Archives for category: California
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Do Schools Improve if You Attack the Teachers?

By dianeravitch
August 25, 2012 //
4

Caroline Grannan wrote the fact sheet about the parent trigger for Parents Across America. Here she explains more about what is happening now in the Adelanto School District, where Parent Revolution is leading the effort to convert Desert Trails Elementary School into a charter school.

The ultimate question is whether the way to repair a struggling school is to attack its teachers and attempt to turn it over to corporate privatizers. (I don’t use the term “failing school,” which heartlessly brands the students and the rest of the school community as failing.) The concept is that we must destroy the school in order to save it.

In fact, as anyone informed knows, the Adelanto school district had just put a new principal in place at Desert Trails, and parents have been pleased with him.

Charter schools overall have a worse record than comparable public schools, and “takeover” charters, in which an operator steps into an existing struggling school, have an exceptionally dismal record. There have been no successful parent triggers anywhere. Why would someone want to inflict a “solution” that has no track record of success on an already challenged school community?

For those who are sincere about believing this is a good idea (I don’t harbor any illusion that anyone within Parent Revolution is sincere about that; they are simply trying to keep the funding coming in), the concept behind that is that the school is such a disaster that something, anything, must be done, no matter what. Would you apply that thinking to a medical crisis — randomly start removing organs, even with a record of failure in past organ removals?

Many parents at Desert Trails are pleased with and hopeful about their school, though the press is so bought into the parent trigger that only the small number of Parent Revolution loyalists get attention.

Parent Revolution’s hostility to teachers also demonstrates how doomed their approach is, should anyone be gullible enough to believe their efforts are sincere. Waging war on teachers is not the way to repair a broken school; teachers must be partners. “You can’t win a war by firing on your own troops,” as Diane Ravitch has said.

Here’s a great article on the heart and soul of a school that would appear to be “failing” based strictly on flinty-eyed data:
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/08/mission-high-false-low-performing-school

And here’s what education scholar Richard Rothstein has said about the concept that we must destroy America’s schools in order to save them:

“A belief in decline has led to irresponsibility in school reform. Policymakers who believed they could do no harm because American schools were already in a state of collapse have imposed radical reforms without careful consideration of possible unintended adverse consequences. …
“I do not suggest that American schools are adequate, that American students’ level of achievement in math and reading is where it should be, that American schools have been improving as rapidly as they should, or that the achievement gap is narrowing to the extent needed to give us any satisfaction. I only suggest that we should approach fixing a system differently if we believe its outcomes are slowly improving than if we believe it is collapsing.”

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2008/04/07/richard-rothstein/a-nation-at-risk-twenty-five-years-later/
Categories California, Charter Schools, Parent trigger, Teachers and Teaching

President of the Adelanto School Board Challenges “Parent Revolution”

By dianeravitch
August 22, 2012 //
20

As you may recall, there is a bitter battle under way in Adelanto, California.

Parent Revolution, an organization funded by Gates, Walton, and Broad, has been in search of a school that could be used to fire the “parent trigger.” The parent trigger law was passed in January 2010, and in the past 2 and 1/2 years, no school has been converted to a charter.

Parent Revolution was behind the petition drive at the Desert Trails Elementary School in Adelanto, California, where they helped to organize a parent union.

The school board has resisted Parent Revolution’s demand to turn the school into a charter school.

This letter was written to the blog by the president of the Adelanto School Board:

Carlos Mendoza commented on Parent Trigger District Heading Back to Court: UPDATEParent Revolution and Desert Trails Parent Union had parents sign two different petitions. They claimed that they wanted reforms – not a charter. The 2nd petition calling for a charter was just for strategy to force the district to negotiate. They, however, submitted the charter petition. Many parents felt misled or confused by this process and asked that their names to be removed from the petition. There were almost 100 requests. It dropped the number of signatures below the required amount to make the petition valid. Judge Malone’s ruling states that the District is prohibited from allowing parents to revoke their signatures. EVERY parent who spoke to the Board from either side of the issue stated they did not want a charter. So much for parent empowerment.

I would like to issue a challenge. If the issue is about Parent Empowerment, then I challenge Parent Revolution and the Desert Trails Parent Union to put it up to the parents in a secret ballot vote. Why waste district funds on a lawsuit? I contend that the district has complied with the reforms asked for by parents. I accuse Parent Revolution of making this about what that organization wants and not what the majority of parents want. Let the parents of Desert Trails Elementary School vote up or down in a secret ballot monitored by neutral parties the issue of a charter school. I’m not afraid of the results – no matter what it may be. Can Parent Revolution and the Desert Trails Parent Union say the same? Or are they too invested in a win that true Parent Empowerment has been dropped from their vocabulary?
Categories California, Parent trigger

The Flawed Assumptions of the Parent Trigger

By dianeravitch
August 21, 2012 //
1

A reader in California writes about the “parent trigger” law. It was enacted when Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor and the state board of education had a majority that were charter school advocates. Its lead sponsor in the legislature ran for state superintendent, lost and is now employed by the Wall Street hedge fund managers’ group Democrats for Education Reform. The organization behind the parent trigger, Parent Revolution, is funded by Gates, Walton, and Broad Foundations. The law was enacted in California in January 2010. Since then, Parent Revolution has attempted in two districts to use the law to convert a low-performing school into a charter school. The school in Adelanto is thus far the only one to date that has gained momentum. [For a factual explanation of the parent trigger, read this summary by Parents Across America]:

The Parent Trigger Act as originally presented in California was completely based on assumptions.   The definition of assumptions is: something taken for granted.

So what kinds of assumptions did former Senator Gloria Romero, members(including herself) of DFER(Democrats for Education Reform), charter offshoot Parent Revolution, and the then charter-friendly CA Board of Education make?

1.  They assumed that parents in supposedly failing schools would easily fall prey to promises made by an outside astroturf group peddling the Parent Trigger mantra of instant school success.
2.   They assumed that parents would be so enamored of these promises that they wouldn’t demand an open meeting that would also include teachers and administrators to discuss the pros and cons of parent takeover.
3.  They assumed that once a majority of parents signed on, that the rest would happily sign on.
4.   They assumed that a slew of top charters would magically appear to sweep the “failing” school off its feet.
5.   They assumed that the parents would not question whether or not there is any evidence that turning a school over to a charter would produce the desired results.
6.   Worst of all, the assumption was made that a Parent Trigger would create unity, not serious divisiveness amongst all involved in the school community, a consequence that would certainly seriously hamper any school improvement plan.

Is there any part of the present school reform agenda that is based on hard evidence rather than assumptions?????

Categories California, Education Reform, Parent trigger

What Happened in Adelanto?

By dianeravitch
August 21, 2012 //
0

Yesterday I wrote a brief summary of the situation in the Adelanto school district in California, the only district where the so-called “parent trigger” has made any headway. The reader is correct: no vote was ever taken. It was a bad choice of words on my part.

This reader comments.

Your post is inaccurate. They didn’t vote. No one ever voted.A handful of parents worked with Parent Revolution, an organization with no ties to Adelanto.There were no public hearings or news stories before the petitions were circulated. There was no public discussion about what was in the petitions nor were requests/demands made of the school board for changes before the petition drive began.

Two petitions were created and circulated. One asked for changes, one asked for Parent Trigger. Multiple people have stated they only signed the Parent Trigger petition because they were told it was a backup, a lever, for the other petition, which would be presented first. That’s not how it happened, and that is the reason for people withdrawing their signatures.

Ironically, it’s possible that many of the signatures are from people whose children are no longer enrolled in the school. What if the new parents want something different? What if the community wants something different? What if the community was happy with their elected school board and would have liked to work through that?

Oh no. Far better to take the school governance out of the hands of the community altogether, and indefinitely if not forever.

I don’t think that’s really parent empowerment, not in any way.
Categories California, Education Reform, Parent trigger

Parent Trigger District Heading Back to Court: UPDATE

By dianeravitch
August 20, 2012 //
3

The only school in the nation ever to vote to invoke the state “parent trigger” law is in Adelanto, California. [CORRECTION: As a commenter noted, no vote was ever taken; there was no public discussion or public hearings.]

Parent Revolution, the organization funded by Gates, Walton and Broad to promote the trigger has been funding the fight in Adelanto.

It helped dissident parents form a union, organize a petition drive, collect signatures, and push for a charter school. [CORRECTION: Two petitions were circulated, one for improvement, the other for a charter; only the latter was presented to the board.]

When the school board resisted the idea of turning the school into a charter, some of those who signed the petition tried to remove their names.

It turned out that they wanted the school to be improved, not turned over to a charter.

Parent Revolution went to court and the judge declared that parents were not allowed to take their name off the petition, so it seemed that a charter was in the offing.

But the school board just decided that it was too late to turn the school into a charter–it is late August–and the board  has come up with a plan to overhaul the school.

Parent Revolution is outraged, and will probably take the board to court again.

What happens next?

Categories California, Parent trigger

What and Who Is EdVoice?

By dianeravitch
August 17, 2012 //
12

A group called  EdVoice filed a lawsuit to compel the teachers of Los Angeles to comply with 40-year-old legislation (the Stull Act), requiring that student performance be part of teacher evaluation. The Los Angeles teachers’ union has opposed the suit, and they are currently in litigation.

The issues are supposed to be resolved in December. There are many ways to demonstrate pupil performance, not just standardized test scores.

There are so many of these “reform” groups that it is hard to keep track of them.

What and who is EdVoice?

Here is an answer from Sharon Higgins, an Oakland parent activist who is a relentless researcher, and who maintains two websites, one called “charterschoolscandals,” the other called “The Broad Report.” Higgins is an example of the power of one voice, devoted to facts:

Here are a few more specifics about EdVoice, the education lobbying group.

EdVoice was founded in 2001 by Reed Hastings (CEO of Netflix, Microsoft board member, Green Dot founding funder) and John Doerr (venture capitalist, investment banker), along with and former CA state Assembly members Ted Lempert and Steve Poizner. Eli Broad and Don Fisher (deceased CEO of The Gap and major KIPP supporter) once served on EdVoice’s board.

EdVoice has received a ton of money from all of the above as well as from Carrie Walton Penner and Fisher’s widow, Doris. Penner lives in the Bay Area and is a Walton Family Foundation trustee. She also sits on KIPP’s board, as does Reed Hastings, and the Fishers’ son, John.

Back in 1998, Hastings also co-founded Californians for Public School Excellence with Don Shalvey. This is the organization that pushed for the Charter Schools Act of 1998, the law that lifted the cap on the number of charter schools in the state.

Don Shalvey was involved with starting the first charter school in California, just after the passage of the California Charter School Act of 1992 (CA was the second state to pass a law). He is also founder and former CEO of Aspire Public Schools. Reed Hastings has been a major source of Aspire’s financial backing, including its launch. In 2009, Shalvey stepped down from his post at Aspire and went to work for the Gates Foundation, but for a while he stayed on Aspire’s board. The Gates Foundation has given generously to Aspire.

In 2011, Hastings and Doerr pumped $11M into DreamBox Learning, an online education company started by a former Microsoft executive and the CEO of a software company. It was acquired by Hastings with help from the Charter School Growth Fund.

BTW, EdVoice co-founder Lempert is currently president of an Oakland-based org called Children Now; he occasionally teaches at Cal. Poizner, a conservative Republican and wealthy Silicon Valley high tech entrepreneur, was defeated by Meg Whitman in the June 2010 gubernatorial primary, and is now the State Insurance Commissioner. For several years he worked for Boston Consulting Group as a management consultant.

More conniving fun and games.

Categories Boston Consulting Group, California, Education Reform, Los Angeles, Teacher Evaluations, Testing

What Does “Progress” Mean?

By dianeravitch
August 16, 2012 //
2

In California, there is a battle going on between a “reformist” group called Edvoice and the United Teachers of Los Angeles. California has a forty-year-old law called the Stull Act, which says that a teacher’s evaluation will include evidence of student progress. But how is “progress” defined?

Some “reformers” will use any and all opportunities to make standardized test scores the measure of teacher quality, because that guarantees that 1/2 of all teachers will be below the mean and thus many will be “ineffective” by design. Knowingly or not, they seem eager to create evidence of failure.

This principal says that “progress” means far more than bubble-test scores:

To willingly comply with policy that one knows is heinous, is nothing short of injurious to both individual teachers, teachers’ unions, and students. I have been a teacher and principal in California for my entire educational career (30+ years) and can tell you with certainty that VAM based on California’s Stull Act (AB 293) is a complete perversion of that bill’s purpose, and most importantly, practice.
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that past practice and precedent count for a lot in legal circles and California’s Stull Act has never been interpreted to mean that teachers must be evaluated on a student’s standardized test scores. The bill simply states that teachers will be evaluated on “student progress”, but since when is a student’s progress limited to a standardized test score? To go along with VAM based on standardized test scores is to make an assumption that the sum and substance of a student’s school performance and experience is limited to the bubbles he or she is filling in on any given day: an absurdity. Since 1971 when the Stull Act went into effect, “student progress” was something that was interpreted by the teacher being evaluated and the school principal. Yes, the evaluation could include test scores, but just as valid were criterion referenced tests, publishers tests, student portfolios, teacher observations, principal observations and, as of late, even the observations of other teachers or bargaining unit members. The important thing was the agreement between the teacher and principal about what was appropriate considering the teacher’s stated goals.
To indicate that UTLA should “go along” with despicable policy is a symptom of exactly why teachers across the nation have found themselves in a predicament like they’ve never before experienced. Standing up against policy that is just plain wrong has nothing to do with hiding anything. Indeed, going along with such policy as VAM shows a willingness to comply with atrocious policy, even though you know that it is injurious to both students and teachers, an act that doesn’t garner the respect of anyone. It’s time to draw the “line in the sand” and do what we know as professionals is the right thing: resist VAM and encourage our unions to fight it at every opportunity.
Categories California, Los Angeles, Testing

Anthony Cody Challenges the Gates Foundation

By dianeravitch
August 14, 2012 //
4

Anthony Cody has worked for nearly two decades in the Oakland public schools. He knows what poverty does to children. He knows what hunger and violence do to their lives. He thinks the Gates Foundation should stop pretending that it can end poverty by putting “a great teacher” in every classroom. How will that feed children? How will it end the violence to which so many are exposed? How will it change the terrible conditions in which so many live?

In this post, Anthony Cody brings the facts to light that never figure in the Gates’ plans. Let’s hope that the executives at the foundation pay attention.

It is time for the Gates Foundation to take a risk and prove what they promote.

Instead of scattering its billions around the nation and chanting incantations about great teachers, why doesn’t the Gates Foundation select one school district–say, Oakland or Newark–and use that district to demonstrate its theories for all to see? What we have now is a multi-billion foundation using its clout to spread unproven ideas everywhere. How about evidence before pushing the entire nation’s education system over the edge of a Gates-built cliff?

Categories Accountability, California, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Poverty

Deja Vu for This Miracle Charter School

By dianeravitch
August 13, 2012 //
3

Two months ago I wrote a post about a charter school in Oakland that had been the beneficiary of a massive public relations campaign, abetted by gullible journalists at the Wall Street Journal, Jonathan Alter, and others eager to declare the triumph of the charter idea.

I mention this again because a reader sent a comment extolling this school as an example of what charters can accomplish, if freed of all regulation by the state.

The school–really three schools–is the American Indian Charter School. According to legend, it served the poorest of the poor, the needy children of American Indians, and through the grit of its founder Ben Chavis, it rose to become one of the highest performing schools in the state.

Then came news of an audit, and it was a shocker. 

It seems that Chavis was under investigation because millions of dollars were missing. Closer investigation indicated that the school was enrolling East Asian children, not American Indian children.

The Oakland trustees narrowly decided to renew the school’s charter because of its high test scores.

Question: Is it enough to get high test scores, by any means necessary? Or it is appropriate to expect that those who receive public funding will act with full disclosure and integrity, not to enrich themselves but to provide for the school and the children?

Here is part of the article linked above:

Between mid-2007 and the end of 2011, the school paid Chavis, his wife, Marsha Amador, and their various real estate and consulting businesses about $3.8 million, the auditors found. Many of those payments were made with state and federal facilities grants in the form of construction contracts to Chavis’ companies — business deals for school construction work that never went out to bid.

Meanwhile, the school’s weak governing board did little to stand in the way, auditors found. For a short period of time last year, Chavis served on the board while he was employed as the organization’s director and his wife was handling the books.

“The lack of due diligence and internal controls by the governing board has effectively granted the founder and his spouse unrestricted access to the assets of the organization and implied authority to enter into a variety of business arrangements for personal gain,” the report stated.

Other findings included the opening and closing of bank accounts without approval and $25,700 in credit card purchases billed to the school with no authorization or apparent benefit to the school. They included airfare, restaurant, hotel and retail bills from out-of-state, including the North Carolina town where Chavis owns a farm; DirecTV; Giants tickets; and costs related to another venture, which foundered after the investigation became public — the opening of a charter school in Arizona.

Chavis announced his retirement before the start of 2007-08 school year and returned to the school as director in 2011. He said at a recent hearing that he was a paid adviser during some of the time in between.

Chavis could not be immediately reached for comment.

Although Chavis did not found the original school, his name and reputation are most closely associated with the organization. A Lumbee Indian from North Carolina, he overhauled the academic program when he took over as director of the original school in East Oakland’s Laurel District in 2000.

The new curriculum emphasized reading, writing and math and eliminated much of the school’s Native American cultural teachings. Chavis instilled a strict and unorthodox discipline system that would bring notoriety to the school, sometimes using humiliation to motivate students to behave.

The most famous example of Chavis’ brand of discipline is a student head-shaving that took place at a school assembly, with parent permission, after the boy was caught stealing. Today, few if any of the school’s students are Native American.

Chavis announced his retirement shortly after the Oakland school district’s charter schools office began raising concerns about his conduct. That spring, the East Bay Express published a story about an explosive incident involving a Mills College professor and graduate students who had come to tour the school. An African-American graduate student said Chavis cursed at him and aggressively kicked him out of the school — claims that Chavis later acknowledged to be true, saying it was because the student came late.

The Oakland school district’s charter school office, under new leadership, again expressed concerns this year when one of the three schools, American Indian Public Charter School II, applied for a renewed charter. The charter office recommended that the Oakland school board deny the charter renewal, potentially closing the school.

But at a packed hearing in which Chavis entered to rousing applause, the Oakland school board went against the charter school office’s recommendation and, in a 4-3 vote, allowed the high-performing school to stay open.

Chris Dobbins, an Oakland school board member who supported the school at that meeting, said Wednesday afternoon that he couldn’t “tear the school apart” because of the alleged improprieties of its leader. Even now, he said, he didn’t have an easy answer.

“At the end of the day, it’s hard to argue those test scores,” he said. “It’s a really hard question.”

Read Katy Murphy’s Oakland schools blog at www.IBAbuzz.com/education. Follow her atTwitter.com/katymurphy.

evidence against chavis
The Fiscal Crisis & Management Assistance team published the below findings about apparent conflicts of interest and misappropriation of funds at American Indian Model schools — mostly by its founder and current director, Ben Chavis:
  • Publicly funded construction contracts for school improvements with Chavis’ personal businesses were “not supported by formal contracts, competitive bidding or authorization by the governing board.” That is a violation of federal regulations and could result in the loss of all federal funding to AIMS schools.
  • In addition to wages and construction income, Chavis collected $2.8 million from the schools through rent and storage fees he charged as the school landlord, additional construction projects and a mandatory summer program run by his private business. Some checks from a school bank account were written to Chavis’ companies and signed by Chavis.
  • In all, the schools made $3.8 million in payments to Chavis, his wife and their businesses from 2007-08 through the end of 2011.
  • Chavis’ wife, Marsha Amador, provided financial administrative services to the schools. Her duties included general accounting; processing accounts payable; compliance reporting to local, state and federal agencies; and assisting with an annual audit.
  • Chavis’ personal and unrelated business expenses were commingled with purchases for the AIMS schools.
  • About 35 percent of the credit card purchases paid for from the schools’ accounts — $25,700 — “were inappropriate or lack proper authorization.” Many of the purchases originated out of state.
Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools

UTLA Did Not Fold: UPDATE

By dianeravitch
July 26, 2012 //
8

Update: an earlier post reported that UTLA would accept evaluations based on test scores.

I relied on a story in the Los Angeles Times. 

The lawyer for UTLA informed me this is not true.

When I have more details, I will post them.

Categories Accountability, California, Education Reform, Teacher Evaluations
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »