Archives for the month of: March, 2017

Reader Chiara. Has written innumerable comments pointing out that the parents and teachers of public schools have been shut out of policy circles. Why? Nearly 90% of the children in the United States attend public schools, not charter schools, religious schools, or independent schools. Why aren’t their ideas and views considered important?

She writes:

“Echo chamber alert:

http://pahara.org/2017/02/press-release-february-28-2017/

“Aspen Education Fellows. ONE person from a public school. One.

“Ed reform excludes public schools from public education policy. It’s like how the US Department of Education is now the US Department of Private and Charter Schools.

“So how does one respond to this? Develop a new group of people who come out of public schools and just detach from the whole ed reform “movement”? I don’t really accept that the only people consulted on public school policy come out of charter and private schools. I reject that. Is the assumption that they are somehow “better”? Why?

“When we held community meetings on our public schools we didn’t pack the place with people from the private school. Why? Because 99% of our kids go to the public school.”

You will note that all of Betsy DeVos’s stories are about struggling students who were rescued from failing public schools by choosing to go to a charter school, a religious school, a home school, or a virtual charter school. Apparently she has never in her life seen a successful public school.

Her latest story is about a young man from India who attended the usual horrible public school. But his life was turned around because he had the good fortune to attend a virtual charter school in Washington State. DeVos was speaking to the National Association of State Boards of Education.

Mercedes Schneider decided it was time for fact-checking.

Betsy DeVos Pitches Virtual School with 4-Yr Cohort Grad Rate Below 32 Percent

The young man to whom DeVos referred attended a virtual charter with a four-year graduation rate of 19.1%. After five years, the graduation rate was up to 23.6%.

Surely, someone on her staff knew this. Yet she chose to conceal that the young man succeeded in a failing school.

Like Trump, DeVos must be constantly fact-checked. Her stories are misleading and inaccurate and have no point other than to smear public schools.

Sarah Blaine, a lawyer and parent in New Jersey, calls on the legislature to block the use of PARCC as a graduation requirement for students in the state.

As she notes in this article, the New Jersey Assembly voted overwhelmingly to block the State Board of Education from imposing this nutty requirement.

The bill now moves to the State Senate, and she urges senators to vote for the bill.

She writes:

On March 16, the New Jersey Assembly overwhelmingly passed ACR-215, which is a resolution declaring that the state Board of Education’s new regulations requiring students to pass the PARCC Algebra 1 and the 10th grade PARCC English Language Arts tests to graduate from high school are “inconsistent with legislative intent.”

The existing law requires a comprehensive 11th grade test (which these two PARCC tests, neither of which is generally administered in 11th grade, are not). The resolution will not stop New Jersey’s schools from having to offer PARCC each year, but if adopted by the state Senate as well, it is a step toward ensuring that students will not have to pass PARCC to graduate from high school.

With this resolution, the Assembly took the first step in one process by which our New Jersey legislators can check the authority of our governor and his appointees (in this case, the state Board of Education): invalidating regulations that our Legislature determines are “inconsistent with legislative intent.” In English, that means that if the Legislature passes a law, and the executive branch decides to ignore the law and do something different, the Legislature can tell the executive branch: “No, you’re wrong, please go back to the drawing board.” Because this is a check on the executive branch’s authority, the governor’s signature is not required.

As at least 180,000 New Jersey students demonstrated by refusing to take PARCC tests in 2015 and 2016, opposition to PARCC testing is widespread. But leaving the substantive issues surrounding the PARCC test aside, important as they are, ACR-215 and its senate companion resolution, SCR-132, are about governance. That is, in considering these resolutions, the key question our legislators must decide is whether they are willing to allow Gov. Chris Christie and the Christie-appointed Board of Education to openly ignore New Jersey law.

Blaine writes about the issue as an open conflict between the executive and the legislative branches.

But the substantive issues are worth reviewing.

The PARCC test was created by Pearson as a test of the Common Core standards in grades 3-8.

PARCC was never intended to be a graduation test. Most states that signed up to use it as a test of annual student performance in grades 3-8 have dropped it. New Jersey is one of the very few states that still require this test.

No standardized test should be used as a high school graduation test. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve, and they are designed to differentiate from best to worst scores. They are designed to have a certain proportion of students who will fail, no matter how hard they try.

The state of New Jersey should not substitute the SAT or the ACT or any other standardized test for PARCC, because they all suffer the same fatal flaw.

There are many ways to set graduation requirements and make them rigorous for some, but reasonable for all. It is not reasonable to establish a high bar that some students will clear, but most will not, or that a substantial minority will not. There must be a reasonable path towards winning a diploma, especially for students with cognitive disabilities, and students who for other reasons will never ever pass the PARCC.

It is a basic rule of psychometrics (the study of testing) that tests should be used only for the purpose for which they were designed.

The legislature should force the governor and the state board to drop PARCC as a graduation requirement and give thought to reasonable standards that match the diverse needs of the state’s students.

If the state keeps

My mistake: the debate was last night, not tonight.

Julian Vasquez Heilig will debate Christopher Stewart tonight. It will be live-streamed.

The proposition is: “Charters and Vouchers are the Answer.”

I will be rooting for Julian, who knows the research and knows that privatization has never produced better education for the neediest kids.

Julian is a member of the board of the Network for Public Education.

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Senate Bill 3 Testimony

Good afternoon, Senators.

My name is Sara Stevenson, and I’ve been a librarian at O. Henry Middle School in Austin for 14 years. Previously, I taught English at St. Michael’s Catholic Academy for ten years, so I have a great respect for Catholic education.

I also write opinion pieces for The Austin American-Statesman, The Houston Chronicle, and The Texas Tribune. I have written against private school vouchers many times. Let’s be clear, ESAs are the same as vouchers.

What disturbs me most about Senate Bill 3 is its lack of accountability. With public money comes public accountability. As the bill is written, any private school or home school which accepts scholarship money does NOT have to administer state-mandated tests as do public schools and charter schools. These private schools DO NOT have to follow IDEA (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), and they DO NOT have to change or open their admission policies. Furthermore, the amount of the scholarship is not enough to cover tuition at most private schools, especially when transportation, textbooks, and other materials are included.

This bill is NOT a path for uplifting children in poverty but a thinly veiled tax break for parents who already or were already going to send their children to private or home schools.

Secondly, we must consider the research. According to a Brookings Institute Report by Mark Dynarski in May 2016, studies concluded that both Louisiana and Indiana students who received private school vouchers scored LOWER on READING AND MATH tests compared to similar students who remained in public schools. As Mr. Dynarski wrote:

“In education as in medicine, ‘first, do no harm’ is a powerful guiding principle. A case to use taxpayer funds to send children of low-income parents to private schools is based on an expectation that the outcome will be positive. These recent findings point in the other direction. More needs to be known about long-term outcomes from these recently implemented voucher programs to make the case that they are a good investment of public funds.”

Let’s look at some longer-term studies. In 1989, Milwaukee began its Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. That’s over 25 years ago. According to a Public Policy Report, in the years 2012 – 2014, students in Milwaukee public schools were more proficient than their private school choice counterparts in statewide reading and math tests at every grade level (3 – 10).

Even the DC Opportunity Scholarship program, according to a recent NCEE report, shows no benefits in math, after three years, between students who applied and were selected for a voucher and those who applied but were not and instead continued at public schools.

But the bottom line is that Senate Bill 3 DOES DO GREAT HARM to our already woefully underfunded public schools. The money going to the voucher students is money taken from public school coffers, which will cause greater hardship to the over 5 million Texas schoolchildren who currently attend Texas public schools. We already have so many choices in public education. Senate Bill 3 is not about choice.

Senate Bill 3 is not only unnecessary. It is ineffective and even harmful.

Vouchers, also known as education savings accounts and tax credits, failed in the lower house of the state legislature in Arkansas.

The legislator who sponsored the bill hails from Bentonville, the home of the Walton Family (Walmart) corporation.

Given the accumulation of research showing the failure of vouchers in Milwaukee, Cleveland, D.C., Louisiana, Indiana, and Ohio, you have to wonder why Tea Party Republicans are still pushing the same phony claims.

House Bill 1222 by Rep. Jim Dotson, R-Bentonville, received 37 votes in support and 47 votes against in the House. The bill would create a four-year pilot program allowing the establishment of “education savings accounts” that parents could use for certain expenses related to a child’s education, including tuition, fees, textbooks, tutoring services and contracted services with a public school district.

Under the measure, people and companies could donate to nonprofit organizations and, starting in the program’s second year, receive a 65 percent tax credit. The total tax credits provided in the second, third and fourth years of the program could not exceed $3 million per year.

The donations could fund accounts for up to 694 students. Each year, an account would be worth an amount equal to the state’s per-student spending on public education, which for this school year is $6,646.

Families could apply for the accounts regardless of whether they make donations.

Opponents of the bill knew that it was a voucher bill, that the limits were only an opening bid, and that the vouchers would do grievous damage to their community’s public schools.

Legislators who spoke against the bill raised concerns about accountability, fairness, the impact on public schools and implications for the future.

“Right now there is this train going down the track, and while it’s going at a slow pace, it stands to pick up pace and we stand to sooner or later become a voucher community, with those vouchers destroying public schools while the public schools decay and are not being improved,” said Rep. John Walker, D-Little Rock.

The camel put its nose under the tent, and the majority of legislators kicked the whole darn critter out of there.

Way to go, Arkansas!

Jennifer Rubin was hired by the Washington Post to represent a conservative viewpoint in its editorial column.

However, she is appalled by Trump’s tweets and lies.

She describes here how Comey humiliated Trump at the House hearing yesterday.

He can’t lie his way out of the mess he has created, she says, nor create a big enough distraction to change the subject.

If you are anywhere near Austin, join me for a discussion about schools, school reform, and children on March 29 at 6:30 pm at the Austin Marriott. The event is sponsored by Friends of Texas Public Schools.

http://fotps.org/events/dinner-diane-ravitch/

Buzzfeed reports that an internal quarrel has broken out between the news room and the opinion pages of the New York Times about an article featured on the editorial opinion page by journalist Louise Mensch. (I posted Mensch’s article).

A civil war between news and opinion has broken out at the New York Times.

In a Times op-ed posted online Friday, Louise Mensch, a writer and former member of the UK Parliament, gives her suggestion for what questions the House Intelligence Committee should ask as it holds hearings on Russia’s influence in the US election. Mensch offers Times readers reason to trust her expertise: “In November, I broke the story that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court had issued a warrant that enabled the F.B.I. to examine communications between ‘U.S. persons’ in the Trump campaign relating to Russia-linked banks,” she writes.

On Twitter, Times reporters lashed out.

“Please note that the NYT newsroom disagrees,” national security reporter Charlie Savage tweeted. Savage highlighted from his report this month knocking down the FISA claim: “To date, reporters for The New York Times with demonstrated sources in that world have been unable to corroborate that the court issued any such order.”

The core of the dispute is whether the FISA court granted a warrant, which the Times and Washington Post have not reported, though the BBC and McClatchy have. The Guardian reported about a June FISA request but stopped short at confirming the supposed October one was granted.

If the Congressional hearings are thorough, we should learn the answer to the issue in dispute. Chalk another round of the Trump Chaos Presidency.

This is a useful and informative summary of the highlights of today’s hearings, where intelligence officials confirmed that they are investigating possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. They also said they knew of no evidence that Trump Tower was wiretapped.

The most amusing part of the summary is the compilation of tweets by Trump. He thinks the day’s exchanges cleared him of any culpability for anything. The funniest tweet is the last one cited, where he questions whether there is an investigation of collusion between the Clinton campaign and the Russian government.

Bottom line: don’t hold your breath waiting for a Trump-Spicer apology to President Obama or to the British government, which Spicer and Trump accused of spying on behalf of the Obama administration.

Paul Krugman sums it up: we are in an era of Trumpian infallibility. The president is never wrong and never apologizes. Strangest of all is that he gets his information not from the nation’s intelligence agencies (which he doesn’t trust) but from rightwing wackos like Alex Jones of InfoWars and “Judge” Napolitano of Fox News.