Archives for the month of: May, 2017
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Politico Education: More States Picking Up College Costs

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2017 //
18

Politico Morning Education reports that the movement to make community college tuition-freeis spreading.

http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/morning-education/2017/05/19/states-picking-up-fight-for-free-college-220405

“STATES PICKING UP FIGHT FOR FREE COLLEGE: The push for free college didn’t die when Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election in November. Rather, the movement championed by Democrats last year has maintained momentum in what has been a big year for free college advocates. At least five states, including some red ones, have adopted or expanded programs to cover tuition for students, and more could still win approval. “It was a huge year for the movement,” said Martha Kanter, a former Education undersecretary under Barack Obama who is now executive director of the College Promise Campaign, which helps build and expand tuition-free programs.

“- Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam is expected to sign a bill soon expanding the state’s well-known free college program to older adults. The program is currently available only to students who just graduated from high school. Lawmakers in New York last month approved a plan to provide free public college for students from families making $125,000 a year or less. The Hawaii legislature provided funding for free community college, as well, and Arkansas and Indiana approved programs to waive tuition for students pursuing degrees in desirable fields such as those in science, technology, engineering and math (so-called STEM fields). A grant program to cover tuition for some college students won approval in Montana, though lawmakers have yet to allocate funding for it. Rhode Island could be next. Lawmakers there are considering a statewide free college proposal.”

This will help many students achieve at least two years of college without being burdened by heavy debt

Categories Funding, Higher Education

Bill Phillis: Betsy DeVos is Clueless about the Common Good

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2017 //
34

Bill Phillis read Betsy DeVos’s prepared remarks at the Brookings Institution and it occurred to him that she literally doesn’t know what she is talking about. Bill is a retired deputy superintendent of schools for the state of Ohio and he works tirelessly to protect public schools against Governor Kasich and the Ohio legislature’s love of privatization.

Betsy DeVos, speaking at the Brookings Institution, said that we must think about funding individual children, not institutions or buildings in order to serve the greater public good. That logic would suggest that each citizen should be provided a tax voucher to purchase personal security while police departments and other safety forces are being dismantled. Why not abandon the Brookings Institution and provide some kind of voucher to allow Brookings employees to be paid to freelance their services?

DeVos’ answer to every question is “more choice” outside the real public system at taxpayer’s expense. Her view of public common good seems jaded by her anti-public school craze for choice. It appears she does not understand that each state has a constitutional provision requiring public education as an institution. It is through the institution of the public common school that the public common good is nurtured.

People organize states and nations for the common good. Tax funds are collected for public goods and services, e.g. roads, public safety, national security, education, etc. The public funds do not belong to individual citizens as an incentive to select private choices. Public institutions provide for current and future citizens. Individual choices relate to the here and now-not to future long-term benefits to society.

Government must not be the servant of special interests. The very idea of a commonwealth-the people collectively-is antithetical to the use of public funds for private purposes.

Even non-government groups, such as parent-teacher organizations, come together to promote common purposes. Local PTAs or PTOs raise funds for agreed upon projects. They don’t assign the funds to individual members for each to promote a project of their choice.

There are those who believe that a few unelected leaders should determine what constitutes the public good for all other citizens. Possibly, that philosophy is embraced by DeVos.

DeVos and those of her ilk are absolutely wrong that school choice promotes the public common good. It is time for all citizens to become engaged in ensuring public resources are used exclusively for the common good.

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org

Categories Betsy DeVos, Democracy, School Choice

John Thompson: Demoralization in the Schools of Oklahoma and the Nation

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2017 //
29

John Thompson, historian and teacher, submitted this article:

The Oklahoma City Public Schools is being clobbered by state budget cuts that could approach $50 million over two years. Anyone who doubts that money matters should take note of the collapse in morale as exhausted educators flee even faster from the school system and, often, the profession.

I remain a loyal supporter of President Obama, but we can’t forget that when his administration gave the OKCPS around $50 million, most of it had punitive strings attached. The regulations that accompanied Obama’s School Improvement Grants (SIG) made it virtually inevitable that its $5 million per school grants, and the energies of educators, would mostly be wasted. The predictable result was an increase in teacher turnover, educators who are even more inexperienced and beaten down, and legislators who are even less likely to fund urban schools.

I understand why President Obama felt obligated to promote teacher-bashing policies as a part of a “carrot and stick” approach to school improvement. It hurts to ask but, gosh, what if we could have spent the additional $50 million in ways that made sense?

Oklahoma City’s SIG efforts failed, but they did so across the nation. Even the corporate reform true believer Matt Barnum acknowledges, “Past research on federal turnaround programs have shown positive effects in California and Massachusetts, mixed or no effects in North Carolina, Tennessee and Michigan, and negative results in Texas.” But, he grasps at straws citing the 3rd year of California SIG, which seems to be an exception because its “gains in student learning likely stemmed from improvements in the professional opportunities for teachers.” Barnum then claims, illogically, that a study of the Ohio SIG gives evidence that the federal program “produced notable gains.”

http://www.educationviews.org/betsy-devos-called-obamas-school-turnaround-program-failure-research-shows-worked-in-places/

https://www.brookings.edu/research/continued-support-for-improving-the-lowest-performing-schools/

Actually, the authors, Deven Carlson, Stéphane Lavertu, Jill Lindsey, and Sunny L. Munn conclude:

Overall, the study provides convincing evidence that interventions such as the SIG turnaround
models have the potential to improve school quality very quickly, which is consistent with the
theory underlying school turnaround reforms as well as research in other contexts. We also find,
however, that initial positive impacts dissipated after the first 2-3 years of implementation.

Click to access EvaluatingtheOhioImprovementProcess_Final_4.11.17.pdf

Curiously, student achievement gains occurred during the chaotic years of the school turnarounds and transformations, but not afterwards. How could that be possible?

When announcing the SIG experiment, President Obama’s Secretary of Education Arne Duncan claimed that The Turnaround Challenge was his “bible.” But, that study and a large body of social science and cognitive science explained that “aligning curricula to higher standards, improving instruction, using data effectively, [and] providing targeted extra help to students … is not enough to meet the challenges that educators – and students – face in high-poverty schools.” But, that shortcut was encourageded by SIG regulations.

Click to access TheTurnaroundChallenge_SupplementalReport.pdf

Got Dough? How Billionaires Rule Our Schools

http://www.livingindialogue.com/real-crisis-in-education-reformers-refuse-to-learn/

Carlson et. al also conducted qualitative research which yielded three “Three key takeaways” from the state’s SIG effort, Ohio Improvement Process (OIP):

Additional funding for improvement personnel was the largest contributor to successes. OIP was hindered by culture challenges, most notably being a perception of compliance being more important than student improvement and stakeholder fatigue from too much change. Lastly, schools that experienced high levels of principal turnover or low principal effectiveness saw more challenges implementing OIP. Even in a school with strong principal leadership and relatively high fidelity of OIP implementation, student academic performance has not improved on state tests.

A generation of well-funded, output-driven school reforms has shown that old-fashioned, input-driven efforts like hiring counselors and mentors can increase graduation rates, and teacher supports are more likely to raise math scores, especially for younger students. But as was reported in the qualitative portion of the new SIG study, the key issue is whether low-skilled students can be taught to read for comprehension, and accountability-driven reform has failed at that task. We have long known that students must “learn to read,” in order to then “read to learn.” Test-driven reform has often demonstrated a capacity to raise test scores by teaching kids to decode, but it has been an utter failure in improving the reading skills necessary for meaningful learning.

Sure enough, an Ohio SIG leader explained:

We are working extremely hard trying a number of different things. We have … (a) phenomenal curriculum and instruction department; we have a scope and sequence, teachers receive a pacing guide; we offer extensive PD, we buy new resources – students are really resource rich. But (we’re) not really able to answer the question of why no growth, except that that we just haven’t hit the mark in how to help students who are not reading on grade level.”

In other words, the driving force of the SIG was a rebranding of the simplistic, and doomed, instruction-driven, curriculum-driven shortcut for improving the highest-challenge schools. As one leader explained, “The Ohio Improvement Process is teaching and learning. That’s the bottom line.”

But what were they teaching? First, they focused on math and reading test scores. More fundamentally, as one district leader explained the goal, “We decided on using that as a formative assessment to guide our work throughout the district, throughout the school year to better prepare our students to take the summative assessment, for them to be successful in the summative assessment.”

What teacher wouldn’t be thrilled to learn that they are no longer required to teach-to-the-test? To teach in high-pressure SIG schools, they must only teach to high-stakes summative assessments!

Not surprisingly, Carlson et. al learned that, “There is lots of push back from staff on testing because kids are tested a lot here.” Given the long history of the latest, half-baked “silver bullets” being repeatedly imposed on schools, it wouldn’t be surprising to hear, “During the first two years of OIP implementation, teachers felt the focus was on compliance.” The rushed turnarounds and transformations, especially in the first 2/3rds of the program, resulted in teachers “in the compliance mode going through the motions.”

But here’s the kicker. The seeds of so-called student performance gains were nurtured during this time of the “perception of compliance being more important that student improvement.” And there are only two explanations for that counter-intuitive pattern. Perhaps, more money works. Or perhaps the culture of compliance “works.” Under-the-gun educators will find a way to jack up test metrics even when they are meaningless.

To really improve high-challenge schools, we must first lay a foundation of student supports. Teacher supports using aligned and paced instruction can’t work until aligned and coordinated socio-emotional supports are in place. School improvement requires administrators to break out of their cultures of compliance and invest in the team effort to create trusting and loving school cultures.

As in Ohio, the SIG was driven by “a lack of understanding on the state’s part regarding what actually happens during the course of a day in some schools. … It’s like triage all day. Teachers are spent at the end of the day or they can’t really take the time to focus on this OIP because you know ‘Johnny’s mom got shot yesterday, they witnessed the murder,’ or …”

It’s not enough to do what one district did and purchase “fidget boxes” and “wiggle seats” to settle down students who are acting out their distress. As Johns Hopkins’ research shows, a system must establish Early Warning Systems to address chronic absenteeism before it spins out of control, and train and organize a “second team” of caring adults to make home visits and provide remediation.

Click to access NYC-Chronic-Absenteeism-Impact-Report.pdf

In theory, schools could have used SIG to invest in wraparound services so that its teacher supports could then produce better instruction, but I expect that Ohio’s (and Oklahoma City’s) experiences were typical. There are only so many hours in a day, and so many days in a three-year grant. When SIG demanded “transformative” gains in bubble-in scores in such a short time, systems did what they do best. They complied, hoping that “this too will pass.”

In my experience, teachers have been more successful in finding new careers than finding ways to teach for mastery in SIG-driven, test-driven schools. Fortunately, SIG is dead. Unfortunately, mandates for its failed approach to instruction are not. But, this post-reform hangover shouldn’t persist much longer than the so-called student performance gains that were produced by its turnarounds and transformations.

I just hope that the demand that educators give up a pound of flesh before legislators will adequately fund our schools might also fade away.

Categories Budget Cuts, Duncan, Arne, Education Reform, Funding, Obama, Ohio, Oklahoma, Race to the Top

Anthony Cody: Activists Fight Corporate Media with Short Videos and Powerful Message

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2017 //
13

Anthony Cody, co-founder of the Network for Public Education and retired teacher, describes the day nearly three weeks ago when education activists from across the nation met in a grimy warehouse in Brooklyn to tape videos about the fight for better schools and against privatization.

I posted a request on the blog inviting people to join the audience. Several readers asked if the day would be live-streamed. The documentarian Michael Elliott told me it was a filming, not an event, so live-streaming was impossible. Some speakers did retakes. There were long pauses while the cameras were readjusted. No, it was not right for live-streaming. The end result will be a number of short videos, featuring some terrific speakers.

By the way, the audience was full of teachers, BATs, parents, and other educators. They were very patient and very enthusiastic.

The filming was a project of the Network for Public Education. It is part of our ongoing efforts to inform the public about the fight against privatization and the importance of improving our public schools.

Categories Network for Public Education, Resistance, Supporting public schools

Republican Health Insurance Bill Threatens Billions in Special Education Funding

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2017 //
13

The legislation passed by the House of Representatives aims to cut Medicaid by $880 billion over ten years, and a relatively small but significant chunk of that money pays for special education services in schools.

The new law would cut Medicaid by $880 billion, or 25 percent, over 10 years and impose a “per-capita cap” on funding for certain groups of people, such as children and the elderly — a dramatic change that would convert Medicaid from an entitlement designed to cover any costs incurred to a more limited program.

AASA, an advocacy association for school superintendents, estimates that school districts receive about $4 billion in Medicaid reimbursements annually. In a January survey of nearly 1,000 district officials in 42 states, nearly 70 percent of districts reported that they used the money to pay the salaries of health care professionals who serve special education students.

Republicans say federal health programs must be restructured to curb their soaring costs — the biggest driver of projected budget deficits — and force a smarter allocation of limited resources.

But in a letter sent to top lawmakers this week, a coalition of school educators and advocacy organizations said such efforts would force states to “ration health care for children.”

The advocates argued that under the House bill, the federal government would transfer the burden of health care to states, which would result in higher taxes, eligibility cuts or curtailed services for children. And they said that schools would have to compete for funding with other entities, like hospitals and clinics, that serve Medicaid-eligible children.

The ability of school systems to provide services mandated under the federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act would be strained. The law is supposed to ensure that students with disabilities receive high-quality educational services, but it has historically been underfunded.

“School-based Medicaid programs serve as a lifeline to children who can’t access critical health care and health services outside of their school,” said the letter sent this week by the Save Medicaid in Schools Coalition, which consists of more than 50 organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, and the School Superintendents Association.

It is time for all concerned about children with special needs to contact their Senators and make sure that this cut to the most vulnerable children is eliminated. When Congress mandated that school districts include children with disabilities, it promised to pay 40% of the costs. It has never come close to fulfilling that promise. This cruel cut by the House of Representatives would shift even more of the burden for a Congressional mandate to the schools.

Categories Funding, Special Education

South Carolina: A Principal Resigns Rather than Lie to His Staff and Families

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2017 //
33

This story appeared on the blog of Patrick Hayes’ EdFirstSC.

In Charleston, South Carolina, Principal Jake Rambo was ordered to evaluate his teachers based solely on the test scores of their students. Not multiple measures. Standardized tests.

He refused.

He was told that he was being transferred to another school because of his school’s test scores.

He said he didn’t want to leave his school.

He was told to tell the school community that he requested a transfer.

He said he wouldn’t lie.

He resigned rather than lie.

Dear Ms. Darby and CCSD Board of Trustees, Ms. Belk and District 2 Constituent Board,

It is with a heavy heart and out of a sense of moral obligation that I write to share with you my concerns about our District, its students, the James B. Edwards community, and specifically the events that have occurred over the last month. Alongside my wife, I have prayed about the decision to compose this letter and have acknowledged my fear continuing to work in a district that seems to often misrepresent the truth and punish those who question anything about its direction. It is my hope that you are truly unaware of what’s occurring in CCSD.

On the evening of April 24, I received a call from the Executive Director of the Elementary Learning Community, informing me that although I would receive a “Principal” contract for 2017-18, it would not be at JBE. I was shocked, as my tenure as principal of the school began less than two short years prior.

Not one time throughout this school year has any CCSD administrator, including the Superintendent, the Associate Superintendent of Schools, the Executive Director of the Elementary Learning Community, or the Director of the Elementary Learning Community visited our building. Neither had any leader shared with me a single concern about my performance, the performance of our teachers, or the performance of our students. Not one time, if it existed, were any community concerns conveyed to me, and not one time was even the “threat” of a potential move shared with me privately, publicly and/or in a group setting.

I was devastated, as I love our community, its parents and most importantly, its students. While we have lots left to accomplish, during my 1 ½ years at the school, we have increased student enrollment, put community programs in place to close the opportunity gap, increased physical activity opportunities, and improved parent, teacher, and student satisfaction.

The following morning, April 25, I met with the Executive Director of the Elementary Learning Community. The first thing he did was take a torn half-sheet of paper on which several rows of numbers were scribbled, handed me the paper and said, “Pick which scores are yours.” After asking for further
clarification about his request, I identified JBE students’ winter MAP scores. He then said, “That’s why you’re being moved.”

Perplexed again, I remained silent. My study of the NWEA website suggests that the intent of MAP is not to penalize students, teachers and/or principals. Instead, its purpose is to be used as a formative tool to help teachers know in what areas they need to focus their instruction throughout the following semester to grow students.

I sat silent, much as I had less than a month earlier on March 29, after being told in a principal allocation meeting that I should use testing data to place educators on improvement plans. I later spoke honestly to the teachers at JBE about my hesitation to do this and indicated that I would never use
student test scores in isolation to place teachers on improvement plans. Make no mistake: teachers and principals welcome accountability, but they want it to be fair, consistent, and student-centered.

After my meeting with the Executive Director on the morning of April 25, I met with the Superintendent later that day, per my request, after which I was more stunned than ever before. She indicated that the school’s data supported I did not have experience working in a “low income” school and said, “You are a young guy. You’ve not had experience working under a strong principal leader, have you?” Raised to respect authority, I did not respond that the principal underneath whom I worked for several years and who mentored me is currently appointed by the Superintendent herself as the Interim Director of Administrator Hiring and Leadership Development for CCSD.

I shared with the Superintendent that no one had visited our school or shared with me any performance concerns throughout the school year and that I was baffled why all of this was occurring. She indicated that because I received a principal contract and wasn’t being “demoted,” this wasn’t an issue. I remained silent. I was shocked to hear that such could actually happen in a school system where due process, best practice, and mentorship should exist for all teachers and administrators.

I changed the subject and shared with the Superintendent that I believed my work at JBE to be unfinished. As a result, I indicated that my community would likely be upset when it learned of this decision.

She then responded, “Your future in CCSD depends on how you handle this situation.” I sat silent.

She continued, “You could either play the victim, or you could tell your community it was your decision to leave JBE and that you’ve been ‘called’ to lead a school with students who need you more.”

Stunned it would be suggested I misrepresent “my” intentions to a community I love because of what appeared to be student test scores, my speaking out against a plan to put teachers on improvement plans, and my inexperience as a leader-I quickly explained that while I would “always respect my employer, I would not lie.”

She then said, “This is your truth to tell.”

On Thursday, April 27, I met with the Associate Superintendent of Schools. She confirmed the reasons I was being moved as student test data and a lack of diverse experience. During this meeting, she discussed the timeline with me for sharing this information with the JBE community. She approved the letter I had written to send to parents with the exception of a few sentences that identified the reasons for my move as student test scores and level of experiences. She requested that I remove those lines as “people don’t need that much information.”

I complied with her request and removed the information.

It was at this time that I made the one special request I’ve made throughout this process to the Associate Superintendent of Schools, to allow my 7 year old son to transfer from JBE and be placed at Sullivan’s Island Elementary School for 17-18. I explained that his remaining at JBE would be too hard
emotionally on him and our family as the school community and its teachers are very special to us all. This would also relieve a hardship on my wife and me in regards to transportation, as my sister is a teacher at the school.

The Associate Superintendent of Schools quickly and confidently approved this request, indicating it “would be no problem at all.” Afterwards, I spoke to the SIES principal and arranged the transfer.

I then notified my community of the transfer. When parents began sharing concerns with the Board of Trustees and district office, I received a call from the Associate Superintendent of Schools, indicating my 7 year old son would no longer be approved for a transfer and able to attend SIES. Instead, she indicated, “He’s been placed on the waiting list.”

Since then, parents and community members have been told by the Superintendent and Board members that it is because “of an outstanding skill set” that I’m being moved and that it has nothing to do with the aforementioned reasons. They even told a select group of parents in a closed-door meeting
that my transfer was unequivocally not about test scores.

If this decision was indeed based on an “outstanding skill set,” which would benefit students at another school, why could it not benefit the students at JBE, the most diverse elementary school in Mt. Pleasant? Who is advocating for all of these children in our community?

When the Associate Superintendent of Schools visited JBE for the first time this year, Friday, May 5, to meet with the faculty without me present, she, once again, informed staff that this decision was not about test scores. After the meeting, she said to me, “The Superintendent is NOT happy with this.”

Meanwhile, all of our students sit silent and wait. They wait for us to value them over test scores. They wait for us to value things like learning through play and physical activity. They wait for us to value real-world experiences over test preparation. They wait for us to empower their teachers to be creative and engage them in meaningful learning. Most of all, they wait for us to value doing what is right.

After nearly 10 years in CCSD, it is apparent that I now have a fundamental, philosophical difference with its leadership. Therefore, please accept this as my official letter of resignation, effective June 30, 2017.

Sincerely,
Jake Rambo
Principal
James B. Edwards Elementary School

I now place the name of Jake Rambo on the blog’s honor roll for his principled resistance to unconscionable policies that harm teachers and students.

Categories Honor Roll, Principals, South Carolina, Standardized Testing, Teacher Evaluations, VAM

Cloaking Inequity: What NAEP Reveals About Charter Schools Vs. Public schools

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2017 //
40

Julian Vasquez Heilig, a scholar at California State University in Sacramento, reports on a research project comparing the performance of charter schools to public schools, using state scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is administered by the U.S. Department of Education and governed by a nonpartisan board appointed by the Secretary of Education. Since members serve for four-year terms, most were appointed by Arne Duncan or John King.

Heilig, with the assistance of Blake zclark, Jr., reviewed NAEP data and reached the following conclusions:

“One would most likely suspect from the current positive public discourse about charter schools that they would display higher national and large city NAEP performance when compared non-charter neighborhood schools, however, this is not actually the case when examining achievement data at the school level. Out of the 28 total comparison tests run, only 4 times did charters produce higher composite score averages than non-charter neighborhood public schools— 8th grade reading and math in the years 2013 and 2015. There was a tie in the large city comparison for 4th grade reading in the year 2013 as charter schools and non-charter neighborhood public schools displayed the same average composite scale scores. In the other 23 cases charter schools produced lower average composite scores on the NAEP (math, reading, science) than non-charter neighborhood public schools.”

The difference favoring public schools in 12th grade was very large.

In light of this disparity, why do so many federal and state policy makers consider charters a remedy for low-scoring public schools? What is the remedy for low-performing charter schools?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, NAEP, Privatization

Bianca Tanis: New York’s New Standards Are Bad News for Young Children

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2017 //
26

Bianca Tanis is a teacher of special education in a K-2 classroom in the Hudson Valley of New York. She is also a member of the board of NYSAPE (New York State Allies for Parents and Educators), the statewide group that has led the Opt Out movement.

In this post, she excoriates New York’s new standards and says the New York State Education Department ignored the voices of early childhood educators. From the perspective of young children, she says, the standards are fundamentally flawed.

She writes, in part:

We should never have to fight for the right of children to play. Nor should we have to fight for them to spend more than 20 minutes at recess. Instruction should never come at the expense of the creative, spontaneous, and joyful exploration of 4- and 5-year olds. But, increasingly, it does. With the unveiling of New York State’s “Next Generation of English Language Arts and Mathematics Standards,” the struggle to maintain these experiences for young learners—already underway—will intensify.

When New York’s Education Department released the draft standards last September, Commissioner MaryEllen Elia claimed they represented substantive change. Yet most revisions consisted of minor tweaks to language and placement. There were very few shifts in content, and the Common Core anchor standards remained mostly intact. The latest iteration walks back any positive content changes, increasing the rigor of the prekindergarten through second-grade grade standards over and above the draft released in September, and moving some first-grade standards to kindergarten.

While many policymakers profess their commitment to play-based learning and meeting the needs of the whole child, their actions say otherwise. This problem is not unique to New York. But in a state with one of the largest parent uprisings against high-stakes reform and the arbitrary imposition of rigor on child-centered practice, Elia’s reaction is disturbing. She and the New York Education Department have missed an opportunity to deliver developmentally appropriate learning standards that align with early childhood’s robust evidence base.

They’ve also systematically denied teachers who work with young children the chance to advocate for their students and reasonable expectations for development as well as practice that engages them in the critical early years of learning.

Although some teachers working with children in prekindergarten through second grade took part in the review, their voices were marginalized. Not a single early educator was a member of the Standards Review Leadership and Planning team. None were facilitators, or on any of the advisory panels that made the final revisions.

Those who took part in the original standards revision work in August of 2016 were so dissatisfied with the process that they ultimately requested the formation of an early learning task force. These outspoken educators were barred from serving on the 32-member committee, of which only a quarter were early educators.

It’s easy to understand why they were largely excluded from this process. In a room full of teachers working with prekindergartners to second-graders, you would be hard-pressed to find consensus around the idea that all kindergartners should “read with purpose and understanding”—an expectation that Governor Andrew Cuomo’s Common Core Task Force report cited as concerning to early childhood experts.

Ten out of 14 members of the PreK-2 review committee issued a letter of dissent, expressing concern that the number of skills included in the revised standards would make it difficult to find time for play-based and child-led learning.

Categories Accountability, Childhood, Pre-K, K, Common Core, New York, Testing

Great New Documentary–“Backpack Full of Cash”–is Finished and Ready for Screenings in Your Community

By dianeravitch
May 18, 2017 //
40

Sarah Mondale and Vera Aronow announce that their long-awaited film “Backpack Full of Cash” has been completed, and they are now taking it to film festivals and community screenings. This is the film that tells the story of the dangers of public school privatization and the undermining of public education in many districts.

Dear BACKPACK Friends and Supporters,

We want to share some good news. BACKPACK FULL OF CASH––a documentary film narrated by Matt Damon, that explores the impact of privatizing public schools––is now finished, updated and complete with a new Epilogue. With the appointment of U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos––a longtime advocate of charter schools, vouchers and online schools, there is a pressing need for public awareness of these issues. BACKPACK seems to be striking a nerve with audiences.

We just showed BACKPACK to sold-out crowds at film festivals in Nashville and Washington, DC where the film won Runner Up–Audience Award, Best Documentary. We are getting many requests for screenings from around the country–and the world! If you or someone you know would like to host a screening, please visit our website. You can also make a donation––now urgently needed––to help us launch the outreach/ distribution campaign for the film.

We have been invited to show BACKPACK FULL OF CASH in Seattle, WA and Alberta, Canada in May/June. If you know anyone in these areas who would be interested, please help us spread the word. Here is the schedule and ticket info:

BACKPACK FULL OF CASH SCREENINGS

SEATTLE INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL
(filmmakers in attendance at June screenings only)
Friday, 5/19 at 3:30pm at SIFF Cinema Uptown
Tuesday, 6/6 at 7:00pm at AMC Pacific Place
Wednesday, 6/7 at 4:30pm at AMC Pacific Place Click here for tickets.

ALBERTA, CANADA
presented by Support Our Students Alberta,
sponsored by Alberta Federation of Labour
(filmmakers in attendance in Calgary only)

Thursday, 5/25 at 7:00pm in CALGARY, Globe Cinema
Saturday, 5/27 at 7:00pm EDMONTON, Art Gallery of Alberta, Ledcor Theater
Tuesday, 5/30 at 7:00pm in LETHBRIDGE, City of Lethbridge Sterndale Bennett Theater
Thursday, 6/1 at 7:00pm in RED DEER, Red Deer College, Welikoland Cinema
Click here for tickets.

Thanks again for your support.

Sarah Mondale, Vera Aronow, and the BACKPACK Film Team

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Media, Privatization, Resistance, Vouchers

Good News from Texas!

By dianeravitch
May 18, 2017 //
9

The State Senate in Texas is still pushing vouchers, even though the last voucher bill was overwhelmingly defeated in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives. The senate, under the thumb of Lt. Governor Dan Patrick (former rightwing talk show host), inserted a voucher program into a budget bill and sent it to the House.

The Speaker of the House, Joe Straus, issued the following statement on Wednesday:

“I was encouraged by much of what Governor Patrick said today. I was especially glad to hear that Governor Patrick wants to start passing bills that are priorities of the House, such as mental health reforms, fixing the broken A-F rating system and cybersecurity. These are not poll-tested priorities, but they can make a very real difference in Texans’ lives. I am grateful that the Senate will work with us to address them.

“Budget negotiations are going well but are far from finished. The Senate has indicated a willingness to use part of the $12 billion Economic Stabilization Fund. In addition, the two sides, along with the Comptroller’s office, are working through concerns about the use of Proposition 7 funds to certify the budget. I’m optimistic that we will produce a reasonable and equitable compromise on the budget. I appreciate the work of the Senate conferees and Governor Patrick on these issues.

“As I said in my letter to Governor Patrick, the House has worked diligently to pass priorities that are important to him. Senate Bill 2 has been scheduled for a vote on the floor of the House tomorrow. The House has already acted on a number of issues that are important to the Lieutenant Governor and will continue to do so. I’m glad that the Senate is beginning to extend the same courtesy.

“Governor Patrick talked about the importance of property tax relief. The Texas House is also concerned about property taxes, which is why we approved House Bill 21 to address the major cause of rising property-tax bills: local school taxes. As it passed the House, this legislation would begin to reduce our reliance on local property taxes in funding education. Nobody can claim to be serious about property-tax relief while consistently reducing the state’s share of education funding. The House made a sincere effort to start fixing our school finance system, but the Senate is trying to derail that effort at the 11th hour. The Senate is demanding that we provide far fewer resources for schools than the House approved and that we begin to subsidize private education – a concept that the members of the House overwhelmingly rejected in early April. The House is also serious about providing extra and targeted assistance for students with disabilities. This is why we put extra money in House Bill 21 to help students with dyslexia. We also overwhelmingly passed House Bill 23 to provide grants for schools that work with students who have autism and other disabilities. The Lieutenant Governor has not referred that bill to a Senate committee.

“Governor Patrick’s threat to force a special session unless he gets everything his way is regrettable, and I hope that he reconsiders. The best way to end this session is to reach consensus on as many issues as we can. Nobody is going to get everything they want. But we can come together on many issues and end this session knowing that we have positively addressed priorities that matter to Texas.”

I am proud of House Speaker Joe Strauss, a great Texan. I add his name to the honor roll of this blog. He understands that the overwhelming majority of students in Texas are enrolled in public schools, and that many of those schools never recovered from the cut of more than $5 billion in 2011. The students don’t need vouchers for religious and private schools. They need great public schools with experienced teachers and adequate resources.

Categories Budget Cuts, Funding, Honor Roll, Texas, Vouchers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »