Archives for the month of: December, 2018

We know that Governor Gina Raimondo is a DFER favorite, but according to a new study, Rhode Island is one of the worst run states in the nation.

Rhode Island is one of the worst run states in the U.S., according to a report released earlier this month. The report evaluated 20 measures of state finances, economy, job market, and social-economic measures.
According to 24/7 Wall Street’s survey of Best Run States in America, Rhode Island is the worst run state in New England and the tenth worst run state in the country, ranking 40th overall.

About RI, 24/7 Wall Street writes:

“Rhode Island ranks as the worst-run state in New England and the broader Northeast. Rhode Island has accumulated some of the most debt of any state, and is one of just four states in which total outstanding debt is greater than annual revenue. Partially as a result, Rhode Island allocated 6.1% of its general expenditure to interest payments alone, the largest share of any state.”

24/7 adds, “Rhode Island is partially economically hamstrung by relatively high unemployment, a shrinking labor force, and sluggish growth. Last year, 4.5% of workers in the state were unemployed, slightly more than the 4.4% national unemployment rate. Over the last four years, the number of people working or looking for work in the state fell by 0.4%, even as the U.S. labor force grew 3.4%. Rhode Island’s 0.7% GDP growth in 2017 was less than one-third of the 2.2% national growth.”

Please don’t add more charter schools as the cure for all this mismanagement.

Two scholars demonstrated what we already knew: many charter schools are skimming and choosing the students they want while excluding the ones they don’t want, the ones likely to cost too much or pull down their test scores.

Peter Bergman and Isaac McFarlin Jr. tested the hypothesis.

Here is the abstract of their paper.

School choice may allow schools to “cream skim” students perceived as easier to educate. To test this, we sent emails from fictitious parents to 6,452 schools in 29 states and Washington, D.C. The fictitious parent asked whether any student is eligible to apply to the school and how to apply. Each email signaled a randomly assigned attribute of the child. We find that schools are less likely to respond to inquiries from students with poor behavior, low achievement, or a special need. Lower response rates to students with a potentially significant special need are driven by charter schools. Otherwise, these results hold for traditional public schools in areas of school choice and high-value added schools.

An excerpt from the study:

We find that, overall, traditional public schools’ response rates are similar to the response rates from charter schools across treatment messages. However, there is a different response rate to messages that signal a child has a significant special need. Traditional public schools exhibit no differential response rate to these messages, but charter schools are 7 percentage points less likely to respond to them than to the baseline message. This result is important because students with disabilities are twice as expensive to educate than the typical student without a disability (Moore et al., 1988; Chambers, 1998; Collins and Zirkel, 1992), and students with the severe disabilities can cost 8-to-14
times to educate compared to the typical non-disabled student (Griffith, 2008).

Here are commentaries.

From the Atlantic:

Parents of students who are “harder to educate” may have a hard time getting schools to reply to their emails about how to apply.

From U.S. News:

Students with behavior problems, low achievement or special needs are sometimes not encouraged to apply to charter schools…

Charter schools and public schools of choice – those in school districts that allow students to choose from any number of schools instead of zoning them to just one – are less likely to encourage students with a history of poor behavior, low academic achievement or special needs to apply.

Charter schools, in particular, were less likely to encourage students with a potentially significant special need to apply.

That’s the latest research published Thursday by Peter Bergman, an assistant professor at Columbia University’s Teachers College, and Isaac McFarlin Jr., assistant professor at University of Florida’s College of Education.

The researchers sent emails from fictitious parents to nearly 6,500 schools in 29 states and the District of Columbia, asking whether any student is eligible to apply to the school and how to do so. Each email signaled either a disability status, poor behavior, high or low prior academic achievement, or no characteristic at all. The researchers also varied students’ implied race, household structure and gender.

“We find that schools respond less often to messages regarding students whom schools may perceive as more challenging to educate,” the researchers concluded.

The baseline response rate was 53 percent. But emails signaling a student with a potentially restrictive special need were 5 percentage points less likely to receive a response; emails signaling a behavior problem were 7 percentage points less likely to receive a response; and emails signaling prior low academic achievement were 2 percentage points less likely to receive a response.

Notably, emails indicating good grades and attendance were neither more nor less likely to receive a response.

In one sub-analysis, the researchers compared the responses of charter schools directly to the nearby traditional public schools. Overall, they found the response rates similar with one major exception: If an email signaled a child had a significant special need, charter schools were 7 percentage points less likely to respond while traditional public schools were not more or less likely to respond.

“This is one of the most striking findings of the study,” McFarlin said, “because it raises the question of whether high-performing charter schools are successful in part because they screen out the costliest-to-educate students from their applicant pools.”

The headline is right. Tom Ultican, scourge of the Destroy Public Education Movement, loved Andrea Gabor’s new book After the Education Wars.

We often speak of the misguided, arrogant Corporate Reform movement as an effort to impose market thinking on public schools. It’s allegedly “all about the kids,” but its premise is that experienced teachers stink and public schools are failing and must be replaced by private management, no matter how mean they are to the kids and no matter how harsh they are to teachers, who come and go with frequency.

But Andrea Gabor is a professor of business journalism, and she says that this approach is wrong!

He writes:

Andrea Gabor has written another outstanding book. This latest is titled ‘After the Education Wars’. In it, she makes a radical departure from the top-down models of education reform that have dominated the last two decades. Gabor, a Bloomberg chair of business journalism, has applied her expertise toward analyzing modern education policy. Through five case studies she convincingly argues that business leaders brought the wrong lessons to education when they imposed Fredrick Winslow Taylor’s scientific management and shunned William Edwards Deming’s continuous improvement.

Bottom line: the people imposing ideas from corporate America have learned all the wrong lessons.

As I have written before, I think Gabor’s chapter on New Orleans is the best narrative I have read about that sad district, where the Reformers finally wiped out the last public school.

On December 23, I posted an email exchange I had with Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, in which we disagreed about who was the Goliath and who was the David in the field of education.

Mike objected to my characterization of the billionaire-supported “Reform” movement as the Goliaths of American education, the behemoths making war on public schools. He insisted that his side–those supporting charter schools and vouchers–are the true Davids, and those who oppose them are the true Goliaths because we have the AFT and the NEA on our side.

I pointed out to him that the assets of the two big unions are not in the same league as the supporters of school choice, like the Waltons (at least $160 billion) and a long list of other multibillionaires, who avidly fund school choice, along with the U.S. Department of Education, which has shoveled billions into charter schools since 1994 (and will spend nearly $500 million on charters this year alone). You can’t be supported by billionaires, multiple foundations, the U.S. Department of Education, and call yourself the “David” of education.

My clincher, I thought, was to point out the Reformers’ absence from a Twitter campaign on #GivingTuesday sponsored by a website called #Benevity, which offered $10 for every retweet of its message (#BeTheGood) to the charity of your choice. Look at which groups were asking for $10 retweets. The Network for Public Education urged its followers to retweet the message so that we could be designated to receive $10 per tweet. We figured if we got 100 retweets, we could pull in $1,000. That amount of money means a lot to NPE. It means nothing, zero, nada, zilch to the well-funded “Reform” organizations. It means nothing to organization supported by the Waltons, Bill Gates, Eli Broad, etc.

I wrote:

On #GivingTuesday, I didn’t see a single Reformer group putting out a request for $10. Not one. Not TFA. Not Educators4Excellence. Not Stand for Children. Certainly not the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which is sitting on tens of millions of dollars and gets huge grants from a long list of foundations.

No, they get gifts of hundreds of thousands and millions from foundations like Walton, Gates, Arnold, Broad, and about 50 other foundations who like to do whatever the big boys and girls do.

Ahem. We proudly claim the title of David to your Goliath. We know how that turned out.

I was surprised to get a response from Mike Petrilli.

He wrote a series of emails to demonstrate that several Reform organizations asked for money on #GivingTuesday. He must have skipped over what I wrote, because not a single one of them asked their followers to retweet #Benevity’s message and get $10 for each retweet. As I wrote, “Not one.” Not one of them cares about a gift of $10. That is not even a rounding error in their budgets.

So here are the Reformer groups that Petrilli sent me to prove that they asked for donations on #GivingTuesday and their annual revenues as of 2016, the last date the figures are available on their public tax reports (thanks to Darcie Cimarusti of the NPE staff for collecting the 990 information).

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools
Annual revenues: $9,582,733

Education Reform Now (nonprofit arm of Democrats for Education Reform, the hedge fund managers’ group)
Annual revenues: $12,379,392

GreatSchools.Org
Annual revenues: $10,774,696

Center for Education Reform (loves all choices, except for public schools)
Annual Revenues: $4,090,687

Rocketship Education:
Total annual revenues: $82,957,671
Net income: $6,761,892
(There are separate reports for local and state Rocketships, like Rocketship DC and Rocketship Wisconsin)

Expect More Arizona
Annual revenues: $3,729,325

Bricolage (the new charter school that will replace the last public school in New Orleans)
Since the school has not opened yet, there are no tax forms, but it is supported by the Walton Family Foundation, NewSchools Venture Fund, New Schools for New Orleans, and the Arnold Foundation.

Washington State Charter Schools. No 990 forms yet, but the charter schools in Washington State were funded entirely by Bill Gates and a small group of billionaires, including Alice Walton, Nick Hanauer, Alice Walton, the parents of Jeff Bezos, and a few others with very deep pockets.

Why in the world would any of these organizations ask you to retweet a message that would win $10 for them?

Ahem. The Reform and privatization industry is a hobby of the billionaires. It is not a “movement.” Its purpose is to destroy public education and eliminate unions. It is a substitute for funding public schools, which 85% of American children choose.

If the money dried up, the entire edifice of privatization would shrivel and blow away.

Meanwhile, the Network for Public Education, whose annual revenues are not in the same league with the Reformers, would be delighted to receive your gift of $5, $10, $20, $50, $100. If 100 people give $10 each, that’s $1,000. That means a lot to us. Unlike the Reformer groups mentioned above, we don’t have office space. We have a Post Office Box. Not a penny of your donation will be wasted on exorbitant salaries or lavish facilities. We have no facilities! We have 1.5 staff members, and none of them is paid a six-figure salary. We are a lean, keen organization. Every dollar you give will support our work to protect, support, and improve public schools.

Make the Network for Public Education your charity of choice this year. We need the money. Don’t be fooled. We are the Davids of education. And you know how that turned out!

Achievement First is a Connecticut-based charter chain known for its no-excuses style, akin to schools of the late 19th century.

Data released by the Rhode Island Department of Education show that one of the AF charters in Rhode Island has a sky-high suspension rate.

The school in question is a K-4 school.

PROVIDENCE — A charter elementary school run by Achievement First had among the highest out-of-school suspension rates in the state during the last school year, according to data recently released by the Rhode Island Department of Education.

The Achievement First Providence Mayoral Academy, a kindergarten-through-grade-4 school, has the fourth-highest suspension rate in the state among all schools, at 47.5 incidents per 100 students. The rate represents the total number of suspensions, not the the number of students suspended. Some students may have been suspended multiple times.

The academy has 460 students. Achievement First has a total enrollment of 1,127 students.

The only schools with higher rates of suspension were an alternative academy in the Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton school district, the West Broadway Middle School in Providence, and Hamlet Middle School in Woonsocket.

Among elementary school children from low-income families, Achievement First has the highest rate of suspensions in the state, the second-highest rate among black students, the second-highest among students learning English and the third-highest among Latino students.

Elizabeth Winangun, the charter school’s director of external relations, said the mayoral academy suspended 14 percent of its students during the 2017-2018 school year.

“This [school] year,” she said, “we committed to significantly reducing that number. We put a plan of action in place, and I am happy to report that it is working. Year to date, our suspension rate is below 1 percent, an all-time low.”

Gary Rubinstein, ex-TFA, finds it startling that TFA issued a reading list that included “Waiting for Superman,” the discredited propaganda film of 2010.

https://garyrubinstein.wordpress.com/2018/12/26/tfa-puts-waiting-for-superman-on-its-must-see-list-for-2018/

It’s an embarrassment that TFA wants to dwell in the glorious past, but also an admission that their thinking is stuck in the past, the good old days when the future looked bright.

A state legislator in Pennsylvania left office after battling assault allegations. But because he served in the legislature for 10 years, he steps down with a sweeet package of benefits.

After a tumultuous nine months of seeing his stellar reputation as a lawmaker and Iraq War veteran tarnished by sexual assault and domestic violence allegations, state Rep. Nick Miccarelli is about to leave his House seat with a generous benefits package intact.

Miccarelli’s 10-year run as a member of the state House of Representatives representing a portion of Delaware County ends on Friday.

By sticking around to complete his fifth term of office, Miccarelli becomes eligible for retirement benefits unheard of in the private sector.

Miccarelli – and 22 other departing House members this year who served 10 years or more – will receive medical, dental, vision and prescription insurance for the rest of their lives. Their current or future children can receive them as well until they reach 26 years old…

Miccarelli and the other retiring House members’ annual contribution for their insurance coverage is just 1 percent of their final year’s salary. That 1 percent for departing members this year amounts to $872.

Taxpayers will pick up the rest of the yearly tab: $11,332 for single person coverage and $26,799 for a married couple, according to information obtained through a Right to Know request filed with the House. Departing members with dependent children cost even more.

Additionally, retiring members and their spouses with 10 years of service also are eligible for long-term care insurance. The cost for that benefit is $842 a year, according to information provided by the House. Senators leaving after eight years of service get similar health and long-term care benefits.

For Miccarelli, who got married in February, the annual cost to taxpayers will be $27,641 for his and his wife’s health benefits.

Additionally, Miccarelli is eligible for a state pension. Based on ballpark estimates calculated by PennLive, the maximum annual annuity he would receive is $32,311, assuming he doesn’t retire before the age of 50.

Contrary to popular belief, members of the US Congress do not get 100% coverage of their healthcare costs, but they do have excellent benefits.

This article in The New Yorker is a long read. It will introduce you to a subject about which you are probably unfamiliar. It describes the world of Paul Singer, a billionaire investor. He is relevant to this blog because he is not only a billionaire but he gives generously to charter schools and Republican causes. Charter schools are the favorite hobby of hedge fund managers, equity investors, and Wall Street. These groups make large campaign contributions to influential politicians. They are underwriting the destruction of public education. They don’t know much about education, but they know markets. It is important for you to understand their thinking.

Gia Miller, a parent in New York, recently wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post explaining why she pays her children to do expected tasks in the home. She says it works.

“Please get dressed — we have to leave in five minutes,” I pleaded for the 20th time, my patience waning. “You still need to brush your teeth. You haven’t packed your backpack! We’re going to be late for school, again.”

This was a typical weekday morning in my home last year. Unfortunately, my first- and third-graders couldn’t seem to grasp the morning routine. All three of us have attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and we struggle with time management and executive functioning. As a result, my kids were late to school — a lot.

During the last month of school, when I was at my wit’s end, the principal called me in to discuss my kids’ excessive tardiness, and I knew something had to change. Fortunately, she was understanding, and I left the meeting with the beginning of an idea. By the first day of school this year, I had completely transformed our lives — the mornings and the evenings.

I accomplished this by paying my kids to perform basic life tasks. In behavioral psychology, this is called positive reinforcement. And it works.

“Positive reinforcement is reinforcing a positive behavior with a positive response, which makes the behavior more likely to happen in the future,” says Lauren Mosback, a behavioral specialist. “That can look like anything from verbal praise and encouragement to offering a tangible reward.”

I do both. I praise my kids for a variety of simple things they do well and reward them with money for behaviors I’m shaping. For example, whenever my kids listen right away or do something well, I praise them. But I also use personalized responsibility charts so they can be at school on time. As they complete tasks, they check them off and earn money.

“One of the biggest concerns I hear from parents is, ‘Isn’t this bribery?’ ” says psychologist Cindy Graham. “Basically, yes. But then I ask them how many adults will go and work out of the kindness of their heart if they weren’t getting paid monetarily. Reinforcement is built into who we are. It pays to go to work. We don’t do it for free, even if society needs it. Kids are no different.”

Positive reinforcement can also work to eliminate attention-seeking behaviors (your child interrupting you while you are on the phone), avoidance behaviors (finding other things to do instead of getting ready for school), access demands (wanting a particular toy or to go out with friends) and even aggressive or violent behaviors.

“What often happens is that we inadvertently and constantly reinforce all of the negative things — we point out what they are doing wrong,” says psychologist Nicole Beurkens. “We shine this huge spotlight on the problem instead of putting the spotlight where it needs to be, which is things that we want to happen and what we want to see more of.”

According to Mosback, saying things like “no” or “stop” won’t correct a bad behavior because a child, especially a young one, may not know the correct behavior or expectation. They must be taught. Using positive reinforcement teaches that correct behavior, increases self-esteem and improves the likelihood they will repeat that behavior.

One option is to create a rewards chart with a clear explanation of expected behaviors. To correct a specific bad behavior, Beurkens recommends rewarding positive behavior in 15-minute intervals — they’ll receive a check mark for each block of time they behave well. When they do well, slowly increase the length of time.

My kids needed more structure to accomplish their daily routine, so I created a chart that broke down the broad goal of getting ready for school into small steps so my children would know what is expected of them. I also defined what was expected of them each afternoon.

I wrote down each morning and afternoon responsibility, and I added several new tasks. They would now need to make their beds, feed the dog, practice music, keep their rooms clean and pick out their clothing the night before. Ambitious, I know.

Next I created a weekly responsibility chart. Days of the week are listed across the top and responsibilities are listed down the left. I grouped several responsibilities together and assigned a completion time. Each time they complete a group of tasks on time, they earn money, ranging from 10 cents to 25 cents.

Learn the “language of the positive”

According to behavioral psychologist Elliott Jaffa, positive reinforcement requires speaking without using no, not, isn’t, didn’t, don’t, couldn’t, or any “n apostrophe t” word. I strive to do this, but it’s a work in progress.

On the day I interviewed Jaffa for this story, I described my morning. My daughter accomplished everything in her first group of tasks except brushing her hair. She walked downstairs with the hairbrush, placed it on the kitchen table, and began to eat. When her time was up to receive her first reward, I explained that because she didn’t brush her hair before 7:20, she didn’t earn her first 15 cents for the day. But, I said, I knew she could earn the next reward.

Jaffa shared how I could have handled the situation better.

“First,” he said, “you did the damage with the word ‘didn’t.’ Next time, ask her, ‘What is that in your hand? How does it work? Can you show me?’ Ask questions to avoid saying she didn’t brush her hair. Every time she comes up with the right answer, you have an opportunity to say, ‘Great, that’s perfect.’ You set her up for three to four positives in a matter of seconds.”

Positive reinforcement has changed our lives. My home is less chaotic and more peaceful this year, and my kids are getting to school on time. Here are a few suggestions for using this system with your own kids.

Modify when needed and be flexible. When we started, my children had to complete nine tasks each morning to earn their reward. When they recognized that they wouldn’t complete everything on time, they became discouraged. So I created three deadlines, with just a few tasks in each. If they complete all those tasks within the time allotted, they earn a reward. Several of the experts I interviewed suggested I break it down further and reward them for each task completed within a certain time frame, even if they don’t finish all of them on time. And when needed, I’m flexible with the amount of time allowed. If my daughter requests extra time to complete her homework but she’s focused the entire time, she can still receive her reward.

Choose a motivating reward, and give it often. Rewards can be anything — toys, stickers, screen time, special privileges or money. Some children may need rewards immediately, while others respond to getting them once a day. I pay my children weekly, but several experts encouraged me to switch to daily rewards. They explained that if I give a reward days later, my children may not be as motivated to complete their tasks, because the reward is not as directly associated with the chore. More-immediate rewards will set them up for success.

Customize your chart, and keep it positive. My chart contains an entire week on one page. Two experts recommended I break it down to have just one day per page, to make it more visually appealing. For younger children, they recommended bright colors and pictures to illustrate each goal. If you’re not sure where to start, the Internet can help. Find a chart that speaks to your general needs, then modify it. Keep it positive by writing “spoke in a positive tone” or “kept hands and feet to yourself,” instead of saying “don’t be rude” or “don’t hit your brother.” Words that end in “n’t” aren’t allowed on a chart, either.

Should you pay your children to do jobs around the house and their homework? Dan Ariely would say no.

Economist Dan Ariely explains in his book “Predictably Irrational” how social norms and market norms differ.

==== THE COST OF SOCIAL NORMS:

We live simultaneously in two different worlds: one where social norms prevail, and one where market norms make the rules.
Social norms include friendly requests that people make of one another. “Could you help me move this couch?”
Social norms are wrapped up in our social nature and our need for community. They are usually warm and fuzzy.
Instant paybacks are not required. Like moving a couch or opening a door, you are not expected to immediately reciprocate.
Market norms have nothing warm and fuzzy. The exchanges are sharp-edged: wages, prices, rents, interest, costs-and-benefits.

Market relationships are not necessarily mean or evil – they also include self-reliance, inventiveness, and individualism – but they do imply comparable benefits and prompt payments.

When you are in the domain of market norms, you get what you pay for – that’s just the way it is.

When we keep social norms and market norms on their separate paths, life hums along pretty well.

Sex, for instance: free in social context, where it’s warm and emotionally nourishing. But market sex, on demand, costs money. Woody Allen: “The most expensive sex is free sex.”

The big story this Christmas was, as usual, about Donald Trump. Not that the market crashed, the one he used to brag about (he takes credit when it goes up, blames someone else when it goes down); not that he fired another cabinet member or two or three; not that he attacked another ally. But that he asked a 7-year-old child on a public broadcast whether she still believes in Santa and indicated that at her age, belief in Santa is “marginal.” The video of this conversation went viral on Twitter.

The little girl reached him by calling NORAD ; she is Collman Lloyd in Lexington, South Carolina.

She contacted the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), which has tracked Santa’s whereabouts for 63 years. A scientist answered the phone and asked Lloyd if she would like to speak with President Donald Trump. She was put on hold for six minutes and then he picked up the phone.

Here is the Donald in conversation with little Collman.

 

Presidential historian Michael Beschloss tweeted something he discovered in the papers of President John F. Kennedy. A little girl wrote to ask him whether Santa and the North Pole might be endangered by nuclear testing, and he answered her (given that the signature was printed, probably someone answered for him):

Image-1 (1)

The classic response to the question about whether there really is a Santa Claus was printed in the New York Sun in 1897. Wikipedia tells the full story here.

It begins: “In 1897, Dr. Philip O’Hanlon, a coroner’s assistant on Manhattan’s Upper West Side, was asked by his then eight-year-old daughter, Virginia O’Hanlon (1889–1971), whether Santa Claus really existed. O’Hanlon suggested she write to The Sun, a prominent New York City newspaper at the time, assuring her that “If you see it in The Sun, it’s so.”[3] In so doing, Dr. O’Hanlon had unwittingly given one of the paper’s editors, Francis Pharcellus Church, an opportunity to rise above the simple question and address the philosophical issues behind it.” The full text of the editorial appears on the Wikipedia page, along with Virginia’s letter.

yesvirginia2

 

When Collman spoke to the President of the United States, she didn’t know what “marginal” meant.

According to the local paper, she still believes in Santa Claus.

Lloyd had never heard that word before, “marginal.”

“Yes, sir,” she said.

She didn’t know it, but his comment about her age being marginal — and her response — would spark national news stories that night and the following morning.

Lloyd never did learn Santa’s whereabouts, but she was glad to be able to talk with her nation’s leader.

“I was like, ‘wow.’ I was shocked,” she said. “It wasn’t really (nerve-wracking), I just had to think of what the truth was.”

After the president hung up the phone, Lloyd sat in her kitchen with her parents, her 10-year-old sister, her 5-year-old brother and a friend. She wondered about Trump’s family, and what his Christmas Eve plans were.

If she ever had the chance to talk to the president again, Lloyd said, she’d ask him about his family.

“Most people know this question. I would like to ask if he has any kids,” she said. “I’ve honestly never heard of them or seen any of them so I was wondering.”

That night, Lloyd and her siblings left iced sugar cookies and chocolate milk out for Santa. The next morning, they were gone, and under the tree was a wrapped gift with Lloyd’s name on it: a brand new American Girl doll.

Santa is real after all, Lloyd said.

She doesn’t know that the president has children. She has led a happily sheltered life. That’s okay. After all, she is only 7. Let’s hope she doesn’t call Trump to ask about the Tooth Fairy.