Archives for the month of: September, 2016

A charter chain in Arizona is being sued in federal court for allowing the teaching of religion in school. One of the board members of the chain is a son of a member of the state board of education, appointed by Governor Douglas Ducey.

The Arizona Capitol Times reports:

A national organization filed suit Wednesday against an Arizona charter school with ties to a member of the state Board of Education, accusing it of using state funds to illegally teach religious doctrine.

The federal court lawsuit claims that Heritage Academy, with three campuses in Maricopa County teaching grades 7 through 12, is violating the First Amendment, state constitutional provisions and Arizona laws through the instruction provided to students as well as the required reading.

Attorney Richard Katskee, legal director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said that specifically includes teachings of founder, president and teacher Earl Taylor Jr. that the Ten Commandments, including those that mandate the worship of God, must be obeyed to attain happiness.

Other teachings, he said, include that socialism violates God’s laws.

And Katskee said the school engages in a form of proselytizing by telling students “they are duty-bound to implement and instruct others about these religious and religiously based principles in order to restore the United States to freedom, prosperity and peace.”

Among the academy’s board members is Jared Taylor, who is Earl’s son. Taylor was one of Doug Ducey’s first appointments last year to the state Board of Education.

Neither Taylor would comment on the specifics of lawsuit. But the elder Taylor said he has answered similar allegations in the past for the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.

Calls to Whitney Chapa, the board’s executive director who has access to those files, were not immediately returned.

And gubernatorial press aide Daniel Scarpinato said his boss had no comment on the lawsuit.

Under Arizona law, private and even for-profit corporations can set up charter schools. They are considered public schools, entitled to state aid and cannot charge tuition.

They are exempt from some — but not all — of the regulations that govern traditional public schools. And there is a specific requirement that a charter school “ensure that it is nonsectarian in its programs, admission policies and employment practices and all other operations.”

There also is a state constitutional provision that bars the use of public money for religious instruction and a separate one forbidding the use of state taxes for any sectarian school.

Does the explicit language of the state constitution matter any more?

Peter Greene reflects here on the likely outcome of this election for the nation’s public schools, which enroll nearly 50 million children.

If Trump is elected, we know what to expect:

Trump’s burning dumpster of a campaign has finally managed to toss out a few words about public education, but we saw the writing on the wall when he selected Mike Pence as his running mate. Pence’s position on public education has always been clear: bust it up, sell the parts, and let some corporate types make a bundle “educating” a select few students while the rest go searching the rubble of the crushed public education system for some possible piece of their future. Oh, and get rid of teachers and their damned unions.

Trump’s education proposal is short but simple:

More school choice (a.k.a. “open the corporate charter floodgates”).

Merit pay for teachers (a.k.a. “we’ll pay them just what we think they’re worth and they’ll like it”).

End tenure (a.k.a. “You’re fired whenever the mood hits me”).

If Hillary is elected, we can expect more of the Obama style of reform. He deduces this from the advisors who are close to her, mostly from the Center for American Progress.

Bottom line: Trump will run over the schools like a steamroller, flattening them along with their teachers. He endorses vouchers, charters, online charters, anything goes.

Clinton is likely to be akin to Obama/Duncan in advancing charter schools and testing.

The good news, he says, is that the action is now at the state level:

First, remember that the new version of Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the law governing education in this country, throws much of the power back to the state level. The U.S. Department of Education and Congress are still arguing about it, which means there is ample opportunity for states to enter that spirited discussion. Now is an excellent time for folks to get involved on the state level, to provide encouragement to our state leaders to do at least some of the right thing.

We can pay attention to the state-level elections, and get organized right now to find and support people who will help stand up for public education in every state.

In 2008, we just couldn’t wait to see what President Obama would do about public education. In 2016, there is no real question about what our next President is going to do. The question that matters this time is: What we are going to do about it?

Not long ago, I established a fund at my alma mater, Wellesley College, to encourage the study of public education in the United States. The fund gives support to students for research and internships; many of them are preparing to teach. The most important public activity of the fund is to present an annual public lecture about public education. I gave the first lecture. The second annual Diane Silvers Ravitch 1960 Lecture will be given by the distinguished Finnish scholar Pasi Sahlberg.

If you live anywhere near Wellesley, which is near Boston, I hope you will attend.

The lecture will be October 13, 2016, at 7 pm at Alumnae Hall.

Pasi is a brilliant thinker and speaker. He spent the last two years teaching at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He has a broad and deep understanding of American education and international education.

I will be there, and I hope you will too.

Here is a list of the school boards that have passed a resolution opposing “Question 2,” that would allow the state to open a dozen charter schools every year, with no limits. The school boards recognize that this would take money away from public schools and destroy public education in Massachusetts. Since Massachusetts is already the top-performing state in the nation on federal tests (National Assessment of Educational Progress), there is no good reason to open an unlimited number of privately managed charters. As the November 8 election grows closer, you can expect this list to grow longer. Currently, 112 school boards have voted to oppose Question 2. Zero (0) support the proposal. (Not all 112 may be on this list.)

A growing list of communities oppose lifting the charter cap

These communities have all gone on record against lifting the cap on charter schools. (Each community’s school committee has passed a resolution or issued a statement against a cap lift. The list also indicates communities in which another town body has gone on record against lifting the charter cap.) If your city or town is missing from this list, see if you can get them on board!

Adams-Cheshire
Agawam
Amesbury
Amherst
Andover
Arlington
Ashland
Barnstable
Belchertown
Bellingham
Berkshire Hills
Beverly
Boston City Council
Bourne
Brockton
Burlington
Cambridge School Committee,
Cambridge City Council
Chelsea
Chicopee
Clarksburg
Conway
Deerfield, Deerfield Selectmen
Dennis Selectmen
Douglas
Dudley-Charlton
Easthampton City Council
East Bridgewater
Everett
Fall River
Falmouth
Fitchburg
Framingham
Frontier Regional
Greenfield
Hampshire Regional
Haverhill
Hawlemont Regional
Holyoke
Kingston
Lee
Lenox
Lexington
Longmeadow
Lowell School Committee, City Council
Ludlow
Lynn City Council, Lynn School Committee
Malden
Mansfield
Marshfield
Medford
Melrose
Milton
Monomoy
Mohawk Regional
Narragansett Regional
New Bedford
Newburyport
North Adams
Northampton
Northbridge
North Middlesex
North Reading
Norton
Norwood
Orange
Oxford
Peabody
Pelham
Pioneer Valley Regional
Pittsfield
Quincy
Revere
Rowe
Saugus
Savoy
Silver Lake Regional
Southern Berkshire Regional
Somerville
South Hadley
Springfield
Stoneham
Taunton School Committee, Taunton
City Council
Tyngsborough
Upper Cape Cod Regional Tech
Wachusett
Wareham
Waltham
Westhampton
West Springfield
Whately
Whitman-Hanson
Williamstown
Winchendon
Winthrop
Worcester School Committee, Worcester City Council

Jonathan Pelto has been a stalwart and fearless investigator and reporter of corporate reform scams in Connecticut and elsewhere.

He is running for Congress on the Green Party ticket.

He needs and deserves our help. If everyone who reads this sends him $25, he would have a nifty fund. If you can pledge more, blessings on you!

Diane

Politifact is a nonpartisan website that monitors candidates’ statement for truthfulness. It evaluates their claims and keeps a running record.

Here is the evaluation of Hillary Clinton. Seventy-two percent of her statements are rated true, mostly true or half true.

Here is the evaluation of Donald Trump. Thirty percent of his statements are rated true, mostly true or half-true. (My error corrected!)

Here is Barack Obama’s evaluation. Seventy-six percent of his statements are rated true, mostly true or half-true.

Here is Tim Kaine. Seventy-six percent of his statements are rated true, mostly true or half-true.

Here is Mike Pence. Fifty eight percent of his state to are rated true, mostly true or half-true.

Trump is a world-class liar.

A charter high school in Los Angeles abruptly announced it was closing its doors One month after school began. It is closing because it couldn’t attract enough students. The school had a ninth and tenth grade but hoped to add two more grades. There was not enough demand.

Next time you hear about those elusive waiting lists–waiting lists of 3,000, 40,000, one million–to get into charters, think of this story.

City Charter Schools has a partnership with the charter school organization Bright Star Schools, which has offered to absorb as many students that wish to go there, Braimah said. In addition, school officials have identified “a long list of schools” that have openings to help students transition, she said.

When the Mississippi Department of Education released its plan for accountability, parents wrote letters of protest. The Parents’ Campaign organized the protest. The state made some changes to mollify the protest but will continue to rate schools based primarily on measures that reflect family income and demographics rather than evaluating the challenges schools confront and whether they have the resources to deal with their needs. The accountability system is premised on the infallibility of standardized tests, whose results are closely coordinated with family income.

The Parent’s Campaign

After receiving 139 comments from parents, educators, and concerned citizens, the State Board of Education has voted to adopt several changes to the rules that govern the accountability system that determines school and district ratings. I am proud to say that the majority of respondents were parents. Thank you for being attentive and for speaking up for our children and our public schools when you saw something of concern! We are grateful to the board for seeking and heeding the input of parents and educators.

The rules adopted by the board today require the use of cut scores, not percentiles, to determine school ratings. That is in line with what concerned citizens advocated in their comments, and it is in line with the clarification statement that was distributed by the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE). You can see the complete newly adopted Statewide Accountability System rules and the public comments that were submitted here.

Adopted changes in the Accountability System business rules include:

changes in the grade classifications component – school and district ratings (section 1)

changes in the growth component* (section 6)

changes in the acceleration component (section 9)

a retraction of the change in the College and Career Readiness component – Senior Snapshot will continue to be used (section 25)

*We support this new change to the growth component that will give credit to schools for students who show improvement within the “passing” achievement level.

After consulting with their attorneys, MDE officials determined that the difference between what was posted for public comment (use of percentiles) and what was outlined in the department’s clarification the following week (intent to use cut scores) was not substantial enough to require a new round of public comments. Therefore, the board was able to vote today on final adoption of changes to the system.

Thanks again for speaking up! Mississippi children are so very fortunate to have you in their corner. Together, we’ve got this.

222 North President Street, Suite 102
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Phone 601.961.4551
http://www.msparentscampaign.org

Jim Horn has a website called “Schools Matter.” He opposes corporate reform, as I do.
I have never met him. I hear he doesn’t like me. I don’t know why. I thought we were fighting for the same goals.

The first time I became aware of his hostility was when he posted a photograph of me with the caption, “Nice face job, Diane.” Very puzzling as I have never had a facelift. Sexist too. I ignored him.

When Anthony Cody and I decided to create the Network for Public Education, aiming to build alliances among the many individuals and groups fighting against corporate reform, we selected a board and announced our existence. Horn emailed to say that he was going to attack us because we included a much admired NBCT African American teacher from Mississippi. Horn discovered that she had written an article praising merit pay. Many emails went back and forth among him, Anthony, and me. He decided not to poison us at our birth.

But he has an intense and personal animus towards me. Again, I can’t explain it. I don’t know why.

I thought I would share with you his latest blast, which was (I assume) a response to my post about how progressive movements die when they turn on one another. In the post, I urged us all to work together towards our shared agenda. Apparently he is angry that I supported ESSA; I supported it because it eliminated NCLB (No Child Left Behind), AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress), and VAM (value-added modeling or test-based teacher evaluations). If ESSA had not passed, NCLB would still be federal law, and John King would have the authoritarian power that Arne Duncan had over the nation’s schools. If I were writing the law, I would have eliminated all federal mandates for accountability and testing, but I was not writing the law.

Despite what he writes, we are on the same side of the issues. Like him, I oppose standardized testing, other than for sampling purposes. I oppose evaluation of teachers by test scores. I oppose segregation. I support equitable and ample funding of schools. I support teacher professionalism and collective bargaining. I support public education and oppose privatization. Yet he says I am his enemy. He wants us to fail.

This is what Jim Horn wrote yesterday:

Today’s Communique to the Ravitch Forces

After what seems to me to have been a pretty effective skirmish, the Ravitch forces have climbed out of their tent at their permanent Basecamp, stomping the ground and waving their, um, whatevers. For those Ravitch acolytes who are not too drunk on revenge to read, here’s something to ponder, as I am working on a next book today and don’t have time to attend to your whining.

In everything I have seen from D. Ravitch and the band of intellectual eunuchs who comprise the NPE echo chamber, a theme stands out, which is that we cannot afford to fight among ourselves, that allies cannot be ripped asunder, that we must stick together in the same tent, blah blah. So let me speak to Diane directly here, and I hope that all of her disciples will read this carefully.

The problem is, Diane, our goals are not the same. My goals are ending testing accountability in all forms, ending segregated classrooms in all forms, and ending corporate education reform in all forms. I can’t work toward those goals with any effect while misleaders like you and the union suits are cutting deals on ESSA to guarantee another generation of testing accountability, segregated classrooms, and corporate control. Have you read the history of NCLB?

We are on different sides of these issues, regardless of how much braying and foot stomping you are able to stir up. We are not allies. I am your enemy. Get used to it.

What is competency-based education? Twenty or thirty years ago, it referred to skill-based education, and critics complained that CBE downgraded the importance of knowledge.

Today CBE has a different meaning. It refers to teaching and assessment that is conducted online, where students’ learning is continuously monitored, measured, and analyzed. CBE is invariably susceptible to data-mining of children, gathering Personally Identifiable Information (PII) that can be aggregated and used without the knowledge or permission of parents.

The first time that I heard of CBE (although it was not called that) was in a meeting in August 2015 with The State Commissioner of Education in New York, MaryEllen Elia, after her first month in office. I organized a discussion between Commissioner Elia and several board members of NYSAPE (New York State Allies for Public Education), the group that created New York State’s massive opt out that year (and again this year). It was a candid e change, and at one point, Commissioner Elia said that the annual tests would eventually be phased out and replaced by embedded assessment. When asked to explain, she said that students would do their school work online, and they would be continuously assessed. The computer could tell teachers what the students were able to do, minute by minute.

This kind of intensive surveillance and monitoring is very alarming. Once teaching and testing goes online, how can parents say no?

A group of bloggers wrote posts last week to express their concern and outrage about the stealth implementation of CBE. The lead post warns that opting out of annual tests is not enough to stop the digitized steamroller. It’s title is: “Stop! Don’t Opt Out. Read This First.” The author argues that parents are being deceived.

The blogger warns:

Schools in every state are buzzing this year with talk of “personalized” learning and 21st century assessments for kids as young as kindergarten. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) and its innovative pilot programs are already changing the ways schools instruct and assess, in ways that are clearly harmful to our kids. Ed-tech companies, chambers of commerce, ALEC, neoliberal foundations, telecommunications companies, and the government are working diligently to turn our public schools into lean, efficient laboratories of data-driven, digital learning.

He or she recounts the ways the technocracy responds to parents’ concerns and fears. The new way, they will say, is “personalized learning.” Don’t worry. We know what is best. When the parent objects that the test results come back too late to inform instruction, the technocrat says, “embedded instruction provides real-time feedback. No problem.” Parent asks, what about the stress? Technocrat: “Children won’t even know they are being tested.”

The blogger doesn’t actually say to parents, “Don’t opt out.”

Quite the contrary:

“Opt out families nationwide are encountering these same arguments, as though a pre-set trap is being sprung. Great. So opting out of end-of-year testing isn’t the silver bullet we hoped it would be. Now what?

Now that we know the whole story, go ahead and opt out of the end of the year tests. No child should suffer through them. But we have to expand our definition of opting out, to protect our children from data mining and stop the shift to embedded assessments and digital curriculum.

In addition to opting out of end-of-year testing, there are other important steps we need to take to safeguard our children’s access to human teachers and to protect their data, their vision, and their emotional health. There is no set playbook, but here are some ideas to get us started.

1. Opt your child out of Google Apps for Education (GAFE).

2. If your school offers a device for home use, decline to sign the waiver for it and/or pay the fee.

3. Does your child’s assigned email address include a unique identifier, like their student ID number? If yes, request a guest log in so that their data cannot be aggregated.

4. Refuse biometric monitoring devices (e.g. fit bits).

5. Refuse to allow your child’s behavioral, or social-emotional data to be entered into third-party applications. (e.g. Class Dojo)

6. Refuse in-class social networking programs (e.g. EdModo).

7. Set a screen time maximum per day/per week for your child.

8. Opt young children out of in school screen time altogether and request paper and pencil assignments and reading from print books (not ebooks).

9. Begin educating parents about the difference between “personalized” learning modules that rely on mining PII (personally-identifiable information) to function properly and technology that empowers children to create and share their own content.

10. Insist that school budgets prioritize human instruction and that hybrid/blended learning not be used as a back door way to increase class size or push online classes.

Parents, teachers, school administrators, and students must begin to look critically at the technology investments we are making in schools. We have to start advocating for responsible tools that empower our children to be creators (and I don’t mean of data), NOT consumers of pre-packaged, corporate content or online games. We must prioritize HUMAN instruction and learning in relationship to one another. We need more face time and less screen time.

Every time a parent acts to protect their child from these harmful policies, it throws a wrench into the gears of this machine. The steamroller of education reform doesn’t stand a chance against an empowered, educated army of parents, teachers and students. Use your power to refuse. Stand together, stand firm, be loud, and grab a friend. Cumulatively our actions will bring down this beast!”