Archives for the month of: December, 2016

Politico reports that the proof of Betsy DeVos’s school choice policies can be found in Michigan. She claims that choice would “fundamentally improve education.”

 

But it hasn’t.

 

Despite two decades of charter-school growth, the state’s overall academic progress has failed to keep pace with other states: Michigan ranks near the bottom for fourth- and eighth-grade math and fourth-grade reading on a nationally representative test, nicknamed the “Nation’s Report Card.” Notably, the state’s charter schools scored worse on that test than their traditional public-school counterparts, according to an analysis of federal data.

 

Critics say Michigan’s laissez-faire attitude about charter-school regulation has led to marginal and, in some cases, terrible schools in the state’s poorest communities as part of a system dominated by for-profit operators. Charter-school growth has also weakened the finances and enrollment of traditional public-school districts like Detroit’s, at a time when many communities are still recovering from the economic downturn that hit Michigan’s auto industry particularly hard.

 

The results in Michigan are so disappointing that even some supporters of school choice are critical of the state’s policies.

 

So, let’s see, follow Betsy’s policies and the state opens bad charter schools and undercuts public schools. A disaster for everyone.

 

Carol Burris wrote an article that was published on Valerie Strauss’s blog, in which she explains that charters are the leading edge of the privatization movement. Corporate education reformers are scrambling to make a distinction between charters and vouchers, but the reality is that charters clear a path for vouchers. Once you sell the public on the idea of school choice, it is increasingly difficult to say that parents may choose a corporate charter chain but can’t choose a religious school. Once you erode the principle of public education as a public good, open to all, responsible for all who enroll, you turn citizens into consumers. Whether they choose a charter or a voucher, their choice diverts public money away from public schools. Jeb Bush argued in his 2012 speech at the Republican National Convention that parents should be able to choose their child’s school the same way they choose a carton of milk at the supermarket: whole milk? 2%? 1? Fat-free? Chocolate? Buttermilk? That is actually a ridiculous argument, because a parent doesn’t reach into a case and select a school. Choices are constrained by geography and transportation. A parent may choose the best private school in town, but the school is unlikely to accept voucher students, and the state voucher won’t cover the tuition. A voucher will in fact cover the tuition only for a religious school that is unlikely to have certified teachers or any of the educational riches of the school that costs $50,000 a year.

 

Charters are no better than vouchers. They are part of the same universe of “school choice” that Trump and DeVos are selling. In DeVos’s Michigan, 80% of the charters operate for profit. Detroit is awash in charters, yet Detroit is the lowest-performing urban district on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. State legislation may call them “public,” but there is nothing “public” about charter schools except their funding. They have private boards; many are allowed to hire substantial numbers of uncertified teachers. If their goal is high test scores, they select their students carefully to reach their goal.

 

Burris writes:

 

During the past 60 years, public education has been the frog in the pot of water, as school privatizers and “education reformers” have slowly turned up the heat. Over 1 million students receive a taxpayer-funded voucher to attend a private school, and close to 3 million attend charters schools. Whether the adjective “public” is in front of the word “charter” or not, charters are at the forefront of school privatization.

 

Opening a charter is akin to opening your own business — but the cost and risk are fully funded by the taxpayers. In most states, taxpayer dollars provide the initial “investment.” This is an odd business model in which the corporation gets income for every customer who walks through the door, regardless of the individual ability to pay. And if the business fails, “owners” are not out a dime, but the customers, who are in this case children, are stranded.

 

It is remarkable that the American public has allowed such risk-free, taxpayer-funded entrepreneurship to occur.

 

If you think that publicly funded, largely unregulated businesses would be ripe for shady deals, oversized compensation and outright fraud, you would be right.

 

In September of 2016, the Inspector General’s Office of the U.S. Education Department issued its final audit report titled a “Nationwide Assessment of Charter and Education Management Organizations.” The report assessed “the current and emerging risk” that is posed by charter management organizations for fraud, waste and abuse.

 

The audited period was less than two years — between late 2011 and the early months of 2013. Thirty-three charters in six states were selected for review. Of the 33, the department found that 22 lacked the necessary internal controls, resulting in a significant risk to Education Department funds. The report also made it clear that the Education Department itself is not doing enough to protect taxpayers from charter management fraud. (The present secretary, John King, led one of the top five charter chains, Uncommon Schools.)

 

Burris cites a small sample of the many charter school frauds and scandals that have emerged in recent years. Misappropriation of funds is not surprising in a sector that receives public funding with little or no supervision or oversight.

 

She writes:

 

What will the future hold under DeVos, who believes that “the more of a ‘marketplace’ we have for education, the more, I think, the better”?
Will we have more charter schools with entanglements with foreign governments? Will we have taxpayer-funded charter schools run by white supremacists? Will vouchers go to schools run by jihadists? Will fraud and abuse escalate? These are serious questions to ponder when the marketplace is the only regulator of school choice.

 

Donald Trump claims our public schools run by locally elected boards of education are “government schools” that fit better with the old Soviet Union. I wonder whether he has thought through his alternative. Freewheeling, government-funded schools, unaccountable to the taxpayers, sound awfully more dangerous to me.

 

 

Jeff Bryant of the Education Opportunity Network investigates Betsy DeVos’s connections to Hillsdale College, a rare outlier that refuses to accept any federal funding, even student aid. Behind this nexus he finds a deep ideological commitment to evangelical schools, of which DeVos is part. Trump was never known as an evangelical before the election, but Mike Pence is an evangelical. He very likely picked DeVos.

 

http://educationopportunitynetwork.org/what-the-hillsdale-college-connection-reveals-about-donald-trumps-extremist-education-agenda/

 

“After his election, experienced education journalists at Education Week predicted Trump would embrace conservative Beltway think tanks and state education policy leaders who had bristled under the rule of Obama’s education department, and he would reject the influence of teachers unions, civil rights groups, and politically centrist education “reform” groups.

 

“Many who pointed out “personnel is policy,” speculated Trump would pick an Education Secretary from the ranks of his transition advisers who came mostly from the above mentioned DC-based circles and state government centers. Other knowledgeable sources predicted Trump might draw education policy knowhow from “outsider” sources, such as the military, big business, or the charter school industry.

 

“No one – not a single source I can find – anticipated Trump would look for education expertise in the deep, dark well he repeatedly seems to draw from – the extremist, rightwing evangelical community.

 

“The first clue that Trump would embed the extremist views of radical Christian orthodoxy in the White House’s education policy apparatus was his nomination of Betsy DeVos to be the nation’s next Secretary of Education.

 

As Politico reports, DeVos is a “billionaire philanthropist” who “once compared her work in education reform to a biblical battleground where she wants to ‘advance God’s Kingdom.’”

 

“Politico reporters point to numerous recordings and interviews in which Betsy DeVos and her husband Dick, a billionaire heir to the Amway fortune, promote education policies as avenues to “greater Kingdom gain … lament that public schools have ‘displaced’ the Church as the center of communities, and refer to their efforts to advance private, religious schools as a “‘Shephelah,’ an area where battles – including between David and Goliath – were fought in the Old Testament.”

 

Bryant adds:

 

“Those who know DeVos say her goals are not sinister,” Politico reporters caution, “though they acknowledge the policies she’s likely to advance would benefit Christian schools. In fact, Trump’s $20 billion school choice program that would allow low-income students to select private or charter schools was devised with the help of the advocacy group DeVos headed until recently.”

 

“Despite the strong evidence Trump’s education agenda may be driven by rightwing evangelicals, advocates for charter schools in the Democratic Party keep looking for reasons to believe Betsy DeVos is not going to be the extremist she is often being portrayed as in media reports.

 

“On hearing the news of the DeVos nomination, the politically centrist hedge fund-backed Democrats for Education Reform released a statement congratulating DeVos on her appointment and applauding her “commitment to growing the number of high-quality public charter schools,” while at the same time regretting that her nomination is the outcome of a political campaign driven by “bigoted and offensive rhetoric.” (Never mind the charter schools DeVos helped grow in Michigan seem less than “high quality.”)

 

“Another centrist Democrat deeply embedded in the investment community, Andrew Rotherham of Bellwether Partners, hopes a Trump administration will offer up a plan for charter school expansion that includes “sweeteners for the Congressional Black Caucus” – a condescending and white privilege phrase if there ever was one.

 

“Emma Brown, the education reporter for the Washington Post, notes many advocates for charter schools “worry” Trump’s embrace of charter schools may be identified with his “rhetoric about immigrants, inner cities, and women,” but still hope some kind of “strong accountability” will be in the new administration’s charter school governance, even though those accountability measures have proven to be easily gamed by the savviest charter operators.

 

“Playing the politics of niceness has never been so convenient for the Dems of education reform,” writes college professor and former charter school leader-turned reform critic Andre Perry. “DeVos’s belief in limited state oversight, for-profit charter management, and vouchers didn’t give Democrat proponents of charter schools any pause in the past. And for many it doesn’t now.”

 

“If Perry is correct, that’s a shame, because anyone who strives for a clear-eyed view of the Trump administration’s oncoming education agenda will find there is no evidence – zero – of anything other than the most extreme policy agenda for the nation’s public schools.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Peter Greene listened to Betsy DeVos speak about how terrible public schools are, and he goes through each of her inconvenient truths.

 

Two observations:

 

1. She should have described her talk as “inconvenient opinions” since none of what she says is true.

 

2. With all her carping about the public schools, she sounds eerily like Arne a Duncan. He is taller than her.

 

She pines Ned for the days when American students were #1 on international tests but as I explained many times, here and in a chapter in “Reign of Error.” We were never number 1 on the international tests. When they started in 1964, we were last. But in the more than half century since then, we have surpassed all the nations with higher scores by every dimension.

 

On the other hand, there is no evidence whatever for privatizing our schools.

Ellen Lubic, faithful reader, education activist in Los Angeles, and professor of public policy, urges fellow activists to reach out to Republican senators in trying to block Betsy DeVos’ nomination to be Secretary of Education. In every state, the overwhelming majority of students attend public schools. If one or both of your senators is a Republican, please call them, visit their district offices, ask your friends to reach out as well.

 

Ellen Lubic writes:

 

It is imperative for Democrats to nurture Republicans of good will and conscience to join in the protests against the Trump nominees for his Cabinet.

 
We MUST learn and adopt new lessons from Mitch McConnell how to stall legislation and have a bloodless revolution in DC against the leadership of Trump (who I cannot call Prez T….so it is just plain ‘Trump’) for at least the next four years.

 

This is a new world of Dems bending to create a cohesive coalition with potentially reasonable Repubs like Olympia Snow, Rand Paul, Lindsey Graham, McCain (who has reached across the aisle many times in his long career), and even Lamar Alexander (who is Diane’s old boss and mentor from 1991). These legislators have already expressed their angst at the Trump takeover, and they have great influence with their Congressional colleagues.

 
Write to THESE Repubs about all this.

 

It in NOT time for progressive Dems to draw lines in the sand. In this NOT SO BRAVE new world, those of us with long memories must push for Congressional cooperation to defeat as much of Trump’s horror choices and revisionist Constitutional behaviors as we can.

 
And educators MUST broaden our view from only ed issues, and scream out against all oligarchic edicts that hurt all of our society.

 

Ellen Lubic
elubic@aol.com

The Republican chair of the North Carolina State Board of Education said that the legislature’s act to hand its powers over to the newly elected state superintendent was probably unconstitutional. The state board is deciding whether to sue. Apparently some conservatives were angry because the state board turned down some charter applications. But the state board chair Bill Corey said they were just doing their job and protecting public money.

 

The decision to strip the state board of  most of its powers was a quickie proposal, enacted without deliberations or hearings, as part of the Republicans’ strategy of taking away the powers of the newly elected Democratic governor.

 

“I don’t want to pass judgment on the governor,” said Cobey, a Republican appointee of McCrory. “But it’s still unconstitutional in my opinion.”

 

Cobey is one of at least two Republican appointees on the state’s leading public school board to take issue with the GOP-led House Bill 17, which not only impacts Cooper but wrests powers from the State Board of Education and hands them over to incoming N.C. Superintendent of Public Instruction Mark Johnson.

 

The sweeping legislation was filed and speedily approved with little public vetting in a surprise special session of the legislature last week, called shortly after lawmakers wrapped work on a hurricane relief bill.
– See more at: http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/2016/12/19/governor-signs-controversial-bill-state-board-education-chair-condemns-new-law-unconstitutional/#sthash.lJPP1vlx.q3uT8oyu.dpuf

 

Meanwhile, the new superintendent of the state’s schools, a 33-year-old lawyer who had two years in the classroom as a TFA recruit, said he supported the controversial bill that gave him many of the powers of the state board, including the power to approve new charters and control of the new “achievement school district,” modeled on the one that failed in Tennessee.

 

The state board plans to meet again to review its options.

 

 

This is no surprise: Education Week reports that most bonuses for higher scores were paid to teachers in affluent districts. This could have been predicted in advance. Teachers who teach advantaged kids are superstars because the students are well-fed, live in secure homes, have regular medical check-ups and educated parents. Their schools get higher letter grades. Rewards based on test scores ignore the fact that test scores are highly correlated with family income and education.

 

The Indiana Department of Education has announced how it will divvy up $40 million that state lawmakers set aside in 2015 to reward teachers who are rated effective and highly effective. Those bonuses will disproportionally go to teachers in wealthy districts, a fact that has many in the state up in arms.

 

Carmel Clay Schools, where just 9 percent of their 16,000 students qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, will get the most— $2.4 million or roughly $2,422 per teacher. Another well-off Indianapolis suburban district, Zionsville Community Schools, where fewer than 5 percent of students qualify for the free and reduced-price lunch program, will receive about $2,240 per teacher. Meanwhile, Indianapolis, the state’s largest district will receive just around $330,875, or $128.40 per educator. So teachers in those wealthy suburban districts will get bonuses nearly 20 times larger than effective and highly effective educators in Indianapolis.

 

Indiana State Teachers Association President Teresa Meredith calls it a “flawed” system.

 

“While educators at well-resourced schools performed well and received a much-deserved bonus, the educators teaching in some of the most challenging districts where socioeconomic factors can negatively impact student and school performance, were left out,” she said in a statement. “We need high-quality educators to teach at our most-challenged schools, and this distribution of bonuses certainly won’t compel them to do so.”

 

Legislators may take another look. I hope they look at the history of merit pay. It has never worked, if worked means better education or higher scores. I have a chapter in “Reign of Error” on the history of merit pay.

 

 

In this article, posted on Valerie Strauss’s blog, Lis Guisbond of FairTest interviews New York opt out leader Jeanette Deutermann about the creeping incursion of online assessment into regular classroom use. i remember hearing New York ‘s Commissioner of Education MaryEllen Elia predict the advent of “embedded assessments,” in which students would be continually assessed, as they complete their assignments online. No need for a “test.” The testing would be daily, continual, and invisible.

 

Guisbond writes:

 

 

Long Island parent Jeanette Deutermann is only half-joking when she says she should give a Christmas gift to her son’s school computer this year instead of the teacher. She sees the way computer-based curriculum-plus-testing packages have taken control of her son’s classroom, and she doesn’t like it.

 

Deutermann has been a leader in New York State’s unprecedented opt-out movement. Now she is calling out the latest damaging twist in education reformers’ efforts to fatten the pig by weighing it even more often.

 

Deutermann’s fifth-grade son and his classmates are among those on the edge of this craze, now that their school has adopted a product called i-Ready. She’s alarmed that her son gets daily computer-based math and reading lessons triggered by the results of a computer-based test. He also has thrice yearly (or more) i-Ready exams and even i-Ready-based homework.
She laments a shift away from students learning how to communicate and collaborate with one another on group projects to more and more time in solitary communion with a computer screen…

 

We already know that high-stakes exams narrow and dumb down instruction, depress student engagement, and produce inaccurate indicators of learning. Now we must be vigilant and prepared to push back against these new threats:
The push for frequent online or computer-based testing threatens to reverse recent progress in reducing testing and lower the stakes attached.
*Instead of schools with trained educators who use their professional expertise to personalize learning for students, these programs perpetuate standardized, test-driven teaching and learning, now automated for “efficiency.”
*Frequent online student assessments require teachers to review copious amounts of data instead of teaching, observing and relating to students.
*In truly student-centered learning, children guided by teachers can choose among topics, materials and books based on their interests and passions. But the vision promoted by many education technology vendors and proponents is of students learning material selected by online or computer-based adaptive assessments.
*Companies and government agencies are amassing unprecedented amounts of student data through online learning and testing platforms. There is widespread concern about accessibility of this data to third parties and violations of privacy through data. Parent groups and others advocate legislation to provide transparency and protect data from misuse. In the meantime, security breaches or data sharing are serious risks.
*Frequent online testing creates obstacles to opting out as a way to call attention to and protest testing overkill. A robust national opt-out movement created enormous pressure for change. But a shift to online exams creates new hurdles for parents who want to opt their children out.
*After several decades, researchers have seen little positive impact from educational technology. Meanwhile, researchers warn of a range of negative consequences from overexposure to technology and screen time. These include damage to intellectual, physical and emotional development, threats to privacy, and, ironically, increased standardization.

 

 

Leonie Haimson has gathered the relevant facts about the background of Trump’s choice for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos.

 

DeVos is a billionaire, like several other members of Trump’s choices for top positions. She is an evangelical a Christian. She would like to replace public schools, to the greatest extent possible, with vouchers and charter schools. Her primary focus is privatization of public funding for schools.

 

“DeVos is the daughter of a wealthy auto-parts manufacturer who funded Christian-right causes, and her brother Erik Prince founded the mercenary company Blackwater. She married Dick DeVos, the billionaire heir to the Amway fortune. The two, based in Grand Rapids, Mich., have used their personal wealth to encourage the expansion of charter schools, to prevent any government oversight of their use of public funds or regulation of the quality of education they provide and to aggressively promote the use of vouchers to let taxpayer funds pay for private and parochial schools.

 

She would be the first Secretary of Education who never attended a public school or sent her own children to one. She has never worked as a teacher, served on a school board, or held any position in government.

 

DeVos is an even more radical privatizer than either Arne Duncan or John King, President Barack Obama’s education secretaries. Both Duncan and King favored expanding the charter sector, offering these publicly funded, privately run schools more than $1.5 billion in federal grants between 2010 and 2015. The Department of Education’s Race to the Top program offered states the chance of winning millions more if they let the number of charter schools expand. Many states, including New York, then raised their charter caps.

 

The DeVos family is among the leading donors to the Republican Party. According to an analysis by ­OpenSecrets.org, they have given at least $20.2 million to GOP candidates, party committees, PACs, and super PACs. They also finance far-right groups that promote climate-change denial, oppose marriage equality, and want to cripple labor unions, such as Michigan’s Mackinac Center for Public Policy. Another group they support, the Acton Institute, argues for the abolition of child-labor laws.”

 

DeVos is a radical choice, far outside the mainstream. Like many of Trump’s selection, this one has Pence’s stamp on it. He too is an evangelical Christian, determined to eliminate separation of church and state. Unlike Pence, Trump has never shown any interest in education issues. Watch for Pence as the man pulling the strings, filling key positions with his friends and allies from ALEC.

 

 

Peter Greene here debates a libertarian proponent of school choice–on his blog, not in person.

 

The debate typically begins with the undocumented assertion that public schools are failing. This is a standby of the  school choice crowd. I demolished that particular claim in my last book, “Reign of Error.” The public schools are actually performing (if you mean test scores and graduation rates) better than ever, and in affluent districts, they are doing a great job.

 

Greene uses the shaky claims for choice as an opportunity to knock them down, one by one. No, educators don’t need to be “incentivized” by competition. No, choice does not “empower” parents. It enables schools to choose the students they want and reject the ones they don’t. It’s most certain result is hypersegregation. By Race, religion, and social class. That’s why “school choice” was the rallying cry of southern segregationists in the 1950s and early 1960s.

 

He doesn’t mention the fact that none of the highest performing nations in the world have adopted school choice.