After the Sandy Hook massacre, Alex Jones made his unsavory reputation insisting that the massacre of children and staff in Newtown, Connecticut, was a hoax, elaborately staged by professional actors.
Two of the parents whose children were killed have sued Alex Jones for defamation.
Mercedes Schneider has the story here.
It’s about time that this malicious propagandist was brought to justice.
Sasha Pudelski of the School Superintendents Association warns conservatives about the unintended consequences of their latest effort to turn a long-established federal program into a sneak voucher initiative.
Curiously her warning was posted by an inflential conservative website, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s “Flypaper.”
She begins:
”It may seem counterintuitive, but conservative organizations from the Heritage Foundation, to FreedomWorks, to the Club for Growth are pushing an education bill this year that would significantly enlarge the bureaucracy at the U.S. Department of Education. That’s right, the same organizations that have decried the “bloated education bureaucracy” and that give awards to members of Congress who are “fighting daily to shrink government and the federal bureaucracy” are urging Congress to significantly increase secretarial authority over K–12 and higher education.
“Why are they doing this? To create a new federal education voucher program that would allow dollars to flow out of public schools and into private schools and businesses. As Congress draws to a close without a signature school voucher victory, these organizations are pounding the pavement to try and garner a big win while both chambers still remain under Republican control. The piggybank for this voucher bill is the Impact Aid program, which is the oldest K–12 federal education program and was created to support school districts impacted by a federal presence, such as military installations, Indian treaty or trust land, and other federal facilities.
“The specific voucher legislation, the Military Education Savings Account Act, targets the children of active duty military personnel. However, not all active duty servicemembers’ children are eligible. Only children with a parent on active military duty and residing within a “heavily impacted” local education agency (LEA), as defined in the Impact Aid program, or children with parents on active military duty who reside on a military installation would be eligible for vouchers. These vouchers can be used for a variety of education related expenses, including private schools, online schools and curriculum, afterschool programs, summer camps, computers, and therapists. The families are responsible for reporting how they use the money, and the U.S. Department of Education has to be able to monitor the use of funds, allocate resources on a rolling basis, and monitor for fraud and noncompliance by both families and educational providers.
“Currently, close to sixty Republicans in the House of Representatives support this proposal. What’s not clear is whether these Republicans and the aforementioned conservative organizations have considered the many ways in which this legislation would require the beastly bureaucracy of the U.S. Department of Education to further ensnarl its big federal paws into the hands of individual families’ bank accounts, private K–12 educational businesses, and private schools.
“In addition to drafting a new set of regulations (which clearly will go against the Trump Administration’s bold regulatory rollback process and provisions), at a bare minimum this will require the education department to draft, seek public input on, and finalize new regulations on how the new federal school choice program would operate.
“It would also require the agency to create and set up a completely new data system to collect, review, and monitor the following: a written contract signifying parents will abide by the terms of the statute vis-à-vis use of federal dollars; verification of parents’ active duty status; and verification that the family’s home address is located on a military installation or within the boundaries of a heavily impacted school district. For example, if a family moves off base and is no longer eligible for funding, then the U.S. Department of Education would need to track their change of address and make sure they no longer receive federal dollars. Keeping the agency informed of this changing information would be challenging for military families, who are incredibly mobile.
“In addition, the education department would have unprecedented oversight into the finances of military families. It would need to develop a process to deposit sums into parents’ bank accounts, and parents would have to submit a quarterly expense report to the agency detailing how they will use the money in accordance with federal law. And the department would need a system to recoup the money from parents who later violate those usage restrictions.”
Talk about a bloated bureaucracy!
It gets much worse. Read on.
This would be funny if it were not also unethical and outrageous.
Pearson embedded messages in certain tests to test “social-psychological”premises. Would encouraging messages raise test scores? Would “growth mindset” messages improve scores?
The answer: no.
“Education and publishing giant Pearson is drawing criticism after using its software to experiment on over 9,000 math and computer science students across the country. In a paper presented Wednesday at the American Association of Educational Research, Pearson researchers revealed that they tested the effects of encouraging messages on students that used the MyLab Programming educational software during 2017’s spring semester.
“Titled “Embedding Research-Inspired Innovations in EdTech: An RCT of Social-Psychological Interventions, at Scale,” the study placed 9,000 students using MyLab Programming into three groups, each receiving different messages from the software as they attempted to solve questions. Some students received “growth-mindset messages,” while others received “anchoring of effect” messages. (A third control group received no messaging at all.) The intent was to see if such messages encouraged students to solve more problems. Neither the students nor the professors were ever informed of the experiment, raising concerns of consent.
“The “growth mindset messages” emphasized that learning a skill is a lengthy process, cautioning students offering wrong answers not to expect immediate success. One example: “No one is born a great programmer. Success takes hours and hours of practice.” “Anchoring of effect” messages told students how much effort is required to solve problems, such as: “Some students tried this question 26 times! Don’t worry if it takes you a few tries to get it right.”
“As Education Week reports, the interventions offered seemingly no benefit to the students. Students who received no special messages attempted to solve more problems (212) than students in either the growth-mindset (174) or anchoring groups (156). The researchers emphasized this could have been due any of a variety of factors, as the software is used differently in different schools. However, educators who spoke to Education Week were understandably more alarmed by Pearson placing thousands of unwitting minors in A/B testing for its products.
“It’s concerning that forms of low-level psychological experimentation to trigger certain behaviors appears to be happening in the ed-tech sector, and students might not know those experiments are taking place,” Ben Williamson, a professor at the University of Stirling, told the publication.”
The students who received no “encouraging messages”performed much better than those who did. Maybe the messages triggered anxiety. Maybe they were distracting. Maybe this was a dumb and unethical experiment on human subjects.
What will they think of next?
How about software to teach social-emotional learning?
Would it impress you to know that Mark Zuckerberg is backing this venture?
“Boston-based Panorama provides software to help public K-12 systems understand how self-esteem, family engagement and other factors affect student achievement.
“Panorama’s goal: “helping school districts take a more holistic view at growing and developing a child,” says CEO Aaron Feuer.
“The software, called Panorama Student Success, is being used in 400 school districts, including New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Dallas.
“Panorama aims to integrate the software with 300 other educational-data tools, from 20. The company’s Series B funding was led by the Emerson Collective with backing from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Spark Capital, Owl Ventures, and SoftTechVC.
“Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg backed Panorama’s 2013 $4 million seed funding round.”
The Los Angeles Unified School District Board met today to select a new superintendent, but there was no quorum. They recessed until May 1. No Austin Beutner, the investment banker. Not yet.
The board is split 4-3, with charteristas in the slim majority. The swing vote is a Ref Rodriguez, who will soon be tried on several felony indictments.
The board would be wise to pick an experienced educator, a consensus candidate with the confidence of the full board.
If the current majority picks a hard-driving charter zealot, that person may soon be leading a 3-3 Board and unable to do anything at all.
Will the current majority put the well-bring of the children above their political agenda?
Our very own blog poet has written a wonderful new poem.
“Jabbertalky” (after Jabberwocky, by Lewis Carroll, of course)
“Twas brillig, and the billionaires
Did lie and dissemble in the press
All flimsy were Deformer wares
And the charter rats did nest
“Beware the Jabbertalk my son!
The Cores that bite, the tests that catch!
Beware the Coleman bird, and shun
Felonius charters, natch!”
“He took his opt-out sword in hand:
Long time Deformer foe he sought —
So rested he by the Knowledge tree,
And stood awhile in thought.
”And, as in peaceful thought he stood,
The Jabbertalk, with eyes of flame,
Came bumbling through the teaching wood,
And burbled as it came!
“One, two! One, two! And through and through
The opt-out blade went snicker-snack!
He left test dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.
“And, has thou slain the Jabbertalk?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
He chortled in his joy.
“Twas brillig, and the billionaires
Did lie and dissemble in the press
All flimsy were Deformer wares
And the charter rats did nest”
Arizona teachers have voted overwhelmingly to walk out in response to state budget cuts over many years. Here is news from Linda Lyon, president of the Arizona School Boards Association.
Arizona, like West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Kentucky, is a “right to work” state.
Here is the press release from the Arizona Education Association.
“Today, the Arizona Education Association (AEA) and Arizona Educators United (AEU) announced in front of AEA headquarters, that 78 percent of 57,000 Arizona educators voted to walk out of Arizona’s schools – citing 10 years of drastically underfunded schools resulting in overcrowded classrooms, crumbling infrastructure, and low wages for educators. Facebook video | YouTube video
“After years of starving our schools, some classes are stuffed with kids, while others sit empty because there isn’t a teacher to teach,” says AEU organizer and Littleton elementary music teacher Noah Karvelis. “The #RedforEd movement has provided educators the opportunity to voice what action they want to take in an historic statewide vote.”
“This vote was not an easy decision for educators,” says AEA Vice President and Isaac Middle School teacher Marisol Garcia. “As I turned in my ballot today, I thought about my son, my colleagues, and my students. By voting today, I am standing up for my son and all students in Arizona and the public schools they deserve.”
“We’re using textbooks from the 1990s because there’s no money for books. That’s just one of the reasons we’re fighting to make Arizona’s kids, schools and educators a higher priority in the governor’s office,” says AEA President and Mesa government teacher Joe Thomas.
“As educators, the students are at the center of everything we do. Every student deserves a chance at a quality education, and access to services like nutrition, health, and after school programs.
“The decision to walk out also comes on the heels of weeks of #RedforEd walk-ins and a disingenuous budget proposal from the governor that claimed a raise that excluded support professionals like counselors, bus drivers and cafeteria workers – and was not supported by actual funding.
“Education isn’t just a job, it’s a calling. That’s why we’re walking out,” said Noah.”
Researchers at Indiana University reviewed state test scores and found that students who transferred from public schools to charter schools lost ground academically for the first few years. Eventually, if they remained in the charter school, they caught up to their public school peers, but nearly half transferred back to their public school. It may be, as in the case of voucher studies in I Diana, that the weakest students were likeliest to leave the charters.
”Researchers from the Indiana University School of Education-Indianapolis examined four years of English and math ISTEP scores for 1,609 Indiana elementary and middle school students who were in a traditional public school in 2011 and transferred to a charter school in 2012. The main findings were that students who transferred had lower math and English score gains during the first year or two in their new school than if they had stayed in a district school.
“The researchers were able to draw the conclusion by using a type of statistical analysis that enabled them to compare students’ actual score gains at the charter school to potential gains had they not transferred from a traditional school.
“But for the students who stayed in charter schools for three years or more, some of those gaps disappeared, and students caught up with where they would have been if they hadn’t transferred. Both of these results — the dip in score gains after transferring and the increase over time — are consistent with other studies, researchers said.
“Overall, these results indicate that the promise of charter schools as a vehicle for school improvement should be viewed with some skepticism,” said study co-author Gary R. Pike, a professor of education at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. “Our results suggest that charter school experience for most students does not measure up to expectations, at least for the first two years of enrollment.”
“The researchers also found that of the original number of students who transferred to a charter school in 2012, 47 percent returned to a traditional public school by 2016. Only about a third of students remained enrolled in charter schools long enough to see their scores catch back up. The study called the mobility “problematic,” and suggested other researchers look into it further.”
The study contradicts an earlier CREDO study of Indiana charters.
However, the researchers cautioned not to draw national generalizations from the study of one state.
A secret memo commissioned by the Walton Education Coalition sought to analyze why the well-funded charter advocates were beaten handily in a Massachusetts referendum in 2016 on expanding charter schools.
The memo says the opposition trusted teachers more than the governor. The opposition had a simple message: charters are funded at the expense of the local public schoools. The charter lobbyists thought they could threaten a referendum, and the legislature would cave and lift the charter cap to avoid a referendum. But the anti-charter forces refused to compromise and took it to the public.
Families for Excellent Schools, the hedge funders group, thought that the aggressive tactics they had used successfully in New York would work in Massachusetts. They didn’t, and FES was fined nearly half a million dollars for campaign finance violations (concealing the names of its donors) and banned from the Bay State for five years (FES disbanded soon afterwards).
What the analysis doesn’t acknowledge is that Massachusetts was a terrible choice to launch a charter campaign. On NAEP, it is the most successful state in the nation. It has a strong tradition of local control. Families are very attached to their town schools. Threaten the funding of the local public school, and you hit a hornets’ nest.
The pro-charter campaign was hurt too by the public recognition that it was fueled by out-of-state funding.
The opposition to charter expansion was well-organized and grassroots. The two national teachers unions spent millions, enough to stay competitive, but we’re outspent by the charter supporters by many more millions. Without their financial help (no dark money!), the charter industry would have owned the airwaves.
The Massachusetts Teachers Association, led by Barbara Madeloni, organized teachers and collaborated with school committees to fight off the charter invasion. Almost every school committee in the state opposed Question 2.
Volunteers, parents, and activists turned out to defend public schools.
The only towns that voted to expand charters were affluent communities that expected they would never get a charter. Where charters already existed, the opposition ran strong because they knew there was less money for their town schools.
The defeat of Question 2 in Massachusetts was a very important milestone in the fight against privatization.
Legislators in Tennessee are rightfully upset by the failure of online testing and have said that the results of the tests won’t be used against any student, teacher, or school. Democrats, in the minority, called for the resignation of Candace McQueen, the state commissioner of education, who doggedly defends online testing.
“The Tennessee General Assembly struck a deal Thursday that will ensure this year’s TNReady test won’t be held against students, teachers and public school districts.
“The measure agreed upon by both chambers says test results this school year will count only if it benefits students, educators and districts. Districts can’t base employment or compensation decisions based on the data, the legislation says.
“It came about after an extraordinary 11th-hour deal by the House to address ongoing test issues that continued sporadically on Thursday across the state.
“All across the state we have heard from superintendents, testing coordinators about some issues logging in, recording the tests as the kids took them, sometimes not being able to log in,” said House Republican Caucus Chair Ryan Williams, R-Cookeville.
“I think what happened was the House felt like we needed to do something to protect teachers and our students and our institutions from further erosion of the trust as it relates to these tests. I think what you saw today is an effort to do that.”
”Trust” in online testing? That’s a reach.
Diane Ravitch's blog 