Archives for the month of: March, 2019
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Fred Smith Explains That AOC was Right, and I Was Wrong, About the Test She Took

By dianeravitch
March 22, 2019 //
33

 

At the meeting of Jackson Heights Parents for Public Schools on March 16, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes said that she took a high-stakes standardized test, and her teacher told her she was in the 99th percentile. I thought she must have taken an  Iowa Test of Basic Skills since NCLB test scores are not reported as percentiles but as 1-4 or “below basic, basic, proficient, advanced.”

That sent the far-right blogosphere into a frenzy of self-righteousness, claiming (falsely) that she was lying about her scores.

But testing expert Fred Smith explained to me that AOC was right, and I was wrong. She was tested before NCLB.

Take that, trolls!

Fred, who worked as a testing expert at the NYC Board of Education for many years, wrote:

“Dear Diane,
“I was at that thrilling meeting in Jackson Heights too.  AOC was tremendous and you spoke so persuasively about the legitimacy of opting out.
“Full disclosure:  I’m guilty of asking someone in the crowd to take a picture of AOC and me on my cell phone.  I tell the people (I can’t wait to share it with) that the shot was taken at her insistence.
“But to your point about the veracity of AOC’s percentile score.  New York State tested children in grades 4 and 8 in the years prior to 2006 when the SED under NCLB required English Language Arts and math testing to be done in grades 3 through 8.  McGraw-Hill was the publisher.
“On the state’s website you’ll find archived technical reports going back to 1999, pertaining to the New York State Grade 4 ELA Assessment.  See:
 “AOC is 29 years old. She would have been in the 4th grade when she was nine–and likely took the statewide ELA in 2000.
“Table 1 in both reports presents frequency distributions that allow raw scores to be converted to cumulative percentiles–otherwise known as percentiles.  Thus, her teacher or a guidance counselor easily could have seen how well AOC did on the ELA and informed her that she achieved better than 99 percent of her peers.  In fact, to reach that peak she had to answer almost all questions correctly.
“Here is an example where the test did some good, although AOL’s brightness should have been obvious.  Why do those who want to build walls up also want to tear people down?
“Fred”

 

 

Categories Testing

Mercedes Schneider On Campbell Brown’s Short But Rewarding Life as an Education Reformer

By dianeravitch
March 22, 2019 //
18

 

Ah, Campbell Brown, we hardly knew ye!

Brown blazed across the Deform firmament like a shooting star, fighting sexual predators in the classroom, unions, tenure, and all other things that crossed her fevered brow.

She raised millions, and now she’s off to a new life at Facebook.

Gone and forgotten.

Mercedes Schneider tells the story here. 

 

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Teacher Tenure, Teachers, Unions

Right-Wing Blogs Spread Lies about AOC Appearance in Jackson Heights Public Education Forum

By dianeravitch
March 21, 2019 //
82

I wrote a post about my very pleasant experience meeting the wonderful, charming, brilliant Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in Jackson Heights, and I described her as “warm, comfortable in her skin, somewhat taken aback by her sudden fame, and unpretentious.” I said that she paid attention, and that she came to listen and learn. Everyone at the meeting was thrilled to meet her, and she took the time to shake hands, take selfies, and give generously of herself to all of the people who crowded in to meet her. She is a superstar, deservedly.

I noted that “It was a bit jarring to hear AOC say that she was treated in the Yorktown schools as in need of remedial education because she was Hispanic, not mainstream, but, she said, “a-high-stakes standardized Test” revealed she was in the 99th percentile. No one stopped to point out that she could not be referring to any high-stakes test used for accountability purposes because they don’t rank by percentile. They classify students as 1, 2, 3, or 4. Her teacher must have given her a no-stakes individual test that produces a percentile ranking for diagnostic purposes. Well, she can’t know everything about everything. None of us do.” I was not criticizing her but pointing out that she probably took an Iowa test or some other kind of test that gives percentile rankings, which NCLB tests do not. When you are a student, when you are in elementary school, you are not likely to know what kind of test you are taking, whether it is an Iowa test or a Pearson test or some other kind of test.

Imagine how surprised I was to see that a number of right-wing blogs claimed that I accused AOC of “lying.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

This one is titled “Ocasio-Cortez Lied About Her Test Scores to a Public Education Group.”

This was picked up by another blog.

And yet another blog, which attacked me too, for my writings about Afrocentrism from nearly 30 years ago.

And yet another blog, called “Liberty Redux.”

This one was titled “Did Ocasio-Cortez Lie about Her Test Scores at Anti-Charter School Rally?” 

This was repeated by another blog.

Probably it is continuing to spread through the fevered nether regions of the blogosphere, where mud-slinging is commonplace.

All of them made the false claim that I accused AOC of lying, which I did not. I said that she may have confused one kind of test for another, which is a mistake that any elementary school child might make. That is not a lie. NCLB state tests are not reported in percentiles, but as 1, 2, 3, 4, or below basic, basic, proficient, advanced.

All of these blogs somehow managed to find unflattering pictures of AOC, which is not easy because she is a very beautiful young woman.

Let me say this as clearly as possible so there is no misunderstanding.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez DID NOT LIE ABOUT HER TEST SCORES. AOC said that some of her teachers believed she was in need of remedial education until she took a standardized test in which she scored in the 99th percentile. I believe her. She is a brilliant young woman.

Her honesty, her integrity, her sincerity, and her genuine concern for other people shines through her.

I am old enough to be AOC’s grandmother, and I am proud to have met her. She is a shining example of the best in America.

The people who write these mendacious, lying blogs do not have the credibility to shine AOC’s shoes.

They are liars.

They are sycophants of the far-right.

They can do me a favor and not read my blog in the future.

They are spam and they will stay spam.

 

 

 

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Lies

Rhode Island: New Commissioner Pledges Dramatic Improvements

By dianeravitch
March 21, 2019 //
8

 

 

Governor Gina Raimondo selected the deputy commissioner from New York to lead Rhode Island.  She is a Reformer, already chosen by Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change as a future member of their group.

 

“PROVIDENCE, R.I. — When Gov. Gina M. Raimondo began her search for the state’s next Education Commissioner, her conversations with experts, teachers, and other leaders in the field of education kept coming back to one name: Angelica Infante-Green.

“With a “25-year track record of success” as a “fierce fighter for children,” Infante-Green was nominated as Rhode Island’s next Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education because she’s dedicated her entire career to “ensuring that all students have an opportunity to succeed. And her results in New York City and in New York state speak for themselves,” Raimondo said on Tuesday morning.

“Infante-Green serves as the Deputy Commissioner of the New York State Education Department’s Office of Instructional Support for pre-school through grade 12.

“During her tenure in New York, the state’s graduation rate increased and students made gains on both math and English assessments, while achievement gaps narrowed for black and Latino students. English language arts proficiency for grades 3 through 8 increased by 16 percentage points for black students and 15 percentage points for Latino students between 2015 and 2018. In that same period, math proficiency increased by eight percentage points for black students and seven percentage points for Latino students.

“Infante-Green’s time in New York showcased “consistent improvements in educational outcomes of all students, urban and suburban, rich and poor, inner city, every zip code, every race, every gender, every special need,” the governor said…

”Infante-Green has worked as an adjunct professor, serves on Stanford University’s Understanding Language Committee, and is a member of the first cohort of the Chiefs for Change Future Chiefs program. Her nomination is expected to be considered by the Council on Elementary and Secondary Education and the Board of Education on March 26. If confirmed by the Board, she will be Rhode Island’s first Latina Commissioner of Education, and the state’s first Commissioner of color.”

Her predecessor Ken Wagner held the same position in New York. New York’s NAEP scores have been flat for 20 years. It is typical of Reformers to make grandiose promises but not wise. Think Mike Miles in Dallas, who arrived in Dallas with amazing targets and was booted out three years later, having met none of them and driven out many teachers.

Categories Education Reform

California: Parent Opposes Berkeley’s Choice of Wendy Kopp as Commencement Speaker

By dianeravitch
March 21, 2019 //
13

 

Jane Nylund is a Parent Activist in Oakland who has fought the privatization machine. She wrote an open public letter opposing Berkeley’s selection of Wendy Kopp as its commencement speaker.

 

 

UC Berkeley should not support and condone school privatization: Rescind your offer to TFA Wendy Kopp as commencement speaker

As a public school advocate, and a product of California public schools (father and grandmother both attended UC Berkeley), I was outraged and saddened to find that UC Berkeley had extended an invitation to Wendy Kopp, founder of Teach For America, to be featured as the commencement speaker at UC Berkeley this year.

Oakland and other urban school districts have, for years, suffered under the constant threat of privatization. Teach for America is just one of many cogs in the privatization machine; there are many others, but TFA’s influence is not just felt at the school site level, but has also infiltrated higher levels of administration (such as the Oakland mayor’s office), as well as TFA acting as lobbyists for legislation favoring privately managed charter schools and ed reform groups.

TFA has a potent mixture of idealism and practicality; the concept of having the opportunity to “teach” in a high needs district such as Oakland is tantalizing for many young people eager to give something back to the community. According to TFArecruiting manager Jessica Rossoni, whose credentials included a stint at the Daily Californian, “UC Berkeley is one of the largest contributors to the organization in its number of students who join TFA, according to Rossoni. She said UC Berkeley students apply in high rates because of UC Berkeley’s values of equity and students’ desires to tie those values to a career.” Notice that she doesn’t mention the type of career. Could be anything but teaching, and usually is. But, here’s what TFA is really about:
1) Installing low-paid, unqualified, uncertified, non-union teaching labor into the most challenging schools. Leafy suburban schools would never accept a core group of teachers that enter their schools in significant numbers with only 5 weeks of experience. Charter schools actively employ non-union TFA teaching labor; charters’ teacher retention record is abysmal, typically 2 years. Not surprising, since this corresponds with the 2-year TFA teaching commitment.
2) Creating  a “teacher pipeline” to fill teaching positions is secondary to TFA’s true mission mentioned above. Despite TFA’s assertions, there isn’t a teacher shortage; that narrative is trotted out by TFA and is accepted as gospel by the ed reform echo chamber; teachers as a whole are woefully underpaid and unsupported, particularly in high needs districts (was everyone at UC Berkeley asleep during the Oakland strike?). TFA solves none of this; its existence exacerbates the problem by undermining the professionalism, credentials, and experience of authentic teachers committed to the job as a profession, and not just a career stepping stone or resume padding on the part of corps members.
3) TFA charges school districts a fee for hiring TFA members. This fee causes a significant burden for cash-strapped districts already grappling with expenses associated with supporting high needs students. There is no guarantee that these teachers will remain with the district, and in fact, collectively, TFA has a poor track record of teacher retention within the host district in which they serve. This disruptive model of teacher churn caused in part by hiring TFA is damaging to our students, who deserve highly-trained, certified teachers with a long-term commitment to the profession.
4) TFA is a privatization group that is actively supported by the Walton Family Foundation.  Why UC Berkeley would ever align itself with the worst of corporate school privatization supporters completely escapes rational thought. UC Berkeley is one of the most important assets and symbols of public education in California. Support for groups like TFA flies in the face of the core values that UC Berkeley represents. Its mission to serve public students and to serve in the public interest will forever be tainted by this ill-advised invitation to a group that undermines all we value as democratically represented public institutions.
Read here for the unflinching reality of what TFA truly represents, and ask yourself if this narrative aligns with the values of UC Berkeley. I was disheartened to note that UCBerkeley has been a part of what has become the education misery in Oakland and elsewhere by supplying a large pool of students as corps members. Again, while the Berkeley students may find this kind of service admirable, this model is actively undermining the teaching profession. Not surprising that it is our mostly black and brown students that are suffering the consequences because of it. There is nothing admirable or equitable about that.
While I understand that this decision was based in part by student input, it is sometimes advisable for other adults in the room to step up and explain the symbolism behind this TFA invitation. This generation of college students hasn’t been around long enough to understand what has happened regarding school privatization in this country, but someone (besides TFAer Ms. Rossoni) needs to explain it to them. The students’ wish to give back to their community has been hijacked by the very people like the Waltons that want publicly supported institutions like UC Berkeley to go away. The irony is not lost on those of us who have witnessed this calamity for far too long. Please do the right thing and rescind your decision to Ms. Kopp, offer her your sincerest apologies, and find someone like Diane Ravitch or Jitu Brown, both true champions of authentic public education in this country. Thank you for your consideration. .
Regards,
Jane Nylund
Categories California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Oakland, Privatization, Teach for America

Do You Want an Out-of-State Billionaire to Put Money into Your Local School Board Election?

By dianeravitch
March 21, 2019 //
43

 

Three political scientists have written a book about billionaires putting money into local school board elections. Typically, the wealthy are not writing checks for their own school board elections, but even if they were, they are able to swamp the spending of others.

 

The book is titled Outside Money in School Board Elections: The Nationalization of Education Politics. It was published by Harvard University Press. The authors are Jeffrey R. Henig of Teachers College, Columbia University, Rebecca Jacobsen of Michigan State University, and Sarah Reckhow of Michigan State University.

 

They examine the role of outside money in five districts: Denver; Indianapolis; New Orleans; Bridgeport; and Los Angeles.

 

On this blog, we have frequently noted this kind of activity in many districts. People like Michael Bloomberg, the Waltons, the DeVos Family, Reed Hastings, the Koch brothers, and Eli Broad, and groups like Democrats for Education Reform and Stand for Children (carrying money on behalf of wealthy donors) have intervened in local school board elections, always in favor of charters, vouchers, and high-stakes testing. The Network for Public Education Action Fund examined the intervention of wealthy elites in several districts in its report called “Hijacked by Billionaires: How the Super Rich Buy Elections to Undermine Public Schools.”

 

Here is where the NPEA report and the Henig book disagree. NPEA believes that the intervention of billionaires into local school board elections is fundamentally anti-democratic because it undermines the ability of local citizens to make their own choices. NPEA knows that the goal of the billionaires is to privatize public schools via charters and vouchers. Our view is that those who spend vast sums of money distort democracy and are trying to impose their views by the power of their wealth to buy advertising, staff, mailings, posters, and everything else involved in a political campaigns. When local people can no longer afford to compete for a seat on the local school board, democracy suffers.

 

Henig, et al. do not agree with NPEA. Their view is that the expenditure of large amounts of money by outsiders is neither good nor bad. It might be bad because the money drowns out local voices. But it might be good because it brings more media attention to the school board races.

 

They are agnostic. Looked at from their point of view, it really doesn’t matter if Michael Bloomberg and Alice Walton put a few millions into your local school board race and overwhelm your neighbors Mr. Smith or Ms. Jones, who can raise only $10,000 or $25,000.

 

They conclude: “The consequences of outside money are neither wholly good nor wholly bad. Outside money can bring greater attention to elections that have, for far too long, been largely ignored by local media. Increased attention, however, can be skewed in favor of those with the most financial backing, leaving voters with little information about many candidates on election day. Similarly, increased media attention usually includes more information on policy issues, potentially educating voters about key issues facing their local schools; however, this increased attention is not evenly distributed across all issues.” And increased funding may produce increased voter turnout. “But our findings suggest it would be false—or at least premature—to conclude that the consequences of outside money are uniformly and decidedly good or bad.” (pp. 175-176).

 

The authors speculate about how this outside money might affect teaching and learning. “For teachers, we suspect that the influx of outside money could bring national and state debates about teacher accountability to their classroom door. Teachers might feel additional pressure to focus on areas that appear on standardized tests, as accountability pressure is ramped up by local school boards that focus more heavily on this issue. The hot glare of outside money in school board elections could mean that board members, regardless of affiliation, focus more time and energy on this policy issue, leaving teachers bearing the brunt of these expectations. For those worried about teacher recruitment and retention in local districts, such a focus might make their jobs even more challenging, as new teachers perceive these environments as hostile workplaces. For those who believe teacher accountability policies increase the quality of teachers, drawing attention to this issue through outside funding might be seen as a chance to improve overall performance.”

 

In short, you can expect that if the money people prevail, high-stakes testing will assume even greater importance; the district will have trouble recruiting and retaining teachers, who are likely to see the district as a hostile workplace. You might also anticipate more closings of public schools and more openings of privately managed charter schools. These are not insignificant consequences.

Surely, you might think the authors would see these outcomes as problematic. But they prefer not to take a position. Is it too much to expect three political scientists who study the role of money in politics to look closely at the research about whether test-based accountability improves teaching? Shouldn’t they show that they are aware of the 2014 statement of the American Statistical Association that test-based accountability for individual teachers is invalid? Shouldn’t they give some thought to the consequences of replacing public schools with private management?

 

They prefer to be agnostic. Maybe ramping up the pressure on testing might be a good thing, maybe it might be a bad thing. Maybe letting the billionaires buy control of your district might be a bad thing, but then again maybe not.

 

Needless to say, I think the authors are wrong. It is okay for billionaires to buy up your local school district if it brings more media attention? I don’t think so. It is okay to stamp out local democracy if it brings more people to the polls and makes them more aware of the issues? I don’t think so.

 

If billionaires want to give money to underwrite hospitals, libraries, health clinics, or local schools, with no strings attached, then let them give.

 

But if they give money so as to take control of local decision-making, that strikes me as a blow against democracy. How can political scientists be agnostic? What am I missing?

 

The larger question, it seems to me, is completely ignored: the need for campaign finance reform in all elections.

 

I suggest that the authors of this book read Anand Giridharadas, Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World. Or Jane Mayer’s book Dark Money. Their indifference to the dangers of allowing plutocrats to buy elections is frankly shocking. I don’t understand their agnosticism. I assume they don’t care because they are not bothered by what the billionaires want to do. But maybe I’m wrong and they just don’t want to take a stand in defense of democratic decision making.

Categories Billionaires, Politics

Julian Vasquez Heilig: The Real Scandal Over Buying an Education

By dianeravitch
March 21, 2019 //
14

 

Julian Vasquez Heilig writes in The Progressive about a scandal bigger than buying seats in college. 

What we read about in the headlines was illegal.

What we don’t see in the headlines is education that is legally purchased.

He writes:

“Research is catching up to what is not exactly a well-kept secret: the nicer house an American family can buy, the better public school that family will have access to. While conservative politicians and a group of influential researchers were claiming that money didn’t matter for educational success, in practice, states spent less on the education of poor and minority students on purpose, while the wealthy enjoyed better-funded schools.

“A recent study by the nonprofit EdBuild found that predominantly white school districts receive $23 billion more than predominantly non-white districts—that’s an average of $2,200 per student. Wealthy districts have even grabbed 20 percent of the Title I funds that were meant for low-income districts.

“The implications of these cuts are lifelong for the students. A groundbreaking 2016 Northwestern study on school spending and student outcomes found that low-income children whose schools received a 10 percent increase in per pupil spending each year for all twelve years of public school had a higher school completion rate, and that students earned 7 percent higher wages once they’d joined the workforce, and experienced a reduction in the incidence of adult poverty. They also determined that funding increases have a more pronounced positive impact for children from low-income families. The increased funding, according to the study, was associated with reduced student-to-teacher ratios, increased teacher salaries, and more extended academic semesters.”

Conservatives loveto say that money doesn’t matter, but that’s nonsense.

The Trump-DeVos rhetoric pretends that choice is a substitute for adequate funding.

It’s not.

Categories Education Reform, Funding

Leonie Haimson: Why Is NYC Chancellor Carranza Sending Struggling Schools into a Death Spiral?

By dianeravitch
March 21, 2019 //
13

 

Leonie Haimson questions why NYC Chancellor Carranza sent a letter to every parent in schools rated CSI (Comprehensive Support & Improvement) by the state to let them know that they could transfer to another school. 

Although he claimed otherwise, he was not required to do so.

Some schools are on the list because of opt outs.

Carranza is destroying schools instead of supporting them. No school ever improved by closing it.

After I wrote this, I heard that Carranza “might” withdraw his threatening letter. True or not, why was it his response and Commissioner Elia’s response to threaten schools instead of helping? Why do they think that any school needs threats and intimidation? Where do they get these attitudes? Was NCLB their textbook?

Categories Closing schools, Education Reform, Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), New York, New York City

New Zealand Bans Military Assault Weapons

By dianeravitch
March 20, 2019 //
32

 

The latest news: 

 

New Zealand will ban military style semi-automatics and assault rifles and establish a nationwide buyback of the weapons in the wake of a terrorist attack on two mosques that left 50 people dead.

The ban takes immediate effect to prevent the stockpiling of weapons while the legislation is being drafted, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told reporters Thursday.

“I strongly believe that the vast majority of legitimate gun owners in New Zealand will understand that these moves are in the national interest, and will take these changes in their stride,” she said in a statement.

In sharp contrast with the U.S., where a string of gun massacres have failed to spur political action, Ardern’s announcement comes just days after the worst mass shooting in New Zealand’s modern history. On March 15, a lone gunman attacked Muslim worshippers during afternoon prayers in the South Island city of Christchurch, filming and live-streaming the attack to social media.

Police recovered two semi-automatic weapons, two shotguns and a lever-action firearm, which the attacker could own legally because he had a category-A gun license. A loophole in the law makes it easy to convert standard semi-automatics, which hold up to seven bullets, to military-style weapons by inserting an unregulated high-capacity magazine.

The buyback could cost the government between NZ$100 million and NZ$200 million ($140 million), Ardern said. Exemptions will be made for shotguns and 0.22 caliber rifles for farmers and hunters.

New Zealand’s response to the mosque shootings echoes that taken by Australia, which acted quickly to tighten gun laws after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre left 35 dead.

Prime Minister John Howard’s government pushed through legislation that banned certain semi-automatic weapons and introduced new licensing rules. A national firearms registry was established, and the government bought back and destroyed 640,000 civilian-owned guns.

Televised images from the time show truckloads of weapons being dumped.

After the reforms, the total number of homicides involving a firearm decreased by half, and the number of gun-related deaths also fell. The changes have been credited with all but ending mass shootings in the country

Categories Guns

Shawgi Tell: The Issue Is Not Standardized Test Scores But the Theft of Public Property

By dianeravitch
March 20, 2019 //
36

Shawgi Tell is a professor of education at Nazareth College in Rochester, New York.

In this post, Shawgi Tell describes the massive misuse of standardized tests created by mega-corporations.

He writes:

Charter school supporters and promoters have long been severely obsessed with comparing charter school and public school students’ scores on expensive curriculum-narrowing high-stakes standardized tests produced by big corporations. They fetishize test scores and believe such scores are useful and meaningful in some way, despite what extensive evidence has shown for decades.

One reason charter school supporters and promoters dogmatically fixate on pedagogically meaningless test scores is because they do not want to draw anyattention to the real underlying problem with charter schools, which is that they are privatized, marketized, corporatized, deregulated, deunionized, non-transparent, pro-competition, political-economic arrangements that siphon billions of public dollars from public schools every year and make rich people even richer while drowning in fraud, corruption, waste, arrests, scandal, and racketeering.

Nonprofit and for-profit charter schools are contract schools that operate outside the public sphere and benefit mainly major owners of capital, even though they are portrayed as a way to “empower parents.” Test scores do not change this. Whether students’ scores on unsound tests produced by for-profit companies are high or low, it does not make the looting of billions of dollars in public funds by charter schools from public schools acceptable. Test scores cannot cover up this large-scale theft and destruction. Scores on tests not produced by educators and lacking a human-centered perspective necessarily serve retrogression….

Charter school supporters’ obsession with test scores is a ruse. It is designed to fool the gullible. People should recognize that public schools, funds, facilities, resources, assets, and authority belong only to the public and that wealthy private interests behind charter schools have no legitimate claim to them no matter how well or poorly charter school students—usually chosen by the school, not the other way around—score on widely-rejected corporate tests.

 

 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Reform, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »