Archives for the month of: June, 2017

Mike Klonsky writes that it was another horrendous weekend of youth violence and murder in Chicago.

And Rahm Emanuel, the mayor who will go down in history for closing 50 public schools in one day, is going to speak at the National Pres Clob about his punitive plan to withhold high school diplomas from students who can’t produce evidence of college acceptance or a job or enlistment in the military. Those who can’t do so presumably will drop out. Some reformer.

“After a Chicago weekend with 50 more shootings of mostly young people, eight of them fatal, Rahm Emanuel responded symbolically by laying off 50 more Head Start aides on the eve of the last day of school. Then, pirouetting past the graveyard, the mayor boarded a plane to D.C. where he is set to take the stage at the National Press Club, touting his latest plan to make it more difficult for African-American and Latino students to graduate from ravaged Chicago high schools.

“His speech, being billed ironically as “Moving Forward in Chicago,” will detail his plan to require all public high school seniors to provide a college or trade school acceptance letter, proof of military enlistment or a job offer in order to graduate. It’s another one of those “reforms” that would be mocked to death if proposed in the rich white suburban schools Rahm attended or in the private school where he sends his own children.

“Mainly poor, black and Latino Chicago students students will have to comply with the new mandates without the benefit of the hundreds of counselors and school social workers recently fired by CPS.

“The students, having persevered to overcome the devastating instability caused by Rahm’s mass school closings, having been forced to shift from school to school, from teachers who know them to teachers who don’t, having risked increased street violence just to make it to school every morning, will soon have another major bureaucratic hoop to jump through or risk being denied their earned diploma.”

A question for the press conference: Mayor Emanuel, you have consistently underfunded the public schools while your own children attend the University of zchicago Lab School. You have made no effort to provide equality of educational opportunity. How do you sleep at night? Do you think your mass school closings have any bearing on the violence in the streets of your city?

Legal teams will track voucher plans and file lawsuits against them.

No public finds for private and religious schools. No public funds for private security forces, private firefighters, private swimming pools, private beaches, private parks. Public means public! Under democratic control. Open meetings. Financial transparency. Open to the public.

VOUCHER WATCH LAUNCHED TO COMBAT USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLING

ELC AND MUNGER TOLLES TO HELP ADVOCATES PROTECT NATION’S PUBLIC SCHOOLS
June 20, 2017

Education Law Center (ELC) and Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP announce the launch of Voucher Watch, an initiative to inform and assist advocates as they oppose the establishment and expansion of vouchers in their states.

Voucher Watch, located on the ELC website, will track voucher proposals in state legislatures and from the federal government, provide details on existing state voucher programs, and compile research on the impact of vouchers on student outcomes.

“Vouchers divert public funds from already under-resourced public schools,” said David Sciarra, ELC Executive Director. “With Voucher Watch, we’ll be ready to help parents, teachers, advocates and lawmakers oppose vouchers and protect and improve their public schools.”

ELC and Munger Tolles are launching Voucher Watch after their successful collaboration on a legal challenge to Nevada’s unlimited “Education Savings Account” (ESA) voucher program. ELC and Munger Tolles represented public school parents pro bono in Lopez v. Schwartz, which resulted in a Nevada Supreme Court decision finding ESA vouchers unconstitutional because they diverted funding allocated for the public schools to private education expenditures.

“The pro-voucher movement presents a serious challenge for public schools across the nation,” said Tamerlin Godley, the Munger Tolles attorney who argued the Nevada voucher case before the State Supreme Court. “Every effort must be made to ensure that public dollars remain where they are most needed and do the most good – in our public schools.”

ELC, a non-profit organization working to secure the education rights of public school children, opposes using taxpayer dollars to pay for private and religious schooling. Established in 1973, ELC is the nation’s leading advocate for fair public school funding and has assisted advocates and lawyers in advancing school finance reform in almost every state.

Voucher Watch builds on ELC’s national network of advocates, law firms, and civil rights and advocacy organizations working to secure high quality educational opportunities for public school children.

“ELC is pleased to continue our partnership with Munger Tolles through the Voucher Watch initiative,” said Greg Little, ELC Chief Trial Counsel. “Tammy Godley and her team at Munger Tolles did an outstanding job of representing Nevada public school parents in securing a permanent injunction against Nevada’s unlimited ESA vouchers. We look forward to working together to bring much needed help to those fighting vouchers in other states.”

About Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
For more than 50 years, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP has been a full-service law firm known for trying bet-the-company cases and negotiating deals that shape our corporate landscape. Our 200 lawyers represent clients in a broad range of complex and high-profile matters in the areas of corporate, litigation, real estate and financial restructuring. Munger Tolles has been consistently ranked on The American Lawyer’s A-List since its inception in 2004, including four years in the top spot. For more information, please visit http://www.mto.com.

Press Contact:

Sharon Krengel
Policy and Outreach Director
skrengel@edlawcenter.org
973-624-1815, x 24

Steve Zimmer has been on the Los Angeles Unified School Board for eight years. This spring he ran for re-election. He came close to the 50% mark in the first round, but didn’t cross it. In the runoff, turnout was very low (less than 10%), and he was beaten by Nick Melvoin, who was funded by the Billionaire Boys Club.

He wrote these reflections on his defeat:


Friends,

It has been a month since the election that captured so much local and national attention and turned our worlds upside down. As some of the shock of the initial loss has lessened, the pain of what all of this means has begun to set in. Because we care so much and because we have worked so hard, it is very difficult to let go. And because we do the work of supporting the schools and school families that make dreams come true it is hard to know how to move on from doing the work. This email is my attempt to make some sense out of all of this and present some ideas for moving forward.

For each of you who worked so hard on this election and believe so genuinely in the promise of public education for every student and every family, I want to once again thank you for all that you have done and will do for our kids. On a personal level, the outpouring of love and support you have shown to Anika and me over this past month has been a blessing. Thank you. Never once have we felt alone. We went through this campaign with all of you as a family and we are absorbing the loss as a family. We are blessed.

I want you to know that I have reached out to Nick Melvoin and congratulated him on his victory in this election. He was gracious and is giving me the space to close out the many projects and initiatives that have defined this eight year effort to transform public education for all students in Los Angeles. I need us all to understand that no matter how deep the pain from this campaign may be, Nick will be the Board Member for Board District 4 and our schools, our students, their teachers and their families need him to be successful. I urge all of you, especially our teachers and parents in Board District 4, to reach out to Nick and the team he will assemble. There is too much at stake on the ground at our schools to have anything but the best working relationship with the new Board office.

But there is more I ask you to do and I ask us to do together.

We may have lost an election, but we were not wrong in the campaign we built for the soul of public education. The coalition that came together and the energy and the spirit of the campaign must move forward. Over this past month, there have been attempts to dissect our campaign in ways that endanger our efforts to keep working together on behalf of public education in Los Angeles. With so much immediately on the line, we cannot let in-fighting turn us against each other. That is exactly what our enemies want. We can’t let that happen.

So we have to understand what happened and what didn’t happen.

This was no ordinary election. We did lose and we did lose badly. And the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA) and their wealthy funders won and won big. But they did not win fairly and they did not win honestly.

The CCSA effort was precise in its science and its analytics. They recruited or encouraged a group of the right candidates to keep me just under 50% in the March primary and then they waged a vicious negative campaign during the run-off. It was the most expensive school board race in the history of the nation. CCSA had a singularly unique mix of unlimited money, unbridled ambition and the complete absence of any moral or ethical code. It was a perfect electoral storm.

They prosecuted a campaign with laser focus and strict discipline. They expertly targeted precincts that were either extremely wealthy or extremely motivated against me or both. With well-paid and well-trained campaign operatives, CCSA worked these precincts incessantly. Then, CCSA unleashed the electoral equivalent of a carpet bombing campaign against me and our work together. It was a new kind of ugly and a new kind of mean.

It was also dishonest and misleading. There are real reasons that families in certain neighborhoods in our district are unhappy with my leadership. I made difficult decisions and I didn’t always get things right. I also believe that charter schools must accept every child that comes to their door and that they must be transparent and accountable for the public dollars they receive. And I have fought against many charter co-locations. So there were real reasons that some families in some communities wanted a change in District 4. But this is not what the CCSA campaign was about.

The attack ads and mailers did not talk about charter schools, charter school regulation or charter school expansion. The attack ads and the mailers did not talk about the challenging issues in Board District 4. The attack ads and the mailers did not talk about teacher tenure, teacher evaluation or the role of standardized tests. Instead, the attack ads created a fictional history that blamed me for ipadgate, the budget crisis, teacher layoffs, cuts in arts education and child abuse lawsuits. Even worse, CCSA created an ugly narrative of failure about our students, their teachers, our schools, our families and our communities.

Our campaign and the independent expenditure campaign that supported us did not have the funding, the bandwidth, or the analytics to effectively dispute the avalanche of lies nor were we able to effectively mobilize a large enough base to compete with the CCSA effort. In the end, what happened is that a majority of voters in Board District 4 believed the fictional narrative of failure created by CCSA and their wealthy financiers. They spent, they dehumanized, they lied and they won.

But winning an election in this way is not a mandate. There is no mandate for charter school expansion. There is no mandate to end teacher tenure or to devalue seniority. There is no mandate to elevate the importance of standardized tests or increase competition between schools. None of these issues was even discussed or debated. The voters believed a compelling and relentless message about my “failures”, they didn’t endorse an agenda. There are real issues. The CCSA message and the CCSA narrative was not about those issues. There is no mandate.

There has also been the assertion that there was some kind of grassroots movement that fueled this campaign. Let’s be clear. Neither Speak Up Parents nor L.A Students for Change is grassroots or a movement. They are front groups for CCSA. Each group is funded by CCSA and their wealthy sponsors. We who have been blessed to be part of real movements, cannot let CCSA and a few angry parents defile the transformational force of grassroots movements in our progressive histories.

This is why we need to build upon the inspirational spirit of this campaign. We must pivot from this loss to the immediate work that we need to do to build coalition and further define a progressive public schools movement in Los Angeles. Done right, our work moving forward at the ballot box, in schools and in communities can transform this loss into the next best chance to build an agenda for collaborative progress for our public schools in Los Angeles and beyond.

The first step is at the polling place.

What happened to us in this election cannot be allowed to happen again and the only way to ensure that is to be present and engaged in critical upcoming elections.
Two weeks ago, Jimmy Gomez won an important victory and will be our next Member of Congress from the 34th District. This means his Assembly Seat for the 51st District will be open. The 51st Assembly District covers parts of East Los Angeles, Highland Park, Eagle Rock, Echo Park and Silver Lake. This is one of the most progressive districts in the State. It is essential that an educator or a pro-public education candidate be elected as the next Member of the Assembly from the 51st District. Last November, CCSA won huge victories in Senate and Assembly races throughout the State and gained dangerous influence in both houses of the legislature. These races were almost as ugly as my School Board race. We can’t let that happen in the 51st Assembly district. This will be an important statement race and if we are successful it could shift the pro-charter momentum in Sacramento. We need to bring the soul and the energy of our campaign together in coalition with good progressive democrats who are on the ground in the 51st District. That race starts now. We must be involved and engaged.

Next, we are exactly one year away from the State-Wide Primary Election. The stakes quite literally could not be higher. The Governor’s Race and the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction will, in real and meaningful ways, determine the future of public education in California. In the coming months, I will write to you about the strong candidates who are running for these offices. But what is important for us to understand is that CCSA will be trying to take these important seats as well. And they will try to do it in the exact same way as they did this to us in this School Board race.

We must fight this state level fight through grassroots organizing, coalition building and through solidarity with our brothers and sisters in labor and progressive community organizations. We need to get even more active in our local democratic clubs. We need to engage club by club throughout Los Angeles County and we need to make sure that no one who calls claims to be a Democrat is allowed to get a pass for outsourcing jobs and privatizing public education. The values that CCSA promotes may be cloaked in the civil rights of children and their parents, but they are in fact Donald Trump and Betsy Devos’s value. And CCSA’s deregulatory agenda for public education must be rejected by the Los Angeles County Democratic Party and local democratic clubs just as we Democrats reject Environmental and Labor deregulation. The fight against privatization must also be a fight for equity and a fight for justice. And so our campaign in 2018 for the Governor and Superintendent must be a campaign that speaks to voters about how teachers, families and community leaders can work together to change education outcomes for children.

The second step is within our own unions.

There has never been a more important moment for solidarity. I had labor support, but that did not translate into labor priority and we lost control of the school board. The consequences will be even graver if Antonio Villaraigosa and Marshall Tuck are able to divide the labor movement in 2018. Given Villaraigosa’s positive labor record in some areas this is going to take strategy, focus and discipline. But it is also possible. We must build an understanding about why labor unions need to prioritize education issues and recognize how interconnected the collaborative transformation of our public is with the growth of the labor movement.

The 2018 Statewide races give our coalition another important chance to present a positive, “all kids and all dreams” public education vision for California. Over the next few weeks, I will work to connect our coalition with progressive pro-public education forces from across the state. We lost an important round in the fight for public education last month, but we have to learn from this loss and deliver Los Angeles County in a huge way for progressive, pro-public education candidates for Governor and State Superintendent.

And of course, we must resist the Donald Trump’s racist, xenophobic and nationalist Presidency on every level. I urge you to fight Betsy DeVos’ efforts to privatize public education and strip away the nation’s commitment to equity, access and protections for all students; particularly our immigrant students and our LGBT students. We must fight her on social media, in the legislature and on the streets. As teachers, community activists and as parents we have an important voice in the resistance. Let’s connect all the dots and build bridges of common cause to win the State House and take back Congress in 2018.

Friends, I came to Los Angeles to teach 25 years ago. I started my student teaching at Jefferson the day it re-opened after the uprising in South Los Angeles. Throughout my career I have had the chance to stand with my students and their families through some of the most important fights in California political history. More important, I have grasped hands with parents and guardians to uplift all American dreams through public education in Los Angeles. I have been welcomed as a brother and as comrade in communities that were not my own. I am forever grateful to the students who taught me that teaching is listening and that counseling is listening even more. And that leadership is listening the most. I am forever grateful to the teachers, the counselors and the school leaders who worked with me to build programs where we never gave up on a single student.

I have two weeks left as your Board President. I intend to work with all my heart and all my soul and all my might until June 30th.

But on July 1st, the dreams of all children in Los Angeles will be just as important as they are today. And so I ask you to keep on keeping on. I ask you to never stop believing and to never give up on a single child. We need to stay focused on our kids and we need to keep doing the work. The dreams of our children and the purpose of our LAUSD family are too important for us to stop even for a moment. The soul of public education will hang even more in the balance when we wake up on July 1st. Not at the School Board, not in the State House, not in the White House but rather right here at the school house. Because the dreams of families, our dreams, are still alive and well at our school house door.

We know that dreams can come true through public education. And we know that dreams have no boarders and that dreams cannot be put behind bars. We know that dreams are more powerful than hate. We know that dreams are more powerful than pain, disappointment or loss. And we certainly know that they are more important than any one election. These dreams, our dreams will guide us towards a better tomorrow and towards this beloved community.

It has been a blessing and it has been an honor to elevate the dreams of our children together with all of you. I believe in each of you and all of you. And I have never been prouder of this family.

Anika and I thank you.

Steve

Add us to your address book

Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list

Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Lubienski are among the nation’s leading researchers on the subject of school choice. Their book, “The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools” is must reading. Christopher Lubienski is professor of education policy at Indiana University. Sarah Theule Lubienski is a professor of mathematics education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

They can’t understand why Betsy DeVos and the Trump administration are pushing vouchers when evidence shows that they actually harm children.

This article appears in Education Week.

“For years, voucher advocates have pointed to a series of more than a dozen reports—usually funded or conducted by voucher proponents—that used randomized approaches, similar to those used in medical research, to isolate the effects of vouchers on treatment groups in citywide programs.

“While other researchers have questioned those reports over the last decade and a half, voucher advocates have claimed that these “gold standard” studies showed vouchers boosting achievement significantly for some students. Furthermore, they liked to point out, no students were harmed by school vouchers.

“But that has all changed.

“In April, the Institute of Education Sciences released a rigorous study showing that the congressionally mandated Opportunity Scholarship Program in the nation’s capital caused significant negative effects on student learning. Students who used vouchers through the program to attend private schools in Washington experienced a 7-percentile-point decline in mathematics and an almost 5-percentile-point decline in reading compared with students who applied to, but were randomly rejected from, the program.

“This report follows recent research on voucher programs in Louisiana, Ohio, and Indiana, all producing large, negative effects on learning for voucher students. In Louisiana, an average student using a voucher would end the first year of the program falling from the 50th to the 34th percentile in math. If the student was in 3rd through 5th grade, he or she would end the year even lower, at the 26th percentile.

“The impact of participation in Ohio’s EdChoice program was “unambiguously negative across a variety of model specifications, for both reading and mathematics,” according to a study from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute last year. Similar negative findings are reported for Indiana’s statewide voucher program, the largest in the nation.”

That evidence has had no impact on DeVos, however, who wants to spend hundreds of millions on more voucher programs.

The Lubienskis find it equally fascinating to watch voucher advocates twist themselves into pretzels trying to explain away the research consensus on the failure of their favorite cause. Having pinned their careers on test scores, they now have decided that test scores don’t matter after all!

“Some have tried to attribute the negative results to regulations that discourage “better” private schools in certain states from accepting vouchers that would then require their students to take tests. This claim does not hold water when we are also seeing large, negative effects of vouchers in the other states as well.

“Another possible explanation is that most of the research of years past that supported the success of vouchers was funded and conducted by voucher advocates who sought a particular result. However, some of these new, negative findings were also produced by pro-voucher organizations and researchers, to their credit.

“Perhaps a likelier explanation for these poor results has to do with the actual students and schools themselves, including how students were grouped in private and public schools. Prior to the recent batch of research that has cast doubt on vouchers, studies lauding vouchers tended to be based on local and more targeted programs involving relatively small, non-representative sets of students and schools.

“Yet, overall, private schools are actually no more effective, and often less so, than public schools. Indeed, our own research indicates that any apparent advantages for students in private schools are actually more a reflection of the fact that private schools do a better job of attracting—not producing—high-scoring students.

“For our book, The Public School Advantage, we examined two nationally representative data sets to determine whether private schools really offer superior educational programs and outcomes, or whether higher test scores in private schools are simply a reflection of the fact that they serve more advantaged students. Those analyses revealed that, after accounting for differences in demographics, public schools are more effective, particularly in teaching mathematics.

“Research as far as back as the Coleman Report in 1966 indicates that private school students enjoy the beneficial “peer effect” of being around affluent classmates who have abundant educational resources at home and parents who have firsthand experience with school success. These students benefit from the experience of having teachers who are able to focus on solely academic content, rather than the nonacademic needs of some students.

“This peer effect is a significant factor in student learning, but frankly, there are only a limited number of academically advantaged peers to go around. And so, as choice programs expand, the private-school peer effect is diluted. Hence, despite benefits of greater socioeconomic integration for students from low-income families, the benefits may not be scalable in expanding voucher programs that are based on self-selection.

“It makes sense, then, that negative results are now appearing as researchers carefully examine larger-scale programs. Earlier studies looked only at students leaving small groups of (presumably failing) public schools for small groups of private schools that self-selected into the voucher program. Those studies were therefore not representative of the wider populations of public and private schools.

“Yet the newer, larger-scale studies are starting to more closely approximate the nationally representative samples we previously analyzed when coming to our conclusion that public schools, in fact, have an edge over private schools in student learning.

“There is a disturbing disconnect between the predictable, negative effects that vouchers are having on students, and the continued enthusiasm policymakers show for these programs despite the growing consensus that they are causing harm.

“Do we, as parents, taxpayers, and voters, want to fund programs that elevate choice, but lead to detrimental outcomes for children? Is choice a means or an end?”

Phil Cullen is a blogger in Australia, whose blog “The Treehorn Express” eloquently savages national standards and testing.

Cullen discovered our reader Duane Swacker, who teaches in Missouri. Duane regularly lectures us on Noel Wilson’s devastating critique of standardized testing.

I am happy to point out that Phil Cullen discovered Duane Swacker and introduced Noel Wilson’s thinking to many Australian educators. (I take credit for match-making.)

Phil Cullen wrote:

Dear NAPLAN victim,

When you receive your score or mark or judgement from your NAPLAN test, it becomes a part of your life…part of what you are…..part of society’s view of you….a serious part……a very serious part… It can be a proper bastard.

You have been mushroomed, as have your parents and there is no way out of it. You are branded for life.

Notable Missouri commentator, Duane Swacker, in his review of Noel Wilson’s dissertation on “EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS AND THE PROBLEM OF ERROR” makes some very telling points about the branding of children with a score and the self-fulfilling prophecy of such mutilation. If you have read it before, please read it again. It’s very, very important. It’s serious.

“…..This mark becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark the implicity predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.” [Noel Wilson: “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error. http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 ]

*Earlier in his article, Swacker points out the dangers in attempting to quantify aspects of a person’s personal quality. “It is illogical” he says “to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole….In attempting to quantify educational standards by standardised testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.”

* An even greater epistemological mistake is to extend the scores not only to the pupils, but also to the teacher, the school and the district. “This error is probably one of the most egregious ‘errors’ that occur with standardised testing.” adds Swacker.
Swacker’s full article challenges the thoughts of Naplanic testucators in a more serious way than is usual……The issues highlight the importance of Australia’s need to THINK seriously about the nature of schooling in this country.

DUANE SWACKER REVIEWS NOEL WILSON
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)

1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.

2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).

3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.

4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”

In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.

5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.

6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.

7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”

In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?

My answer is NO!!!!!

One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:

“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”

Phil ….still caring about kids.
{Formerly: Treehorn Institute for Real Education}
Again

The Carpe Diem charter chain started in Arizona in 2012. Google the chain, and you will find articles praising the promise of this school where students sat in cubicles with a computer, looking like a call-center.

Flash forward to 2017, and it turns out that students don’t want to be taught in a call-center.

The Hechinger Report, which wrote about the promise of the charter when it opened, discovered that students don’t like “blended learning.”

“The Carpe Diem schools boasted about their commitment to academics, but they had a bare-bones approach that offered few extras – like a band or athletic teams. Students were often alone with a computer, headphones on, working on programs designed to offer custom-fit lessons that were neither too easy nor too hard. Teachers were there and available on the side for guidance and short, daily check-ins with students to discuss their performance. The student-to-teacher ratio was unusual: 226 students to five teachers and four teacher aides in 2012 at the Yuma school. From the beginning, teachers and students at the Yuma school said that self-motivated students were the ones who would do best.

“The Yuma schools initially posted high marks on state academic achievement tests. That early success prompted the expansion into the three other states.

“But the concept didn’t seem to appeal to a critical mass of students or parents. The new schools struggled, and even the Yuma school has been scrambling to sign students up. Low enrollment might be seen as a marketing problem if not for the fact that too often those who did sign up decided to leave.

“That is just a fundamental flaw,” Sommers said. “Kids just didn’t want to enroll, and when they did, they didn’t want to stay.”

Marc Tucker says that Trump’s budget will not make America great again. It is a reverse Robin Hood plan, taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

“The first reaction is all gut. The budget, on its face, would represent a gigantic redistribution of resources from the poor to the rich. To say that that is morally bankrupt is to understate the case. There is no rational argument for such a policy.

“The administration makes three cases for its proposals. The first is that tax breaks for the rich while robbing the poor to pay for the tax cuts will generate so much growth that the taxes on the increased income will more than pay for the tax relief. That argument has been advanced again and again despite a continuing lack of evidence that it has ever actually worked out that way. If you want to see the most visible and colossal evidence for the failure of this theory, you have only to look at Kansas, which has been virtually bankrupted by Governor Sam Brownback’s determination to go down this rat hole.

“The second is that all the administration is doing is giving freeloaders an incentive to work. That may be a masterpiece of propaganda, but not a masterpiece of reasoning. Someone has to explain to me how taking away financial support to go to college from low-income high school graduates is going to give these “freeloaders” an incentive to work. I want to know how giant cuts to the National Institutes of Health research budget on life-saving drugs is giving freeloaders an incentive to work.

“The third and last argument this administration has advanced for this budget is that the evidence that the programs they plan to terminate work is either weak or nonexistent. Without conceding the strength of their evidence that they do not work—the evidence is at worst mixed—let’s just look at the logic of the argument. Almost all of these programs are intended to help vulnerable populations. Surely, if they do not work, the responsibility of government is to replace them with stronger programs intended to accomplish the same objective. Replacing them with nothing but “choice” suggests that the administration does not care what the question was as long as the answer is choice, which is the very definition of policy made on the basis not of evidence but of ideology.

“When I say ideology, I am referring to the belief that something is true despite all the evidence to the contrary. Does the President’s Budget Director Mick Mulvaney actually believe, despite decades of evidence to the contrary and the counsel of most economists from both parties, that giant tax cuts will pay for themselves? Or could it be that ideology is not really the problem here, that greed is the problem? Are we looking at the result of a political system that has been captured in part by the very rich, people who spend their time on the golf course telling each other that it is really they who produce economic growth and are entitled to its benefits and who now happen to have the political power to enforce those views on the rest of us? Or is it both?

“That is my gut speaking, my gut honing in on the gigantic injustice that would be wreaked on the nation if this budget were in fact to become the United States government budget. And then I relax a little bit. It will not happen, I say to myself. Ronald Reagan offered a budget like this to the Congress and the Congress virtually ignored it. So it won’t happen this time either, I say to myself…

“The truth is that the administration’s budget will make enormous cuts in exactly the kind of research and development that is the key to our economic future, will cripple the universities that have driven the development of our best technologies decade after decade, will kneecap the disadvantaged students on whom the future of all of us now depends. My whole argument hinges on the idea that our people are our future and our future depends on giving our people, all of them, a world-class education and training to match. And what is the administration’s strategy for that? It is to cut the education and job training budget to ribbons and offer us choice as its sole strategy for improving student achievement. Choice well done can help at the margins, but what I just described is not a weight that choice can bear.

“The budget is a prism that casts a shining beam on who we are as a nation, what we believe in and what kind of nation we want to be. I would argue that the budget we need is neither the budget the administration has offered nor the budget we have. The Democrats will have to acknowledge that the imperative is not to keep all the social programs we have and start adding more (yes, it is true that some are not working as well as they should and it is also true that some are there not to provide needed services but to earn political support) and the Republicans will have to give up tax reduction as the holy grail of national politics (even if that costs them the open pockets of some of their richest contributors). The question we all have to ask is, in a very constrained economic environment, how much can we afford to spend on the current needs of our people while making the investments we have to make now to enjoy broadly shared prosperity tomorrow?”

When Trump announced limits on travel to Cuba, he was actually executing a clever move to undercut his rivals in the hotel industry that have built new hotels in Cuba.

Under the new Trump policy, Americans can still travel to Cuba, but they have to stay in AirBNB, often squalid residences. They can’t stay in the new American built hotel.

Clearly, if Trump owned a hotel in Cuba, American policy would encourage tourism and big hotels.

I went to Cuba in 2013. It was a fascinating experience. Cuba is an impoverished country. The best way to bring about the collapse of the antiquated regime is to open normal trade relations and allow the Cuban people the opportunity to achieve a higher standard of living.

Trump’s approach will entrench the old guard.

Too bad Cuba does not have a Trump hotel. That is now the cornerstone of American foreign policy. That is why Trump is supporting Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in their battle with Qatar. He has hotels in Saudi Arabia and the USR, but none in Qatar.

So what if Qatar is home to America’s biggest air base in the Middle East? It doesn’t have a Trump property.

This is great news for those who have been calling attention to the corporate reform assault on public schools. We couldn’t gain attention when Obama and Duncan were promoting privatization and bashing teachers. But Betsy DeVos stripped away the pretense of “the civil rights issue of our time.” All you have to do is look at the patented billionaire smirk, listen to her prattle about public schools as a “dead end,” and look at the fringe right groups she hangs out with, like ALEC. At last, the Democrats are beginning to get it. The privatization pushers in the Democratic Party will have to explain why they are in step with DeVos’s policy agenda.

Before DeVos, the Network for Public Education had 22,000 members. Now it has more than 350,000 and is growing.

Politico writes:

DEVOS BECOMES DIGITAL LIGHTNING ROD FOR DEMOCRATS: First it was Karl Rove. Then it was the Koch brothers. Now, Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has taken over as Senate Democrats’ top online bogeyman. POLITICO’s Maggie Severns reports that anti-DeVos statements, petitions and especially fundraising emails have become a staple of Democratic digital campaigns in 2017. Emails citing DeVos are raising money at a faster clip than others and driving engagement from supporters.

– Some examples: Indiana Sen. Joe Donnelly’s Facebook post announcing opposition to DeVos’ nomination as Education secretary was the first sign for some Democratic observers that DeVos had political traction. Donnelly and his fellow Democratic senators up for reelection in 2018 have seized on that energy with a salvo of emails soliciting small-dollar online donations.

– DeVos played foil for Montana Sen. Jon Tester when he solicited donations in May for himself and Rob Quist, the Democrat who was defeated in a special election for Montana’s at-large House seat. DeVos’ family “is spending big to influence tomorrow’s election,” Tester wrote in one email after the DeVoses donated to Greg Gianforte’s campaign.

-“For a lot of people, Betsy DeVos has really come to be a symbol of everything that’s wrong with Trump’s approach to government,” said Stephanie Grasmick, a partner at the Democratic digital consulting firm Rising Tide Interactive. DeVos is a prime example of Rising Tide’s new use of “social listening tools,” adopted for this election cycle, that monitor the web for trends. The technology is used by corporations but has yet to be fully embraced by political campaigns.

The Pennsylvania legislature is considering a bill to “reform” charter schools, but it still allows charters to drain resources from public schools without reimbursement, and it still preserves the low-performing cybercharters that milk resources from public schools with providing a decent education to any students.

Many grassroots groups oppose this bill, and the Haverford School Board just voted 7-1 against it.

The board of school directors recently joined Education Voters of Pennsylvania, the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers, Pennsylvania School Boards Association, Education Law Center and other school districts around the state that have voiced opposition to provisions for charter school reform in House Bill 97.

School directors voted 7-1 to adopt a resolution opposing the bill, which they allege “fails to establish meaningful change” from the state’s 20-year-old Charter School Law.

Approved by the state House in April, HB 97 is currently in the Senate Education Committee where amendments are under consideration, said school director and chair of the Delaware County School Boards Legislative Council Larry Feinberg, the resolution’s sponsor.

The resolution states that charter schools that are “publicly funded and privately operated institutions governed by non-elected boards …not accountable to taxpayers, yet paid for with local school district funds….”

Larry Feinberg said that while Haverford has no brick and mortar charter schools, the district has spent $2.4 million since 2012 on historically underperforming cybercharters, with $90.9 million spent county wide for “something that doesn’t work.”

And, “I have grave concerns about accountability,” Feinberg said, recalling Pennsylvania Cyber Charter founder Nick Trombetta’s diversion of funds to make lavish purchases for himself, his girlfriend and family members.