target’s Stock Did Not Plummet Because of Inclusive Bathrooms

By dianeravitch
May 8, 2016 //
19

I don’t normally stray far from education issues, but a reader on the blog posted a comment with a link saying that Target stock had gone into free-fall because it was making inclusive bathrooms available so as to avoid the “transgender-bathroom” issue.

Conservative websites said that one million people signed a petition, and Target’s stock fell sharply. Snopes says this is untrue.

 

If it is necessary to boycott facilities that offer “family restrooms,” open to males and females alike, then indignant people should boycott the Raleigh, NC, Convention Center, the Raleigh Marriott Hotel, and the Raleigh airport. And be sure to boycott the bathrooms on airplanes because they are all non-gendered.

Categories Accountability

Robert Pondiscio: “Testing Alone Won’t Make Good Readers”

By dianeravitch
May 8, 2016 //
35

Robert Pondiscio is a senior fellow and vice-president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute. He previously worked for E.D. Hirsch’s Core Knowledge Foundation and shares Hirsch’s (and my) belief that children need background knowledge to become good readers. That means that they should have many opportunities to learn about the world, about current events, history, science, and to broaden their understanding in the context of reading and experience.

 

 

This article by Pondiscio has a curious title: “Testing Alone Won’t Make Good Readers.” If the word “alone” were deleted, the title would make sense. Testing doesn’t make good readers. Reading makes good readers. Love of reading makes even better readers. Writers usually don’t write titles, so I assume this title reflects EdNext’s love of testing.

 

The other peculiar thing about the article is that it celebrates the new Secretary of Education John King for his belief in a rich, well-rounded education. When King was Commissioner of Education in New York, he kept these views secret and instead was a zealous advocate for testing.

 

Perhaps Secretary King has turned a corner. Perhaps he now regrets his fervent support for testing and VAM, which narrowed the curriculum.

 

Let us hope.

Categories Testing

When School Board Members Bully Students

By dianeravitch
May 8, 2016 //
15

Let’s start from the assumption that school board members should be expected to act with dignity when they engage with students. That was not the case recently in Douglas County, Colorado, and in Buffalo, New York.

 

In Dougco, as it is known, two school board members have been accused of trying to intimidate a student who wanted to start a protest about high teacher turnover. Parents and educators have started a petition calling for the resignation of Dougco school board President Meghann Silverthorn and VP Judith Reynolds. The board meets again May 10.

 

According to the petition, these school board members bullied a student named Grace Davis:

 

“During the Douglas County School Board meeting on April 19, 2016, Grace Davis, a student at Ponderosa High School, gave public comment about a meeting between her, Director Silverthorn, and Director Reynolds regarding a student protest organized by Grace.

 

“This meeting took place without the knowledge or consent of Grace’s parents. When there is a meeting between a minor and school administration, parental consent is a requirement. Grace describes how she felt small, intimidated and uncomfortable during this meeting. She goes on to describe her family’s attempts to resolve this issue with Silverthorn and Reynolds, with no results. To hear Grace’s public comments, click here.

 

“The audio of the meeting between Grace and Directors Silverthorn and Reynolds was also released on April 19. It is clear that during this meeting, Directors Reynolds and Silverthorn used their position to intimidate and bully Grace to deter her from proceeding with the planned protest.

 

Among the statements made by the directors:

 
·”*** Grace did not fully understand her First Amendment rights and this protest was not necessarily protected speech.
·” *** People with other motivations could hijack the protest.
· “*** Police officers could be hurt and Grace and her family would be financially responsible.

 
“Additionally, Director Silverthorn outright lied, claiming a police officer had been injured during a Denver student protest by “an angry motorist.” In reality, the officer was struck by a driver who had a seizure at a Black Lives Matter protest. For the full audio of the meeting, click here.”

 

In Buffalo, one of the wealthiest real estate developers in New York State, Carl Paladino, ran for re-election and was nearly upset by a high school senior, Austin Harig. (When Paladino ran against Cuomo, he became noted for his outrageous statements.) Paladino won his school board seatby only 100 votes out of 3,000 cast. He lashed out at the student, saying that Harig had been suspended from school for tardiness. How did Paladino gain access to Harig’s record. Harig threatened to sue, but the multimillionaire school board member laughed.

 

 

Categories Accountability, Colorado, New York

Ohio: Does Anyone Care About Public Schools?

By dianeravitch
May 8, 2016 //
20

Reader Chiara has often noticed that in her home state, Ohio, state officials seem to have forgotten that public schools exist, even though more than 90% are enrolled in public schools, not charters or voucher schools. Why does the schooling of the students in non-public “choice” schools obliterate any interest or concern for the vast majority of students? As she often points out, 93% of the children are in public schools, but state officials and the legislature focus exclusively on charters and vouchers.

 

 

Chiara makes the point:

 

 

“What’s great about living in a state where the government is captured by ed reformers is, 90% of education business conducted by publicly-paid employees focuses on charter and vouchers. Year after year, session after session, it’s “choice” but the “choice” is never a public school.

“They never seem to get around to doing anything for the unfashionable public schools. It’s remarkable how utterly and completely the favored sector dominates every aspect of the political maneuvering.
“If it wasn’t for testing, public school students would never be mentioned at all.”

Categories Charter Schools, Education Reform

Leonie Haimson: Can You Trust Computers to Grade Student Writing?

By dianeravitch
May 8, 2016 //
15

Leonie Haimson, parent activist, worked with a group of other concerned critics to review the explosion of computer-massessment, in particular, the scoring of writing.

 

“On April 5, 2016, the Parent Coalition for Student Privacy, Parents Across America, Network for Public Education, FairTest and many state and local parent groups sent a letter to the Education Commissioners in the states using the federally funded Common Core tests known as PARCC and SBAC, asking about the scoring of these exams.

 

“We asked them the following questions:

 

“What percentage of the ELA exams in our state are being scored by machines this year, and how many of these exams will then be re-scored by a human being?

 

“What happens if the machine score varies significantly from the score given by the human being?
“Will parents have the opportunity to learn whether their children’s ELA exam was scored by a human being or a machine?
“Will you provide the “proof of concept” or efficacy studies promised months ago by Pearson in the case of PARCC, and AIR in the case of SBAC, and cited in the contracts as attesting to the validity and reliability of the machine-scoring method being used?
“Will you provide any independent research that provides evidence of the reliability of this method, and preferably studies published in peer-reviewed journals?

 
“Our concerns had been prompted by seeing the standard contracts that Pearson and AIR had signed with states. The standard PARCC contract indicates that this year, Pearson would score two-thirds of the students’ writing responses by computers, with only 10 percent of these rechecked by a human being. In 2017, the contract said, all of PARCC writing samples were to be scored by machine with only 10 percent rechecked by hand.”

 

Haimson refers to research that demonstrates that computers can’t recognize meaning or narrative, although they admire sentence complexity and grammar.

 

This,she writes, means that computers will give high scores to incoherent but windy prose.

 

“The inability of machine scoring to distinguish between nonsense and coherence may lead to a debasement of instruction, with teachers and test prep companies engaged in training students on how to game the system by writing verbose and pretentious prose that will receive high scores from the machines. In sum, machine scoring will encourage students to become poor writers and communicators.”

 

Only five state commissioners responded after a month. They learned that the state commissioner of Rhode Island, Ken Wagner, testified that machine scoring was more valid and reliable than trained and expert humans.

 

Haimson concludes, quoting Pearson’s literature:

 

“Essentially, the point of this grandiose project imposed upon our nation’s schools is to eliminate the human element in education as much as possible.”

 

Read this well-documented article. It is up to parents to stop this headlong rush to the dehumanizing of education.

 

Categories Education Reform, Teachers, Technology, Computers, Testing

Troy LaRaviere: How and Why I Was Removed as a Principal in Chicago

By dianeravitch
May 8, 2016 //
13

A few weeks ago, Troy LaRaviere was removed as principal of Blaine Elementary School by officials at the Chicago Public Schools headquarters. He had previously been warned about his boldness in criticizing the school system and Mayor Rahm Emanuel. LaRaviere openly campaigned for Emanuel’s opponent, Chuy Garcia, and for Bernie Sanders.

 

In this post, LaRaviere explains how and why he was removed from his school.

 

It reads like the latest issue of “True Detective.”

 

It exemplifies the thuggery that is often called “the Chicago Way.”

Categories Chicago, Education Industry, Emanuel, Rahm, Freedom of Speech, Principals, Privatization

EduShyster: What Are the Differences Between Suburban Public Schools and Urban Charter Schools?

By dianeravitch
May 7, 2016 //
12

Emily Kaplan has written a guest column for EduShyster. Kaplan taught in a no-excuses charter school, and she now teaches in a suburban public school. Here she describes the differences, much of which hasty do with power. The suburban parents “own” their public school; the urban charter parents can stay in the school only if their child obeys directions and follows the rules.

 

Kaplan writes:

 

“Politically and financially, affluent suburban parents own their children’s schools. Parents of students at urban charters, however, better not push their luck. (They “won the lottery,” after all.) Suburban parents can question the system all they like; ultimately, they are the system. Charter parents are certainly not— and by questioning it, they have everything to lose. (The racial undertones of this environment—black parents should be grateful for the education these white educators so generously provide— are significant.) Unlike suburban students who attend district schools, students at urban charter schools can be expelled or pushed out— and no parent wants to be forced back to the district which drove them to enter the charter lottery in the first place.

 

“Urban charters wield this power to ensure compliance from students and parents alike. The strict discipline for which charters are infamous is applied to parents as well as their children. Unlike at suburban schools—where parents are welcomed to join the PTA, to volunteer, to lead projects, and to meet with an administration that must earn their support—parental involvement at many urban charters is as unidirectional as it is punitive. If a student accumulates enough behavioral infractions, for instance, he or she must serve an in-school suspension until the parent is able—on one day’s notice—to take time off of work in the middle of the school day to observe the child in class for an hour and a half. Teachers and administrators threaten students who break the rigid rules of the school with parental involvement: “If your behavior doesn’t get better,” they tell these five- and six- and seven-year-olds, many of whom come from families struggling to make ends meet, “your dad will have to keep missing work to come here. You don’t want him to be fired, do you?” Parents who do not comply are told that the school may not be for them.

 

“Take it or leave it, be grateful, kowtow: we know what’s best for your child.

 

“Ultimately, this serves no one.”

 

 

 

 

Categories Charter Schools, Education Reform, Parents

Steven Singer: Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
May 7, 2016 //
40

Have you ever wished you had a bullet list to explain succinctly why charter schools are a terrible idea? Steven Singer has created that list. He says that “school choice is no choice.” The school chooses the student, the student doesn’t choose the school.

 

Ask yourself: why do we need a dual school system? One gets to choose its students, the other must accept everyone.

 

What a bad idea!

 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Reform

Florida: Charter Management Company Indicted for Criminal Fraud

By dianeravitch
May 7, 2016 //
9

A grand jury in Escambia County in Florida indicted Newpoint Education Partners and its vendors for fraud and other crimes. Newpoint Education Partners was created by former employees of Ohio’s controversial for-profit White Hat Management company.

 

“An Escambia County grand jury indicted Newpoint Education Partners and three other companies for grand theft, money laundering and aggravated white collar crime.

 

“Newpoint managed charter schools in Escambia County for 21st Century Academy of Pensacola. Last year, the Escambia County School Board revoked charters for Newpoint Academy and Newpoint High for grade tampering and misuse of public funds. All three Newpoint schools — Newpoint High, Newpoint Academy and Five Flags Academy — closed. The enrollment at the three schools totaled about 350 students.

 

“The grand jury alleges that Newpoint and its vendors fraudulently billed 21st Century Academy hundreds of thousands of dollars for supplies, equipment and services. Newpoint and its vendors allegedly laundered the proceeds of the thefts through multiple bank accounts to conceal the criminal activity.

 

“The source of the alleged laundered proceeds was charter school grant funds appropriated by the state for charter schools to use to procure supplies, equipment and services necessary for startup.

 

“I’ve prosecuted charter schools before, but not this particular type of scheme,” Assistant State Attorney Russell Edgar said. “I’ve prosecuted people involved with charter schools for committing theft of funds and prosecuted people for misusing children to work off campus during school, but this is the first time prosecuting a managing company.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reform, Education Reform, Florida, For-Profit, Fraud, Ohio
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »