Archives for category: Corporate Reformers
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Anthony Cody: The L.A. Times is Complicit in Failures of Gates Programs (Link Fixed!)

By dianeravitch
June 5, 2016 //
14

As readers know, the Los Angeles a Times published a scathing indictment of Bill Gates and his ill-fated forays into education policymaking. The Times noted Gates’ serial failures, one of which was his naive belief that teachers should be evaluated by the test scores of their students. This idea appealed to his technocratic, data-driven mindset.

Some cheered the Times’ about-face, but Anthony Cody did not. He argues that Los Angeles Times was complicit in some of Gates’ worst ideas, despite the absence of evidence for their likely success. It gave full-throated support to John Deasey when he ran the city’s public schools with a heavy hand and spent profligately on ed technology. While wiser heads were skeptical about Gates’plan to evaluate teachers by test scores, the Times decided to create its own test-based rating system and published the results.

Cody calls for accountability. The line between advocacy and reporting is thin, and he believes the Times’ reporters crossed it. They should have investigated the Gates’ theory, but instead they acted on it, assuming its validity.

Cody writes:


“I have a question related to journalistic integrity. How can the LA Times chastise the Gates Foundation – and their disciple John Deasy, without acknowledging their own embrace of Gatesian reforms? The LA Times did not just report on the issue – they created their very own VAM system, and criticized Los Angeles Unified for not using such a system to weed out “bad teachers” and reward those identified as “effective.” They were active advocates, instrumental in the war on teachers that has been so devastating to morale over the past decade.”

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Los Angeles, Teacher Evaluations, Teachers and Teaching, Testing

Sign the NPE Action Proposal to the Democratic Party Platform Committee

By dianeravitch
June 4, 2016 //
38

The Network for Public Education Action Fund has drafted a proposal for consideration by the Democratic Party’s Platform Committee.

We call for the elimination of federal mandates for annual testing; for a declaration of support for public schools; for a ban on for-profit charters; for regulation of charters that receive federal funds to assure that they serve the same children as the public schools; for revision and strengthening of the FERPA privacy laws to protect our children’s data from commercial data mining; for full funding of special education; for support of early childhood education; and for other means of improving the federal role in education.

The proposal is in draft form. We will be making revisions. If you see something you think needs fixing, let us know.

Please read our draft proposal. And if you agree, add your name of our petition to the Democratic party. We plan to make the same appeal to the Republican party.

Both parties, we hope, will support the public schools, which educate nearly 90% of the nation’s children. Public schools are a bedrock of our society, in the past, now, and in the future.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Data and Data Mining, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, NPE Action Fund, Parents, Privatization, Resistance, Standardized Testing, Vouchers

Larry Cuban: What Has Done More to Improve Living Standards: Indoor Toilets, Air-Conditioning, or Smartphones?

By dianeravitch
June 4, 2016 //
39

Larry Cuban writes on his blog about the most important inventions that have raised our nation’s standard of living. He poses the question that is the title of this post. He supposes that most people would respond “the smartphone,” but they would be wrong. His post is an intriguing review of a book by economic historian Robert Gordon, who contends that the century from 1870-1970 experienced greater growth and innovation than the past half century.

Cuban summarizes Gordon’s central argument:

Thus, an unheralded, stunning century of innovation and economic growth produced the telegraph, phone, television, house lighting, automobile, airplane travel, and, yes, indoor plumbing. These inventions networked the home and workplace in ways that raised living standards and increased workplace productivity considerably. It was in that same century that medical advances reduced infant mortality and lengthened life of Americans dramatically.

The half-century since 1970 has surely seen innovations that have enhanced these earlier inventions but the template for economic growth was laid down for that fruitful hundred-year period. In past decades, new technologies have clearly expanded communication and entertainment, making life far more instantaneous, convenient and pleasurable. But social media, immediate communication, and constant access to photos, video clips, and films have not increased the standard of living as had the decades between 1870-1970.

Cuban then segues to a discussion of the current reform movement in education, which traces its roots to the 1983 report “A Nation at Risk.” That report was “driven by an economic rationale–the human capital argument–for improving U.S. schools” and embraced by policymakers, business leaders, and foundations. If we didn’t improve education dramatically, we would lose our competitive edge in the world economy. And thus was born the “reform movement,” in which governors and “reformers” sought to raise curriculum and performance standards for both students and teachers, increase testing, and create accountability frameworks that included rewards and penalties in subsequent decades….

The current reforms in education and the pressure to raise test scores on international tests have not increased economic growth, stimulated productivity, or reduced inequality, writes Cuban.

In other words, reforms aimed at getting U.S. students to perform better on international tests for the past three decades–think No Child Left Behind, expanded parental choice in schools, more computers in schools, and Common Core state standards–was of little influence on growing a strong economy, raising median income, or lessening inequality, according to Gordon. These reforms, while aiding low-income minorities in many instances, overall, contributed little to improving productivity or raising standards of living

Gordon’s book concludes, writes Cuban, with a list of ten interventions that could raise the standard of living, like raising the minimum wage. Of his ten interventions three have to do with education. They are:

“…investing in preschools, state and federal school financing rather than local taxes, and reducing student indebtedness in higher education. Not a word about the dominant school reforms in 2016–Common Core standards, standardized testing, technologies in schools, charter schools, accountability.

In questioning the dominant beliefs in current school reform as essential to economic growth, Gordon’s argument and evidence are useful to those politically active decision-makers, teachers, parents, and researchers who know that a democracy needs schools that do more than prepare children and youth for the workplace.

The paradox, as Cuban suggests, is that the more we focus on test scores and workplace readiness, the more we sacrifice civic values that may be of greater importance in a democracy.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Economy, Education Industry, Education Reform, Every Student Succeeds Act, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top, Testing

Peter Greene: Why the Free Market Fails in Education

By dianeravitch
June 3, 2016 //
44

Peter Greene read about a charter school in Philadelphia that was closing, leaving its students and teachers in the lurch. At first glance, this might seem surprising, but it is actually a feature of the free market in education, not a bug.

 

 

Charters close because charter schools are businesses, and businesses close when it is not financially viable for them to stay open.

 

The free market will never work for a national education system. Never. Never ever.

 

A business operating in a free market will only stay in business as long as it is economically viable to do so. And it will never be economically viable to provide a service to every single customer in the country.
All business models, either explicitly or implicitly, include decisions about which customers will not be served, which customers will be rejected, because in that model, those customers will be detrimental to the economic viability of the business. McDonald’s could decide to court people who like upscale filet mignons, but the kitchen equipment and training would cost a whole bunch of money that would not bring a corresponding increase in revenue, so they don’t do it.

 

Apparently some 2,500 charters had closed by 2013. Obviously there have been numerous closings since then, although the U.S. Department of Education won’t release data on how may of the charters it funded have closed.

 

This is business. Where is Eastern Airlines, Pan American Airlines, Braniff? Where are the small stores that disappeared when Walmart opened? Google the term “brands that disappeared” and you will find dozens of familiar, once iconic brands that no longer exist. Kodak. Woolworth. Tab. Chiclets. All gone.

 

Public schools are not supposed to open and close in the twinkling of an eye. They are not supposed to compete for survival. They are public services, designed to serve every child in the community who wants to enroll. There is no lottery to enter.

 

Peter Greene writes:

 

The first question of the public education system has to be, “How can we get a great education for every single child in this country?” The first question for a business has to be, “What model can we use that will keep this business economically viable?’ And the answer to that question will never, ever be, “By providing an education to every child in this country.” There will always be students who live in the economic cracks, niche customers that no business wants because there will never be money in them. Some charter fans suggest, either explicitly or implicitly, that educating those students will be the job of public education. But that represents a dramatic and complete re-imagining of the purpose of public education, and to repurpose an entire public sector without a public discussion is irresponsible and undemocratic.

 

In the meantime, charter schools will continue to close when it makes business sense to do so, no matter what sorts of promises they made to the families of their students. Charter schools think like businesses, not like schools, because charter schools are businesses. We cannot be surprised when they act like businesses, and we cannot keep hiding from a discussion about the implications of turning that business mindset on a public good.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Charter Schools, Closing schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform

Los Angeles Times to Bill Gates: Stop Trying to Run the Nation’s Schools!

By dianeravitch
June 2, 2016 //
65

This is a remarkable editorial that appears in the Los Angeles Times, of all places. The headline tells a story we did not expect to read on this newspaper’s editorial page:

Gates Foundation failures show philanthropists shouldn’t be setting America’s public school agenda

Read that again. Slowly.

The editorial recaps the serial failures of the Gates Foundation in education: Small high schools (abandoned); evaluating teachers by test scores (not yet abandoned but clearly a failure, as witnessed by the disasterous, costly experience in Hillsborough County, Florida); Common Core (not abandoned, but facing a massive public rejection).

But it’s not all bad, says the editorial:

It was a remarkable admission for a foundation that had often acted as though it did have all the answers. Today, the Gates Foundation is clearly rethinking its bust-the-walls-down strategy on education — as it should. And so should the politicians and policymakers, from the federal level to the local, who have given the educational wishes of Bill and Melinda Gates and other well-meaning philanthropists and foundations too much sway in recent years over how schools are run.

That’s not to say wealthy reformers have nothing to offer public schools. They’ve funded some outstanding charter schools for low-income students. They’ve helped bring healthcare to schools. They’ve funded arts programs.

This is not the whole story, of course. They have funded a movement to privatize public education, which drains resources and the students the charters want from public schools, leaving them in worse shape for the vast majority of students. And they have insisted on high-stakes testing, thus leading schools to eliminate or curtail their arts programs. As for healthcare in the schools, there should be more of it, but it should not depend on philanthropic largesse. Two children in the Philadelphia public schools died because the school nurses were cut back to only two days a week, and there were no philanthropists filling the gap.

Knowing how destructive the venture philanthropists have been–not only Gates, but also Eli Broad and the Walton Family, and a dozen or two other big philanthropies–one could wish that they would fund healthcare and arts programs, and perhaps experimental schools that demonstrated what public schools with ample resources could accomplish.

Still we must be grateful when the Los Angeles Times writes words like these:

Philanthropists are not generally education experts, and even if they hire scholars and experts, public officials shouldn’t be allowing them to set the policy agenda for the nation’s public schools. The Gates experience teaches once again that educational silver bullets are in short supply and that some educational trends live only a little longer than mayflies.

Allowing Bill Gates or Eli Broad or the Walton Family to set the nation’s education is not only unwise, it is undemocratic. The schools belong to the public, not to the 1%.

Since the editorial mentioned Bill Gates’ devout belief that teachers could be evaluated by the test scores of their students, it is appropriate to recall that the Los Angeles Times was the first newspaper in the nation to publish ratings for teachers based on test scores; it even had hopes of winning a Pulitzer Prize for this ugly intervention by non-educators who thought that teaching could be reduced to a number and splashed in headlines. Let us never forget Rigoberto Ruelas, a fifth-grade teacher who committed suicide shortly after the evaluations were published by the Los Angeles Times, and he was declared by the Times to be among the “least effective” teachers. There followed a heated debate about the methodology used by the Times to rate teachers. That was before the American Statistical Association warned against using test scores to evaluate individual teachers. But the Los Angeles Times was taking Gates’ lead and running with it. It was not worth the life of this good man.

Categories Accountability, Broad Foundation, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Gates Foundation, Bill Gates, Privatization, Testing, Walton Foundation

California: State Superintendent Orders Audit of Low-Performing K12 Virtual Charter School

By dianeravitch
June 2, 2016 //
9

Jessica Calefati wrote a blistering series about Michael Milken’s K12 Inc. virtual charter school in California (called California Virtual Academy or CAVA) a few weeks ago. The series caused enough of a stir to persuade State Superintendent Tom Torklakson to order a state audit of CAVA.

Calefati reported that less than half the students at CAVA graduate, and none is qualified to attend a California public university.

The virtual charter industry is noted for high profits and poor performance. Student attrition is high, test scores and graduation rates are low. But profits are excellent, because the “school” receives full state tuition but has none of the expenses of a brick and mortar school. No grounds, no transportation, no custodian, no food services, no library, no support staff, no athletics. And classes that range from 40-more than 100 in number. As Calefati reported in the original series, students may get credit for attendance if they are online only one minute a day. The latest CREDO study found that for every 180 days enrolled in a virtual charter, students lose 180 days of instruction in math and 72 in reading. This is a lose-lose.

It is heartening to see state officials taking action to curb the fraud that runs rampant through its charter industry, unsupervised, unregulated, and unchecked.

Calefati writes:

In a rare move, California’s top education official has enlisted the state’s highest-ranking accountant to conduct a sweeping audit of California Virtual Academies, a profitable but low-performing network of online charter schools that enrolls about 15,000 students across the state.

The audit is the first that Superintendent for Public Instruction Tom Torlakson has asked the state controller’s Office to conduct since he took office in 2011. The request comes two months after this newspaper published an investigative series on K12 Inc., the publicly traded Virginia firm that operates the schools and reaps tens of millions of dollars annually in state funding.

In a statement Thursday, Torlakson said he has a duty to ensure that public money isn’t being squandered and sought the probe into the California Virtual Academies because of “serious questions raised about a number of their practices.” He said the audit would examine the relationship between the schools and the company and the “validity” of attendance, enrollment, dropout and graduation rates reported by the academies to the state.

This isn’t the first time the company has come under fire in recent weeks.

Torlakson’s request follows lawmakers’ calls last month for the state auditor to examine for-profit charter schools operations and Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla’s introduction earlier this month of legislation that would prohibit online charters from hiring for-profit companies like K12 for management or instructional services. The company is also being probed by Attorney General Kamala Harris, who launched an investigation of online charter schools last fall.

If Controller Betty Yee finds evidence of gross financial mismanagement, illegal or improper use of public money, a disregard for sound educational practices or repeated failure to improve student test scores the state Board of Education, may — based on a recommendation from Torlakson — vote to revoke the schools’ charters.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, For-Profit, K12 Inc., Privatization, Virtual Charter Schools

Jeannie Kaplan: Don’t Fall for the Hoax about Reform “Success” in Denver!

By dianeravitch
May 27, 2016 //
13

Jeannie Kaplan was twice elected to the Denver Board of Education and is well qualified to review the claims made about that city’s schools. Due to an infusion of reformer cash from across the nation starting in 2009, Denver’s elected school board is now completely dominated by supporters of choice and high-stakes testing (i.e. corporate reformers). These “reformers” have a 7-0 grip on the city’s schools and its publicity machine, thanks to national corporate reform-minded groups like Stand for Children and Democrats for Education Reform (DFER). Their claims are repeated in the reformer media, including at Gates-funded and rightwing think tanks and publications. Jeannie is a very kind and compassionate person, and she is tired of having to refute the claims, again and again. But she comes once more to the front, to explain why Denver is a hoax, not a model.

 

In this post, she reviews the latest phony claims about “reform” in Denver.

 

She writes:

 

 

Let’s do a quick refresher course before we delve into this faux success story.

 

 

The main goals of “education reform” are:

 

Expanding charter schools, which as the state of Washington has determined are not common (public) schools;
Improving graduation rates. The most recent DPS strategic plan, Denver Plan 2020, calls for graduation rates for African American and Latino students of 89% by 2020, 90% for students who start in DPS in ninth grade;
Reducing or eliminating the achievement gap, that is, the gap between children living in poverty and those not. Another goal of Denver Plan 2020.
Eliminating the union protected workers in the public school system which can be exacerbated by closing “failing” schools and replacing them with either charter schools or innovation schools both of which are for the most part non-union;
Evaluating teachers based on test scores with all the concomitant issues around high stakes testing.

 

 

Reformers try to reach these results through something called a portfolio strategy, a business model used by Wall Street that simply put is predicated on constant churn. As Osborne writes, a portfolio strategy works “to replicate successful schools and replace failing ones.” The problem with such a strategy is students and teachers and parents and communities are neither commodities to be bought and sold nor should they be characterized as winners and losers. Denver has seen up close and personal how the chaos and churn this model brings.

 

 

Kaplan devotes the bulk of her post to debunking false claims of Denver’s success made in an article by David Osborne in the Hoover Institution-sponsored publication Education Next. EdNext cheerleads for charters, vouchers, and all forms of school choice. Osborne reliably concludes that “reform” has been a great success in Denver and that the day is in sight when most families will choose charters or other choice schools, thus obliterating neighborhood schools. Kaplan goes point by point through his article to correct him, though she notes that he provides no documentation for his statements.

 

She shows that at the present rate of change, Denver has no chance of reaching its “reform” goals by 2020. It is always dangerous for reformers to set concrete dates as predictions of their total success. This was done in Tennessee by Chris Barbic and the Achievement School District. He predicted in 2012 that the schools in the bottom 5% statewide would reach the top 25% in only five years. None of them has even managed to exceed the bottom 10% thus far and most remain in the bottom 5%.

 

Probably reformers should promise to reach their ambitious goals by 2050, a date so far removed that they won’t be held accountable in the meanwhile.

 

Kaplan concludes:

 

Denver has become a national leader for its implementation of “education reform.” This has been relatively easy to accomplish with the help of the national media who continuously bolster the “education reform” agenda of chaos and churn. “Education reformers” in Denver have all the elements in place to continue to push a failing education model. Be afraid, Denver. Be very afraid.

 

Why the hatred of neighborhood public schools? I don’t know.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Denver, Education Industry, Education Reform, Privatization

Jeb Bush Resumes His Fight Against Public Schools

By dianeravitch
May 24, 2016 //
29

The Foundation for Excellence in Education announced the return of its founder, ready to fight for privatization, high-stakes testing, and the end of the teaching profession.

 

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 24, 2016 Contact: Press Office
850-391-4090
PressShop@excelined.org

 

JEB BUSH TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN OF THE FOUNDATION FOR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION

 

 
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – The Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd) today announced the election of former Florida Governor Jeb Bush as Chairman and President of its Board of Directors. Governor Bush replaces Dr. Condoleezza Rice, who has served as Chair since January 2015 and remains a member of the Board of Directors.

 

 

“One of the greatest challenges and opportunities we have in America today is to create a 21st century education system that ensures all students have the skills, teachers and educational options they need to succeed in life,” said Governor Bush. “Too many children right now are failed by a deeply flawed bureaucratic system, but I’m optimistic about the future because I’ve seen the great results produced by states across the country. It is an honor to rejoin ExcelinEd as we continue to support states in bringing choice, innovation and accountability to the classroom. I am thankful to Dr. Rice and this exceptional board for their leadership over the past year.”

 

 

Since 2008, ExcelinEd has worked in 48 states across the country to champion state-driven, proven transformational education reform policies that lead to rising student achievement. Because of these reforms and hard work by state leaders and educators, students have achieved remarkable academic success. Last year, as a result of active engagement by ExcelinEd and ExcelinEd in Action, 43 education laws were adopted in 15 states to improve or enact new reform policies.

 

 

Governor Bush also has been elected to the Board of Directors of Excellence in Education in Action (ExcelinEd in Action). The sister 501(c)(4) organization to the Foundation for Excellence in Education, ExcelinEd in Action helps advance legislation at the state level to improve the quality of education for every child. Governor Bush launched ExcelinEd in Action in 2014 and will serve as the organization’s Chairman and President.

 

 

*****

 

 

BIOGRAPHY: Governor Jeb Bush

 

 

Jeb Bush was elected the 43rd governor of the state of Florida on November 3, 1998, and was re-elected by a wide margin in 2002. His second term as governor ended in January 2007.

 

 

Jeb earned a bachelor’s degree in Latin American Studies from the University of Texas at Austin and moved to Florida in 1981. With partner Armando Codina, he started a small real estate development company, which grew to become the largest, full-service commercial real estate company in South Florida.

 

 

Jeb served as Florida’s Secretary of Commerce under Bob Martinez, Florida’s 40th governor. As Secretary of Commerce, he promoted Florida’s business climate worldwide. Following an unsuccessful bid for governor in 1994, Jeb founded the nonprofit Foundation for Florida’s Future, which joined forces with the Urban League of Greater Miami to establish one of the state’s first charter schools. He also co-authored Profiles in Character, a book profiling 14 of Florida’s civic heroes–people making a difference without claiming a single news headline.

 

 

After his election in 1998, Governor Bush focused on reforming education. Florida students have made the greatest gains in achievement, and Florida is one of a handful of states that have narrowed the achievement gap. In addition, he cut taxes every year during his tenure as governor, and Florida led the nation in job growth seven out of eight years. Governor Bush put Florida on the forefront of consumer healthcare advances by signing Medicaid reform legislation “Empowered Care” in June 2006.

 

 

Before launching a run for the Republican presidential nomination in June of 2015, Governor Bush led his own successful consulting business, Jeb Bush and Associates, whose clients ranged from small technology start-ups to well-known Fortune 500 companies. He also served as the chairman of the Foundation for Excellence in Education; co-chairman of the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy; and chair of the National Constitution Center.

 

 

He is the co-author of Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution (2013) and author of Reply All (2015).

 

 

Governor Bush is the son of former President George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush. He lives in Miami with his wife, Columba. They have three children and four grandchildren.

 

 

For more on the ExcelinEd Board of Directors, visit: http://www.ExcelinEd.org/board-corner/board-of-directors/. For more on ExcelinEd in Action, visit http://www.ExcelinEdInAction.org.

 

 

###
The Foundation for Excellence in Education is igniting a movement of reform, state by state, to transform education for the 21st century economy by working with lawmakers, policymakers, educators and parents to advance education reform across America. Learn more at ExcelinEd.org.
 

CONTACT US
P.O. Box 10691
Tallahassee, Florida
32302-2691
850.391.4090
info@excelined.org

Copyright © 2015
Foundation For Excellence in Education

Categories Accountability, Bush, Jeb, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Privatization, Testing

Good News! Hawaii Drops Test-Based Teacher Evaluation!

By dianeravitch
May 22, 2016 //
21

The test-based teacher evaluation that was a hallmark of the Obama administration’s Race to the Top is slowly sinking into the ocean (or the desert).

 

Not only did New York teacher Sheri Lederman have her rating overturned by a judge who said the state’s evaluation system was “arbitrary and capricious” (it was designed and defended by State Commissioner John King, now Secretary of Education), but Hawaii just eliminated test-based teacher evaluation. Hawaii won a Race to the Top grant and was required by the rules of the competition to adopt a test-based teacher evaluation system. They did, it never worked, it angered teachers, and it is gone.

 

The state Board of Education unanimously approved recommendations Tuesday effectively removing standardized test scores as a requirement in the measurement of teacher performance, according to a press release from the state Department of Education.

 

 

The recommendations, which were subsequently approved by Superintendent Kathryn Matayoshi, will offer more flexibility to incorporate and weigh different components of teacher performance evaluation, although the option to use test scores in performance evaluation remains.

 

 

The recommendations originated from members of a joint committee between the Hawaii State Teachers Association and DOE, established by the most recent collective bargaining agreement in 2013. Vice Chairperson of the BOE Brian De Lima said that since then, the committee has conducted ongoing reviews and improvements to the evaluation system.

 

 

“There was a continuous evolution to make things better so teachers don’t spend all their time involved in the evaluation process, particularly when they’ve already been (rated) highly effective or effective,” De Lima said. “And the teachers being mentored who may need additional work, they’re getting the attention and the support so they stay interested in remaining in the profession — the most important profession.”

 

 

Formerly, teachers in Hawaii were beholden to curriculum and standards developed with little or none of their input by entities HSTA Secretary-Treasurer Amy Perruso described as “corporate philanthropists.” These entities, namely the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, have had sway in setting teacher performance standards, developed testing for those standards and profiting from the system, she said.

 

 

Teaching effectiveness, then, was rated on student understanding of curriculum teachers themselves didn’t develop but were forced by the administration to implement. Performance of teachers was also rated on aggregated test scores of every student participant — the majority of whom individual teachers never had in their own classrooms.

 

 

“The teacher evaluation system served as a control mechanism,” said Perruso, who also teaches social studies at Mililani High School on Oahu. “If you don’t follow the guidelines, you won’t be rated as ‘effective.’ That’s why what happened (Tuesday) was so critical. It gives teachers back a modicum of power. We’re no longer completely held under the thumb of principals because they can’t use test scores against us anymore.”

Categories Accountability, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Hawaii, Teacher Evaluations, VAM (value-added modeling)

Peter Cunningham Comes to the Defense of Campbell Brown

By dianeravitch
May 19, 2016 //
81

Peter Cunningham, former deputy to Arne Duncan, accused Carol Burris and me of “attacking” Campbell Brown. He says we “attack” anyone who disagrees with us. Peter now runs a website called Education Post, where he received $12 million from various billionaires (including Walton and Bloomberg) to defend the corporate reform movement of high stakes testing, VAM, and privatization of public schools.

 

Anyone who reads my post about Campbell will see that there was no attack. I was doing my best to educate her about what grade level means and why NAEP proficient is not and should not be used as a “passing mark.”

 

Carol tweeted with Campbell. So did Tom Loveless of Brookings, who told her that she was wrong and urged her to correct her error. For some reason, Peter did not include Tom in the list of people who were “attacking” Campbell.

 

Obviously, neither she nor Peter bothered to read the links to scholarly studies and government websites included in my post.  They should. They might learn something and stop bashing American public schools and their teachers. I served seven years on the NAEP governing board. I could help them if they are willing to learn.

 

As for calling Campbell “telegenic,” that’s no insult, that’s a compliment. If you call me telegenic, I would say thank you.

 

 

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Reform, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »