Archives for the month of: January, 2018

 

The lack of accountability and transparency, as well as the ineffectiveness, of many charter schools is awakening politicians, even in choice-obsessed Indiana. Fraud is an ongoing problem in the absence of public oversight.

 

“Two Indiana senators — a Republican and a Democrat — are calling for the state to reform how charter schools are overseen.

“Sen. Dennis Kruse, an Auburn Republican who chairs the Senate Education Committee, and Sen. Mark Stoops, a Bloomington Democrat also on the committee, have each proposed a bill to ensure charter school authorizers cannot open new schools or renew charters without evidence that students are learning.

“The bills come two months after a Chalkbeat investigation revealed that while the small Daleville Community School District charged with overseeing Indiana Virtual School has appeared to follow state law, it isn’t necessarily meeting the needs of the school’s thousands of students.

“The district was on track to earn at least $750,000 in fees last year overseeing Indiana Virtual, which over its six-year lifespan has earned two F-grades and, in 2016, managed to muster only single-digit graduation rates. The school continues to bring in millions of state dollars for its students, and in September, opened up a second school, also chartered by Daleville.”

Erich Martel, retired veteran teacher in D.C. school system, wrote a public letter calling for a thorough investigation of graduation rates in all D.C. high schools, including charters, and for the reinstatement of the whistleblower teachers who were fired at Ballou High School. You may recall that NPR ran a story about the miraculous graduation rate and college acceptance rate at Ballou. After a teacher came forward and pointed out that students with numerous absences from school and inadequate credits were allowed to graduate, NPR investigated and corrected the earlier story. The underlying story was about gullible reporters wanting to believe in miracles.

 

Martel writes:

 

Council Member David Grosso

Chairman, Committee on Education, Council of the District of Columbi

Dear Chairman Grosso,

Today’s Washington Post article on the investigation into the Ballou H.S. graduation scandal reports that “a group of [Ballou H.S.] teachers met with D.C. Public School officials” the day after the June 2017 graduation to report that “students who missed dozens of classes had been able to earn passing grades and graduate.” https://tinyurl.com/yc37lerj

A month later, music teacher Monica Brokenborough wrote to Chancellor Antwan Wilson requesting a “thorough investigation … inclusive of pertinent stakeholders,” but never heard back from him. The Washington Post has evidence that Ms. Brokenborough, the WTU representative “tried time and again to reach district officials about her concerns” resulting in the principal cutting her position from the school budget this year.

Chancellor Antwan Wilson conceded at your December 15th Education Committee hearing that effort “he and other officials did not look into it until the November airing of a WAMU and NPR news report.” His words of acknowledgement were chilling:

“‘We know that there was a Ballou teacher who in August complained through the grievance procedure about concerns along with 30 other concerns,’ Wilson said at the hearing. ‘Our team, prioritizing impact [IMPACT???], had not gotten to it.'”

Question:

Will you request that Mayor Bowser immediately instruct Chancellor Wilson to reinstate whole all Ballou teachers who reported these violations and were subsequently terminated/excessed by the principal?

On the December 8th Kojo Nnambi show, you stated,

“I think it is unfair to focus only on Ballou H.S. in this situation. Ballou HS has some wonderful things going on there that we need to celebrate.”

“I’m saying it just frustrates me that this is always going to come down on Ballou.”

“To pick on Ballou alone is unfair. … But let me tell you, that’s not the only place where students are leaving high school not ready for college in the District of Columbia.”

The current investigation appears to be focused solely on Ballou H.S., but I haven’t heard of you requesting that it include all DCPS and charter high schools.

Question:

Will you request that Mayor Bowser expand the investigation to all DCPS AND all DC charter high schools?

I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Erich Martel

Ward 3, Retired DCPS high school teacher (Cardozo HS, Wilson HS, Phelps ACE HS)

ehmartel@starpower.net

I am leaving this morning for an extended trip to Asia.

So long as I have Internet access, I will read your comments and share important news. I will write about what I see.

I am flying to Los Angeles, then to Hong Kong, then to Saigon (now called Ho Chi Minh City). I had the opportunity to visit Vietnam about 20 years ago, when I was in Hong Kong, but I didn’t want to. There was too much American blood in the soil. I couldn’t do it.

Enough time has passed, enough time for reconciliation (as a Jew I couldn’t bring myself to visit Germany until 1984 and have visited again many times, with great pleasure.) I will be with friends (all retired) on a cruise ship on the Mekong River. We will see Saigon, take a sidetrip to Angkor Wat, see the Cambodian killing fields, end up in Hanoi. Then a few days in Shanghai.

I watched the Ken Burns series on the war in Vietnam. It convinced me that our country picked up the colonial role of the French, who left Vietnam after their humiliating defeat at Dienbienphu. Our leaders warned us about the Domino Theory. We now know they were wrong. So many died. No dominoes.

While I am traveling, I will repost some golden oldies from the Blog every day, posts that I thought were significant and bear re-reading. I will also stay up to the date as th3 ship has Internet service.  I won’t be far away, except physically.

 

 

One of our regular readers and occasional commentators, Doug Garnett, happens to have expertise about media.

After he read Jill Lepore’s article, he reacted to it and added several other commentaries. He also links to Clayton Christensen’s rebuttal to Lepore.

This link is an amazing article which I urge you to read. It links together “creative disruption” with the complacency of our nation’s elites about the deindustrialization of the nation and the human toll it created.

Here is a small excerpt from a fascinating article:

A little backstory may help here. Prof. Christensen is now the most prominent heir of Joseph A. Schumpeter’s twin definition of capitalism as the source of all meaningful innovation in life, and of innovation as “creative destruction.” For both of these thinkers, the entrepreneur is the fountainhead of new value, and capital must be pulled out of less productive uses and allocated to the entrepreneur, who is the privileged source of all future of wealth-creation. In Schumpeter’s view, governments, publics, regulations, communities, traditions, habits, faculty senates, teacher’s unions, zoning boards, homeowner’s groups, professional organizations, and, last but not least, business corporations, do not create value but interfere with its creation. All that is solid must be melted into air for the entrepreneur to be free to innovate and thus transform. The resulting wreckage and waste is part of progress, and must not be reduced through regulation. This is true for shuttered factories, and also for high levels of inequality: both are part of liberating the entrepreneur to create the greater wealth of the future.

Although years of reading Prof. Christensen makes me think he’s personally humane, his theory is the business world’s single most powerful rationalization for disrupting every type of humane condition, such as job security, tax-funded public infrastructure, or carefully nurtured, high-quality product lines. Prof. Lepore was right to state, “Disruptive innovation is competitive strategy for an age seized by terror.” Disruption feeds on major and also minor terrors, like being left behind by a change deemed unavoidable, or being excluded from debate about the costs and benefits of undermining entire regional economies by offering tax breaks to companies that offshore production.

One outcome of the theory of disruptive innovation has been the shocking complacency of the U.S. political class about the national devastation wrought by deindustrialization. We have a “rust belt,” and ruined cities like Newark and Detroit, and wide areas of social and economic decline amidst enormous wealth, because business and political leaders were taught by consultants like Prof. Christensen that capitalism must destroy in order to advance. Journalists might come along and chronicle the horrible human costs of the decline of the steel industry in, say, Youngstown, Ohio (see the Tammy Thomas sections in George Packer’s The Unwinding (2013). But by the time someone like Mr. Packer arrived, decline has been baked into the regional cake.

The theory of disruptive innovation was arguably head baker, for it taught politicians in Youngstown and elsewhere that industries like steel and their unionized employees had been judged by an impartial market to be uncompetitive. Consultants would routinely opine that the only logical response to falling profits was the mass layoff and/or factory closure. In The Disposable American (2007), Louis Uchitelle pointed out that layoffs were not wars of necessity but wars of choice, and yet to say that deindustrialization expressed a cultural entitlement rather than an economic law was to stick one’s finger in the dike. Slowly but surely, Youngstown and everyplace like it no longer had economies that supported a broad, stable middle class. In addition, like Beckett’s Godot, the renewal to which this disruption was to lead never actually showed up.

Thus Prof. Lepore’s critique of disruptive innovation tapped into a pervasive, long-term anger about ruin in America and an anger at the corporate and political classes that deemed ruin necessary.

This is a fantastic article that first appeared in the New Yorker in 2014. At the time, I posted it. This is an article that I should post at least once a year.

In it, Jill Lepore demolishes the myth of “creative destruction.”

We often hear corporate reformers say that disruption is a wonderful thing, as they close beloved local public schools and replace them with charter schools run by out-of-state entrepreneurs; if that school fails, then they close it and open another and another. Isn’t disruption wonderful?

I have always thought that disruption was a concept that might be good in the corporate world, but not in the personal realm. Children crave stability. They need a stable family, a stable home, and a stable school. They need to feel protected, because they are small. Disruption is unhealthy for them.

But we are told that disruption is the way of the modern world.

Lepore says no. She tears apart Clayton Christenson’s case studies about innovation and disruption.

She writes:

Disruptive innovation as an explanation for how change happens is everywhere. Ideas that come from business schools are exceptionally well marketed. Faith in disruption is the best illustration, and the worst case, of a larger historical transformation having to do with secularization, and what happens when the invisible hand replaces the hand of God as explanation and justification. Innovation and disruption are ideas that originated in the arena of business but which have since been applied to arenas whose values and goals are remote from the values and goals of business. People aren’t disk drives. Public schools, colleges and universities, churches, museums, and many hospitals, all of which have been subjected to disruptive innovation, have revenues and expenses and infrastructures, but they aren’t industries in the same way that manufacturers of hard-disk drives or truck engines or drygoods are industries. Journalism isn’t an industry in that sense, either.

Doctors have obligations to their patients, teachers to their students, pastors to their congregations, curators to the public, and journalists to their readers—obligations that lie outside the realm of earnings, and are fundamentally different from the obligations that a business executive has to employees, partners, and investors. Historically, institutions like museums, hospitals, schools, and universities have been supported by patronage, donations made by individuals or funding from church or state. The press has generally supported itself by charging subscribers and selling advertising. (Underwriting by corporations and foundations is a funding source of more recent vintage.) Charging for admission, membership, subscriptions and, for some, earning profits are similarities these institutions have with businesses. Still, that doesn’t make them industries, which turn things into commodities and sell them for gain.

I won’t attempt to summarize the article. I will just say: Read it and enjoy.

This Report was written by Kris Nordstrom, who works for the North Carolina Justice Center. He previously was a research analyst for the North Carolina General Assembly. The report tells the story of a state that was once the envy of the South for its education policies, but is now in rapid decline, copying failed policies from other states,

Home

PRESS RELEASE and SUMMARY

By Kris Nordstrom
Contracting Analyst, Education & Law Project

North Carolina was once viewed as the shining light for progressive education policy in the South. State leaders—often with the support of the business community—were able to develop bipartisan support for public schools, and implement popular, effective programs. North Carolina was among the first states to explicitly monitor the performance of student subgroups in an effort to address racial achievement gaps. The state made great strides to professionalizing the teaching force, bringing the state’s average teacher salary nearly up to the national average even as the state was forced to hire many novice teachers to keep pace with enrollment increases. In addition, North Carolina focused on developing and retaining its teaching force by investing in teacher scholarship programs and mentoring programs for beginning teachers.

North Carolina innovated at all ends of the education spectrum. The state was one of the first in the nation to create a statewide pre-kindergarten program with rigorous quality standards. At the secondary level, North Carolina was at the forefront of dual credit programs for high school students, and the Learn & Earn model (now known as Cooperative Innovative High Schools) became a national model, allowing students to graduate with both a high school diploma and an associate’s degree in five years. Students graduating from North Carolina public schools could enroll in the state’s admired, low-cost community college system or its strong university system, most notably UNC Chapel Hill. For much of the 1990s through early 2000s, policymakers in other states often looked to North Carolina’s public schools as an example of sound, thoughtful policy aiming to broadly uplift student performance.

Unfortunately, over the past seven years, North Carolina has lost its reputation for educational excellence. Since the Republican takeover of the General Assembly following the 2010 election, the state has become more infamous for bitter partisanship and divisiveness, as reflected in education policies. Lawmakers have passed a number of controversial, partisan measures, rapidly expanding school choice, cutting school resources, and eliminating job protections for teachers.

Less discussed, however, has been degradation in the quality of North Carolina’s education policies. General Assembly leadership has focused on replicating a number of education initiatives from other states, most lacking any research-based evidence of delivering successful results to students. The General Assembly has compounded the problems though by consistently delivering exceptionally poorly-crafted versions of these initiatives.

Sadly, these controversial, poorly-executed efforts have failed to deliver positive results for North Carolina’s students. Performance in our schools has suffered, particularly for the state’s low-income and minority children.

So how did we get here? How is it affecting our students?

Lack of transparency leads to poor legislation

The past seven years of education policy have been dominated by a series of not just bad policies, but bad policies that are incredibly poorly crafted. This report provides a review of the major education initiatives of this seven-year period. In every case, the major initiatives are both:

Based on very questionable evidence; and
Crafted haphazardly, ignoring best practices or lessons learned from other states.
These problems almost certainly stem from the General Assembly’s approach to policymaking. Over the past seven years, almost all major education initiatives were moved through the legislature in a way to avoid debate and outside input. At the same time, the General Assembly has abandoned its oversight responsibilities and avoided public input from education stakeholders. The net result has been stagnant student performance, and increased achievement gaps for minority and low-income students.

One commonality of nearly all of the initiatives highlighted in this report is that they were folded into omnibus budget bills, rather than moved through a deliberative committee process. Including major initiatives in the budget, rather than as stand-alone bills, is problematic for three reasons:

Stand-alone bills are required to be debated in at least one committee prior to being heard on the floor. Committee hearings allow public debate and bill modifications from General Assembly members with subject-area knowledge, and can permit public input from stakeholders and other outside experts.
Stand-alone bills require majority of support to become law. While the budget bill also requires majority support to become law, there is great pressure on members to vote for a budget bill, particularly one crafted by their own party. Budget bills are filled with hundreds of policy provisions. As a result, members might vote for controversial programs that are incorporated into the budget that they would not support if presented as a standalone vote.

Budget bills are very large, and members are often provided limited time to review the lengthy documents. For example, the 2017 budget bill was made public just before midnight on June 19 and presented on the Senate floor for debate and vote by 4 PM on June 20. As a result, members are unable to adequately review programs and craft amendments that could improve program delivery.
Compounding matters, the General Assembly has effectively dismantled the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee (Ed Oversight), while joint meetings of the House and Senate Education Appropriation subcommittees (Ed Appropriations) are becoming increasingly rare. In the past, these two committees were integral to the creation and oversight of new initiatives.

From its formation in 1990 through 2015, Ed Oversight regularly met during the legislative interim to recommend ways to improve education in the state. However, the committee met just once in the 2015-16 interim, and not at all during the 2016-17 interim.

Similarly, Ed Appropriations—which is responsible for crafting the state budget for public schools, the community college system, and state universities—is meeting less often. Historically, Ed Appropriations meetings during long sessions have been the venue through which General Assembly members undertake detailed, line-item reviews of each state agency’s budget.

2017 marked the first time in known history that Ed Appropriations meetings featured zero in-depth presentations of K-12 funding issues. The General Assembly’s education leaders stood out for their lack of effort. Every other budget subcommittee received detailed presentations covering all, or nearly all, agency budgets.

North Carolina’s teachers, Department of Public Instruction employees, and the academic community are an incredibly valuable resource that should be drawn upon to strengthen our state educational policy. Instead, these voices have increasingly been ignored. As shown below, the net result has been a series of poorly-crafted policies that are harming North Carolina’s children.​

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed No Child Left Behind into Law.

NCLB, as it was known, is the worst federal education legislation ever passed by Congress. It was punitive, harsh, stupid, ignorant about pedagogy and motivation, and ultimately a dismal failure. Those who still admire NCLB either helped write it, or were paid to like it, or were profiting from it.

It was Bush’s signature issue. He said it would end “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” It didn’t.

When he campaigned for the presidency, he and his surrogates claimed there had been a “Texas miracle.” There wasn’t.

All that was needed, they said, was to test every child in grades 3-8 every year in reading and math. Make the results for schools public. Reward schools that raised scores. Punish schools for lower scores. Then watch as test scores soar, graduation rates rise, and achievement gaps closed. It didn’t happen in Texas nor in the nation.

The theory was simple, simplistic, and stupid: test, then punish or reward.

Congress bought the claim of the Texas miracle and passed NCLB, co-sponsored by leading Republicans and Democrats, including Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Congressman George Miller of California.

Congress mandated that every student in every school must be proficient on standardized tests of reading or math or the school was a failure, facing closure or privatization by 2014. NCLB was a ticking time bomb, set to destroy American public education by setting an impossible goal, one that almost every school in every state would ultimately fail.

It was the largest expansion of the federal role in history. It was the largest intrusion of the federal government into state and local education decisiomaking ever.

It was the stupidest education law ever passed.

Bush’s original proposal was a 28-page document. (I was invited to the White House ceremony where it was unveiled; at the time, I was a member in good standing of the conservative policy elite). By the time the bill passed, the new law exceeded 1,000 pages. A Republican Congressman from Colorado told me that he thought he was the only member who read the whole bill (he voted against it.)

NCLB took the place of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a component of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” Program. The primary purpose of ESEA was to send federal funds to the poorest districts. (During the Clinton administration, ESEA was renamed the Goals 2000 Act and incorporated the lofty education goals endorsed by the first Bush administration.

To learn more about this history and why NCLB failed, read my book “The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.” To learn more about the negative effects of NCLB, read Daniel Koretz’s new book, “The Testing Charade: Pretending to Make Schools Better.” To learn more about the unintended negative effects of accountability, google Richard Rothstein’s monograph “Holding Accountability to Account.”

This is what we got from NCLB: score inflation, cheating, narrowing the curriculum, obsession with test scores, more time devoted to testing, less time for the arts, physical education, history, civics, play, and anything else that was not tested. Among other consequences: demoralization of teachers, a national teacher shortage, more money for testing companies, and less money for teachers and class size reduction.

We also got a load of “reforms” that had no evidence to support them, such as closing schools, firing teachers and principals because of low scores, handing schools with low scores over to charter operators or the state.

NCLB, in turn, led to its ugly spawn, Race to the Top, which was even meaner and more punitive than NCLB. Race to the Top turned up the heat on test scores, making them the measure of teacher quality despite decades of social science that refuted that policy. More teachers and principals were fired,  more public schools were closed, enrollments in professional education programs plummeted across the country.

NCLB was the Death Star of American education. Race to the Top was the Executioner, scouring the land with a giant scythe in search of teachers, principals, and schools to kill if student scores didn’t go up.

When the law was passed, I went to an event at the Willard Hotel in D.C. where key senators discussed it. One of them was Senator Lamar Alexander, former governor of Tennessee, former U.S. Secretary of Education (for whom I worked as Assistant Secretary of Education in charge of the Office of Education Research and Improvement). At the end of the panel, when it was time for questions, I asked Senator Alexander whether Congress really believed that every student in the nation would be proficient by 2014. He said that Congress knew they would not be, but “it’s good to have goals.”

So NCLB demanded that schools meet goals they knew were impossible. People were fired, lost their careers and reputations. Schools were closed, communities destroyed. Because “it’s good to have goals.”

Sixteen years ago, NCLB became law. It was a dark day indeed for children, for teachers, for principals, for public education, and for the very nature of learning, which cannot be spurred by incentives or mandates or punishments or rewards.

“You measure what you treasure,” I was told by Arne Duncan’s Assistant Secretary for Thinking.

“No,” I replied, “that’s exactly what cannot be measured.” Love, honor, kindness, decency, compassion, family, friends, courage, creativity. No standardized test measures what matters most. I do not treasure what standardized tests measure.

Farewell, NCLB. May you, your progeny, your warped understanding of children and learning disappear from our land, never to be recalled except as an example of a costly failure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Laura Chapman took the time to research the commercial products that our tax dollars are funding.

 

“The federal “love-in for gamification” on display at the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (January, 8, 2018) is really a project of The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. This program, established in 1990, offers grants to help “domestic small businesses” get federal support for projects that have “potential for commercialization.”

“The SBIR (taxpayers) supported more than half of the game-related projects in this year’s Expo. SBIR programs are part of the work at the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Agriculture, and US Department of Education (Institute of Education Sciences, Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Innovation and Improvement, Office of Educational Technology and Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education).

“SBIR grants are also tied to programs at the Smithsonian, Library of Congress, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the Arts, Environmental Protection Agency, USAID, and NASA

“This lovein is scheduled to have 38 participants. Participants were listed but without much information, so I looked at the website of at each, albeit briefly, in order to see where the investments of taxpayer money is going in support of for-profit ventures in tech.

“More than a handful of these ventures are so well established that on-going federal support for them seems to me unnecessary. I judge that this is not just a commercial showcase for new tech products/services but also a venue for lobbying on behalf of sustained funding for the SBIR program and the many branches of government that sponsor these investments.

“Here is my analysis of the tech products/services being marketed at the love-in.

“THESE ARE FOR SCIENCE AND STEM

1. Alchemie games.com—Machine learning platform for college gateway courses in physics, statistics, or economics.
2. Andamio Games.com— “iNeuron,” app with lessons on basic neuroscience concepts built on state standards.
3. Apprendis.com—Digital science materials, with virtual labs that automatically assess students’ skill level.
4. Future Engineers.org— NASA sponsored design K-12 competition for multi-use tools and customized equipment astronauts can use.
5. IntellAdapt.com—Portfolio of adaptive courses for STEM subjects (pedagogy, “big data” analytics, remediation) with forthcoming “Brainwave Learning Strategy Aptitude Test.”
6. Killer Snails.com—Science games supported by the National Science Foundation, content partner: American Museum of Natural History.
7. Molecular Jig Games.com—Cell biology and immune defense game piloted with 14-19 year old high school students.
8. Querium. com—Online artificial intelligence tutoring platform for “critical STEM skills” in “personalized, bite-sized lessons,” for pre-collgiate students, especially for Texas “partners.”
9. Second Avenue Learning.com—Online multimedia games for STEM learning.
10. Strange Loop Games.com—Virtual reality field trips, science-oriented multiplayer games.
11. The Beamer. Mystery game with questions answered by historically important earth/space scientists.

THESE ARE FOR READING AND SCIENCE VOCABULARY

1. Mtelegence.com. Readorium®, web-based adaptive reading program for middle school, aligned with the Next Generation Science Standards and Common Core, multimodal vocabulary cards, strategy games, differentiated hints, rewards in “Readorium dollars” and gold medals.
2. SmartyPal.com —App for after school vocabulary and science projects for K-2 and 3-5

“THESE ARE DESIGN AND MULTIMEDIA SERVICES FOR HIRE.

1. Fablevision.com—Full service multi-media game design (Sesame Street, Smithsonian. others)
2. Games That Work.com—Design studio for games with virtual reality, augmented virtual reality, computer generated graphics, multiplayer formats.
3. Parametric Studios.com—Design studio with experience in music, video, web production.
Schell Games.com— Design studio for games, full service for education and entertainment.
4. Sirius Thinking.com—Multi-media education and entertainment company. Talent from Sesame Street, The Electric Company, Nickelodeon, and Jim Henson Productions.
5. Spry Fox.com—Game developer for Apple and all android based devices, some word-building games.·
6. Thought Cycle.com— Game designers associated with University of Oregon projects in CBM Math and DIBELS
7. DIG-IT Games.com—Game design services and analytics. Also markets history, math, and other “quest”-like games.
8. Electric Funstuff.com—Game design service and analytics.

“THESE PRODUCTS FOCUS ON MATHEMATICS

1. Brainquake.com—Math instruction, especially in middle school. via Wuzzit™ Trouble.
2. Fluidity Software.com—Specialist in pen-Computing and 3D scientific visualization with products for teaching math
3. MathBrix.com—Adaptive learning in math for “little minds” with interactive visuals.
4. MidSchoolMath.com—Math program beginning in grade 5, with multimedia, interactive “conceptual narratives” and practice with a “test trainer.”
5. Teachley.com—Math apps for ipads, adaptive program for Common Core, “targeting” at-risk students for intervention.

“THESE COMBINE MATH AND ELA.

1. Children’s Progress Academic Assessment™ (CPAA™)— Non-profit computer adaptive tests for Pre-K ELA and math skills with recommendation system (scaffolding) from Northwest Evaluation Association.
2. Cognitive Toy Box.com—Touchscreen games that teach, test, and recommend practice for ELA and math skills.

THIS IS FOR READING ONLY

Foundations in Learning.com—Remedial reading program grade 2 and up, extended practice with adaptive tests marketed as personalized learning, minor role for teacher as “facilitator”

“THESE ARE FOR SPECIAL POPULATIONS

1. IDRT.com—Platform and online products for games based on American Sign Language
2. Analytic Measures.com—Automated assessment of spoken responses special populations—young children, second language speakers, and people with cognitive or language disabilities.
3. Soar Technologies.com & Rush Medical University—Video-based artificial intelligence platform for telemedicine, also to assess and train children with autism spectrum disorders for improved social information processing (SIP) skills
4. Speak Agent.com— Interactive audiovisual game activities for learning academic language and vocabulary especially for dual-language and bilingual programs.

“THESE ARE FOR SELF-HELP

1. 3C Institute.com,—Tools to help children build positive peer relationships and social coping skills, behavioral health.
2. 7 Generation Games.com—Advice on work, parenting, sports, school.
3. Mindset Works.com—“Brainology” products and services (growth mindset) developed and marketed by Carol Dweck, Professor of Psychology at Stanford University.
4. Scrible.com—Subscription platform for research. Enables tagging, saving, and annotating online resources.

“I am bowing out now. I have overdosed on the hype for these products, too much mindless use of educational jargon as if a panacea. The most intriguing entries (for me) are designed for special populations.”


 

Steven Singer saw my tweet urging Trump and/or DeVos to try to stop publication of my next book (which would make it an instant hit) and he realized his book was already available and had all the right ingredients for censorship.

https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/07/dear-donald-trump-please-try-to-block-publication-of-my-book-too/

Getting blocked on Twitter is one route to fame and free publicity but having the president attempted to block its publication is even better!

 

 

Wendy Lecker, Civil Rights attorney, writes here about an important new book exploring the history of racially unequal and segregated schooling in the United States.

”For children in Baltimore classrooms, 2018 opened with buildings where temperatures never topped 40 degrees. An incensed teacher wondered why persevering in abominable conditions is something “we only ask of black and brown children.”

”A new book by Cornell professor Noliwe Rooks, “Cutting School: Privatization, Segregation and the End of Public Education,” traces the history of separate and unequal education in America.

“White America’s reaction to the prospect of educating children of color has ranged from outright and often violent opposition to promoting weak substitutes for adequately funded, integrated schools — substitutes that fail to ensure educational equity. Throughout U.S. history, these maneuvers have presented opportunities for hoarding resources for the white and affluent and even profiting at the expense of children of color — a phenomenon Rooks calls “segrenomics.”

“From the earliest days of tax-supported public education, states found ways to deny African-American communities equal educational opportunity. One method was to simply refuse to fund African-American schools.
In 1914, South Carolina spent on average $15 per pupil for white schools but fewer than $2 per pupil for black schools. Appalled at the conditions in which African-American children were forced to learn, that state’s superintendent of education remarked: “It is not a wonder that they do not learn more, but the real wonder is that they learn as much as they do.”

“As Rooks chronicles, officials in the South outlawed integration, double-taxed African-Americans, refused to build African-American schools and engaged in violence. Public money, even if raised by African-Americans, almost exclusively benefited white students.

”Rooks illustrates how officials and “reformers” have virtually ignored successful models for education, such as: adequate funding, integration, and community-initiated reforms.

“As she demonstrates, inequality, hoarding and profiting off the backs of poor children of color continue today. Schools have resegregated. States persistently underfund schools serving predominately children of color. They offer false “solutions” that hurt more than help — like charter schools.

“Charters, concentrated in poor communities of color, are no better than public schools, increase segregation and often result in or benefit from closing neighborhood schools.”

Black students comprise 13% of the youth cohort yet many are enrolled in schools that are overwhelmingly Black, or Black and Latino. Levels of segregation declined markedly in the late 1970s and early 1970s as a result of federal policies and court orders, but as enforcement declined and disappeared, segregation increased again. Arne Duncan, in charge of $5 Billion in discretionary money, had a chance to incentivize states to reduce segregation, but he opted instead to focus on test scores and privatization and came up empty.