Archives for the month of: June, 2016

2010 was the high watermark of the corporate reform movement.

In spring 2010, the entire staff at Central Falls, Rhode Island, was fired because of low test scores, which created a national sensation. Arne Duncan and President Obama hailed the courage of Deborah Gist, the state superintendent, and Frances Gallo, the city superintendent, who ordered and confirmed the strategy. Duncan said the firings showed that the administrators were “doing the right things for kids.”

Thus began the reformers’ war against teachers.

In September 2010, “Waiting for Superman,” debuted with a multimillion dollar campaign to promote it: the cover of TIME, appearances by the “stars” on Oprah (Michelle Rhee, Geoffrey Canada, Bill Gates, etc.), and NBC’s Education Nation, focused on promoting the film and its advocacy for charters. “Superman” was a hit job on unions, teachers, and public schools. Its data were skewed, and some of its scenes were staged. It was denied an Academy Award. But Bill Gates put up at least $2 million for public relations.

Thus launched the reformers’ fraudulent fight for privatization as a “civil rights” issue.

Into this fray came the Los Angeles Times, with its own evaluation of thousands of teachers in Los Angeles, created by an economist who employed the methods approved by the Gates Foundation. Teachers were rated on a scale from least effective to most effective. One of those teachers, a dedicated fifth grade teacher named Rigoberto Ruelas, jumped off a bridge and committed suicide after he was publicly labeled as one of the least effective teachers in math and average in reading. Who knew that becoming a teacher would be a hazardous profession?

Anthony Cody delves into the journalistic responsibility of the Los Angeles Times in this important post. The LA Times hired an economist who created VAM ratings and used test scores to rank teachers. Its reporters, Jason Felch and Jason Song, warned against using test scores as the only measure to rank teachers, then proceeded to use test scores as the only measure to rank teachers. The two Jasons, as they were known, hoped to win a Pulitzer Prize. They didn’t. They did come in second in the Education Writers Association choice of the best reporting of the year. Felch was subsequently fired for an ethical breach that involved inappropriate relations with a source.

Cody is concerned about the ethics of journalists who cloak their advocacy and partisanship behind the charade of journalistic independence.

Now, it turns out that the Hechinger Institute at Teachers College, Columbia University, funded the LA Times’ rating scheme. And who do you think funded the Hechinger Report: the Gates Foundation.

We know more about VAM now. We know that it has been rejected by numerous scholars and scholarly associations as invalid, unstable, and unreliable.

Who killed Rigoberto Ruelas?

Linda McNeill is a well-known scholar of high-stakes testing at Rice University in Houston.

She writes here about the ominous role of testing companies in data mining students as they are studying or taking tests online. They gather confidential data about every child. That data may later be used for commercial purposes.

Even as they regularly invade the privacy of unknowing children, they fiercely resist any attempts to make public their tests, on which the fate of students, educators, and schools hinge.

Any discussion of the test content will lead to claims of copyright infringement and threats of legal action. And as we have seen in recent weeks, the test publishers contact Twitter, Facebook, and other social media and lodge complaints that lead to the deletion of tweets, posts, and comments. The testing companies assert the right to censor other people’s products, while shielding their own from public scrutiny.

McNeill writes:

Corporations – from testing companies to third-party marketers to unknown (and perhaps international) vendors – can scoop up personal information on young children and teenagers to use for their own profit. And parents have few ways to find out what these strangers know about their children and how the data collected from year to year will be used to manipulate their children lives.

So are the testing companies advocates willing to have their “data” open to outsiders? It would seem the answer is a clear and resounding NO!….

We’re learning that questioning the tests can put the questioner in jeopardy. Anyone – including teachers – who wants more public scrutiny of the mandated standardized tests that so dominate our schools these days, may be “surveilled.” A teacher or blogger who raises questions about the tests is in danger of being threatened by – yes, the testing companies that have no problem gathering and selling data on young children but do not want anyone to know what they are doing.

What is sauce for the goose is definitely not sauce for the gander. They have a right to collect data about us without our knowledge, but we have no right to know how they are spying on us and data mining our children.

A few days ago, I wrote a post about California’s burgeoning charter industry and its lack of regulation or oversight. This is called a recipe for scandal, of which there have already been many in the Golden State. You might recall the charter operators who went to jail for misappropriating funds. Or the charter operator who paid a staff member to go to Africa and marry his brother so he could legally enter the U.S. Or the superintendent who set up a private consulting business to help charters grow where they aren’t wanted. Or…the list goes on and on.

Think of the opportunities when taxpayer money is handed out freely and left without oversight.

Now comes another scandal. The El Camino Real Charter High School’s principal moonlighted as a scout for the National Basketball Association, traveled across the country first class to basketball games, and charged his travel expenses to the school.

Fehte used the school card for expenses on two trips to Greensboro, N.C., during the March weekends of the 2014 and 2015 Atlantic Coast Conference Men’s Basketball Tournaments. In 2014 he charged $972 total at a luxury hotel 10 minutes from the Greensboro Coliseum Complex, the site of the tournament. Fehte, 55, signed a school form that stated one of the hotel charges was for a “Green initiative,” apparently a reference to the school’s environmental conservation efforts.

The Daily News obtained El Camino’s credit card statements and receipts for 2014 and 2015 under the California Public Records Act. The school is run by a nonprofit organization and receives about $32 million in government funds annually, accounting for 94 percent of its revenue. Officials at the Los Angeles Unified School District, which oversees charters in its boundaries, notified El Camino last fall that its administrators had violated the school’s own financial policies. Without naming him, the district criticized Fehte’s use of the card for personal expenses, and said he only reimbursed El Camino a handful of times.

This principal is the second highest paid executive director or principal of a public school in the state. He is paid $221,475.

Keep your seat belts buckled. This is the tip of the iceberg. More scandals ahead.

Mercedes Schneider dug into the background of Chris Clemons, the Atlanta charter school principal, who has been accused of stealing $600,000 from his school.

She found an article from his days at MIT, explaining how he developed a passion for teaching “impoverished children in urban areas.”

He trained as a school leader at “Building Excellent Schools,” a Boston-based program to prepare principals to open and run charter schools. He launched a charter school in Denver, his hometown. And then he went to Atlanta to open charter schools. He was charged by the FBI with theft, not only for the missing $600,000 from his current school, but for another $350,000 that was missing from two other charter schools that he ran.

Mike Klonsky reports that Chicago’s open enrollment public high schools are driving the city’s improving graduation rate. You know, the public schools that accept everybody.

 

“Well, it’s that time of year when the media spotlight in all the privately-run charters schools that supposedly enroll 100% of their students in a college program. Of course they fail to mention they mean 100% of the 25% or fewer that make it from freshman year to the graduation ceremony.

 

“I wonder how many of those 100%-ers actually show up for college classes, can afford skyrocketing tuition, or graduate some time down the road. Urban Prep, for example, continually boasts about it’s college-acceptance rate for the few that graduate, but rarely about reading and math scores which are among the lowest in the city. This year only 24% of students at this school are considered proficient in math and/or reading.”

 

“Check out the number of Urban Prep Charter Academy (Englewood) 9th-graders in 2014, compared with the number that make it to senior year.

 

“Or the high-flying Noble St. charters which lost about half their students by senior year.”

 

What’s driving the rising graduation rates? Not the charters, with their exclusion of kids with disabilities and ELLs. The open enrollment public high schools.

 

 

The California Charter School Association is a super-rich, highly political power broker in politics. It wants to control every possible seat in the state legislature so it can pursue its goal of mass privatization of public schools across the Golden State.

Consider this dirty trick: It has created an organization called the “Parent Teacher Alliance,” which endorses candidates. Thus, the candidates can say that they were endorsed by the “PTA,” even though this Parent Teacher Alliance has no affiliation with the Parent Teacher Associations of the state.

The Los Angeles School Report, whose editorial content is directed by Campbell Brown, has a story about a crucial legislative race playing out in a district where the assemblyman vacated his seat. Voters will decide tomorrow. The go-to speaker quoted in the story is Marshall Tuck, who ran and lost as the pro-charter candidate against Tom Torlakson, the state superintendent. Tuck speaks from the “reform” point of view, labeling those whom he doesn’t like as union candidates.

Here is the bottom line on spending: A rift in the Democratic Party over education policy comes into sharp relief one day before California’s primary election as a record $28 million has been spent by outside groups on state races, one-third coming from groups supporting charter schools.

There you have it: with all the issues facing the state, one-third of the $28 million spent by outside groups on state races is coming from charter advocates.

The latest example in Southern California is playing out in an open state Assembly district seat in Glendale, Burbank, La Canada Flintridge and parts of Los Angeles where an independent expenditure committee supporting charter schools has spent more than $1.2 million to back a Democratic candidate, flooding voters’ mailboxes over the past eight weeks with attack ads on a fellow Democrat supported by teachers unions…..In the 43rd Assembly District seat, being vacated by Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D-Burbank, due to term limits, an independent expenditure committee called the Parent Teacher Alliance, sponsored by the California Charter School Association Advocates, has spent $1.2 million as of Friday, state campaign finance records show. Parent Teacher Alliance is not associated with the well-known Parent Teacher Association.

Records show that donors to the CCSA Advocates Independent Expenditure Committee include Michael Bloomberg, Doris Fisher, Jim Walton and Eli Broad.

Glendale City Clerk Ardy Kassakhian has been backed by the California Teachers Association, which is considered among the most powerful lobbyists in Sacramento. Glendale City Councilwoman Laura Friedman has been endorsed by the California Charter School Association Advocates, the political arm of the CCSA. The union and education reformers have clashed over education policies like teacher tenure and the expansion of charter schools.

How touching to see that billionaires like former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Doris Fisher (of the Gap business), Jim Walton (of Walmart), and Eli Broad are deeply engaged in financing the phony “Parent Teacher Alliance.”

Here is the spending:

State campaign finance records also show the California Teachers Association’s Independent Expenditure Committee has spent $47,721 on the race: $35,791 on mailers opposing Friedman and $11,930 supporting Kassakhian.

The CCSA committee has spent $910,791 supporting Friedman and $304,355 opposing Kassakhian as of Friday, records show.

This is the score: $1.2 million assembled by the California Charter Schools Association to beat Kassakhian; $47,721 spent by the California Teachers Association to support Kassakhian. Goliath vs. David.

The fight over charter schools in California is really a fight over the future of public education in the state. Will there be public education 20 years from now, or will community schools be run by entrepreneurs and charter chains whose corporate leaders are based in other states?

If you live in the 43rd Assembly District, please vote for Ardy Kassakhian. DON’T LET THE BILLIONAIRES BUY YOUR PUBLIC SCHOOL.

Bernie Sanders said recently that tax rates under Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower were as high as 90% for the highest income bracket.

 

Politifact assessed that claim and shows here that it is true.

 

What if Bill Gates, Eli Broad, the Walton family, the Koch brothers, Art Pope, Michael Bloomberg, Paul Tudor Jones, John Arnold, Jonathan Sackler (Mr. OxyContin) and all the other billionaires had their income taxed at Eisenhower rates? We would be able to repair our schools, pay our teachers, hire school nurses, and provide a world-class education. No wonder they prefer to promote school choice. It works for them.

Since radical extremists took control of state government in Indiana, the governor and legislators have been on an absurd mission to destroy public education, to drain resources from public schools and give it to charter operators and religious schools, and to ruin the teaching profession.

 

One person has stood in their way: Glenda Ritz, the only statewide elected official who is a Democrat. She has fought to stop the madness, and the governor and legislature have tried to strip all power from her office.

 

She has fought hard to protect public education and educators.

 

Glenda has been endorsed by the Network for Public Education Action Fund.

 

I happily endorse Glenda Ritz for re-election as State Superintendent of Public Schools.

 

Here te is the back-story, along with information about how you can help Glenda win.

 

 

“In 2012, grassroots public education groups all over Indiana worked together to defeat education “reformer” Tony Bennett and to elect Glenda Ritz, who ran on a platform of “more time for teaching, less time for testing.”

 

 

“Unfortunately, with the election of Mike Pence as Governor, the political agenda for Indiana schools that Governor Mitch Daniels and Superintendent Bennett started is still in effect. After the election, Pence told a reporter that he would move forward with Tony Bennett’s reform agenda anyway despite the overwhelming vote for Ritz. Since that time, he launched a duplicate education agency to take powers away from her office, he tried to make her position appointed instead of elected, and he signed a law removing her as chair of the State Board of Education.

 

 

“Despite all of this obstruction, Superintendent Ritz has succeeded in moving forward with her education agenda for Indiana schools. She launched a grassroots “Division of Outreach” that hired coordinators all over the state to serve as a direct liaison between the Department of Education and the schools. She worked across party lines to bring an end to the statewide high-stakes, lengthy ISTEP exam and is now serving on a panel to design a test that will inform student growth. And she launched a statewide family literacy program to encourage more time for reading.

 
“Superintendent Ritz oversees the Indiana Department of Education, the only state agency that Governor Pence doesn’t control, so he is going to do everything in his power to make her a one-term superintendent. The Friedman Foundation has been polling on this race, and “Hoosiers for Quality Education,” affiliated with the American Federation for Children, donated $10,000 to Tony Bennett’s handpicked candidate running against Superintendent Ritz.
Superintendent Glenda Ritz needs our help. Please donate $25, $50, or $100 today at http://www.glendaritz.com/donate. Additionally, you can sign up at http://www.glendaritz.com to receive campaign notifications, to volunteer and to spread the message about her student-centered campaign.

 

 

“Together, we can prove once AGAIN that grassroots support from public education advocates can beat corporate money from special interest groups who want to put another Tony Bennett in office.”

In this post, EduShyster gives a lesson to corporate reformers who want to reorganize the education system that has made Massachusetts first in the nation on every national and international test.

Their view of the Bay State’s schools is warped by their ignorance. They see Massachusetts as a model of “the first way” (i.e., public schools). Then, “reform” was jump-started by the charter schools added in 1993 (all 25 of them for the whole state). And now, they believe, Massachusetts needs to go “the third way.” Apparently the third way is to make Massachusetts look a lot like Denver (which readers of this blog know is no model).

What they don’t know is that the 1993 legislation increased school spending dramatically, by one-third. In its wake came tests for new teachers, uniform standards and assessments for the state, and early childhood education. The goal was to equalize funding among the best and worst funded districts.

But what is this Third Way. Read the article to find out, but expect to see a blurring of the lines between public and private, plus many opportunities for inexperienced teachers and for entrepreneurs.

The previous post referred to a debate among reformers about the role of the Black Lives Matter movement within the current education “reform” (testing and privatization) movement.

John Thompson, historian and teacher in Oklahoma, here responds to the debate with trenchant insights.

He writes:

I’ve communicated with enough reformers to know that their coalition is fraying. They’ve pushed an edu-politics of destruction based on the punitive use of test results in order to keep score in their competition-driven movement. Now, it is obvious that value-added teacher evaluations and their one-size-fits-all micromanaging have failed. Many or most, however, are still committed to high-stakes testing in order to speed up their rushed effort to close schools in mass.

Other corporate reformers seem to believe they can use their (admittedly brilliant) high-dollar public relations campaigns to drive the expansion of charters. They’ve finally realized that parents are preoccupied with what’s best for their own children, not education policy. They are marketing to parents who can’t stop the damage that the extreme proliferation of choice does to children left behind in weakened neighborhood schools, but who ignore test scores and seek safe and orderly schools for their own kids.

He asks inconvenient questions about why reformers vilify teachers and want to bust unions.

What I can’t grasp, however, is liberals who assail other liberals because we won’t use the stress of high stakes testing to overcome the stress produced by generational poverty. I still can’t understand civil rights advocates who condemn other civil rights advocates because we oppose school segregation as a means of reversing the legacies of segregation.

Had the technocrats spent more time in the inner city classroom, and in the homes, hospital rooms, the streets and, yes, the funerals of our kids, they’d have known we needed more “disruptive” innovation like we need another gang war. Had they shared the joy of teaching and learning for mastery that builds on the strengths of our kids, they would not have dumped reductionist behaviorism on children. But, because teachers saw things differently, we were condemned as the “status quo,” which accepted “Excuses!,” and renounced “High Expectations!”