Archives for category: Corporate Reformers

The reader who signs in as Chiara asks a pertinent question: Where do Democrats stand on what is now known as “Ed reform” but is actually better understood as the Standardization Movement, the Testocracy, or the Privatization Movement. It attacks collective bargaining and tenure, as well as teacher education programs. It admires alternative programs for those who enter teaching with minimal preparation and with no intention to make a career in teaching. We know that President Obama and Secretary Duncan have fistered and applauded standardization, privatization, and teacher-bashing. Where do the Democratic candidates for President in 2016 stand?

Chiara writes:

“Has there been any pushback on Cuomo from the national ed reform “movement”?

“I’m told again and again that ed reform is not lock-step, that there’s debate and discussion within “the movement” but they never seem to call out any of their own members.

“I’d be interested to get some fellow Democratic ed reformers on the record on vouchers, for example. Do Democratic ed reformers now support vouchers? Do they agree that local public schools are a “monopoly” that must be busted up by the private sector? If they do, what is the substantive difference between Democrats and Republicans on public schools? Why would one vote for one over the other? Is there some substantive reason I should support the Democrats over the Republicans on public education? “

Katie Osgood, Chicago teacher if children with high needs, left this comment:

“Here is the link to the Atlanta BoE members:

“http://www.atlanta.k12.ga.us/Page/40514 The four TFAers are Courtney English (I-AL7), Jason Esteves (AL-9), Matt Westmoreland (D-3) and Eshe’ Collins (D-6). I encourage everyone to click into their bios to see the organizations they’ve been in involved with, their youth, and the corporate choice of language. For example, Jason Esteves’ bio says, “Jason is a practicing attorney at the Atlanta law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP, where he brings businesses, nonprofits and individuals together to solve problems and get results. Jason has also served on the boards of KIPP South Fulton Academy…” He did his TFA stint and then straight to law school. Or Courtney English which reads, “Courtney D. English, was elected to the Atlanta Board of Education in 2009 at 24 years old; and was at that time, the youngest person to bke elected citywide in any capacity in the city of Atlanta’s history.” He did TFA for two years and went straight into the politics of school. Then there is Eshe’ Collins who chose to include “As a fourth- and fifth-grade teacher at A.D. Williams Elementary School, 92 percent of her students met or exceeded expectations on the Criterion-Referenced Competency Test for both grade levels.” Citing test scores in a bio shows a deep edreform bias, something we know TFA focuses on heavily. And Matt Westmoreland, well he is a white boy from Princeton, need I say more?

“This atrocity is exactly what TFA’s end game is. An all charter district would be a wind fall for TFA and its corporate partners. Their youth and isolation within the edreform machine has clearly had a strong and damaging influence on their beliefs. Expect TFA to keep pushing people like this onto school boards and political office through their political branch, LEE. This is why TFA cannot be allowed to exist.”

I don’t think TFA is going to go out of business. But it is important to know their goals and strategies.

Stephanie Simon reports in Politico.com on a major investigation of Pearson and its extraordinary ability to profit from its activities, whether or not they are successful.

 

She writes:

 

A POLITICO investigation has found that Pearson stands to make tens of millions in taxpayer dollars and cuts in student tuition from deals arranged without competitive bids in states from Florida to Texas. The review also found Pearson’s contracts set forth specific performance targets — but don’t penalize the company when it fails to meet those standards. And in the higher ed realm, the contracts give Pearson extensive access to personal student data, with few constraints on how it is used.
POLITICO examined hundreds of pages of contracts, business plans and email exchanges, as well as tax filings, lobbying reports and marketing materials, in the first comprehensive look at Pearson’s business practices in the United States.
The investigation found that public officials often commit to buying from Pearson because it’s familiar, even when there’s little proof its products and services are effective.
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, for instance, declined to seek competitive bids for a new student data system on the grounds that it would be “in the best interest of the public” to simply hire Pearson, which had done similar work for the state in the past. The data system was such a disaster, the department had to pay Pearson millions extra to fix it.
Administrators at the University of Florida also skipped competitive bids on a huge project to build an online college from scratch. They were in a hurry. And they knew Pearson’s team from a previous collaboration. That project hadn’t been terribly successful, but no matter: UF dug up the old contract and rewrote it to give Pearson the new job — a job projected to be worth $186 million over the next decade.
And two public colleges in Texas not only gave Pearson a no-bid contract to build online classes, they agreed to pay the company to support 40,000 enrollments, no matter how many students actually signed up.
Pearson has aggressive lobbyists, top-notch marketing and a highly skilled sales team. Until the New York attorney general cracked down in late 2013, Pearson’s charitable foundation made a practice of treating school officials from across the nation to trips abroad, to conferences where the only education company represented was Pearson.
The story of Pearson’s rise is very much a story about America’s obsession with education reform over the past few decades.
Ever since a federal commission published “A Nation at Risk” in 1983 — warning that public education was being eroded by “a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people” — American schools have been enveloped in a sense of crisis. Politicians have raced to tout one fix after the next: new tests, new standards, new classroom technology, new partnerships with the private sector.
K-12 superintendents and college administrators alike struggle to boost enrollment, raise graduation rates, improve academic outcomes — and to do it all while cutting costs.
In this atmosphere of crisis, Pearson promises solutions. It sells the latest and greatest, and it’s no fly-by-night startup; it calls itself the world’s leading learning company. Public officials have seized it as a lifeline.
“Pearson has been the most creative and the most aggressive at [taking over] all those things we used to take as part of the public sector’s responsibility,” said Michael Apple, a professor of education policy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

 

And that is only a sampling of the contents of this explosive report. Read it to find out where your taxpayer dollars are going.

 

As an added bonus, Simon also wrote about how Pearson used its foundation to bolster its profits.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/pearson-education-115026.html#ixzz3RLxhh6ub

 

 

Someone gave Anthony Cody a copy of a secret training document created by public relations consultants to corporate reformers. The document is only six pages; it is printed in bright colors. Its purpose is to show reformers how to answer complaints about testing.

Is there too much testing? Agree, yes , there is too much testing but the new Common Core tests will solve that problem.

Whatever the complaint, answer by saying the new tests are better, the new tests are different, the new tests solve that problem. No more teaching to the test. Why ? Because the new tests are better, the new tests are different, the new tests solve that problem. Teachers want more time for creative teaching? No problem. Because the new tests are better, the new tests are different, the new tests solve that problem.

Jersey Jazzman pulls together a host of reformer ideas in this post and shows that none of them has any evidence behind it.

 

How can public schools, which take everyone, compete with and match the braggadocio of charter schools, which promise that every student will graduate and go to a four-year college, even if it isn’t true?

 

Why do policymakers continue to push merit pay, even though it has failed again and again for nearly a century?

 

Why the conservative love affair with vouchers, when we now have evidence from Milwaukee, Cleveland, and D.C. that vouchers drain money from public schools without producing better education?

 

Jersey Jazzman asks for proof. Before accepting any of the reformer policies, reformers should show the evidence? Indignation is not evidence. Nor are promises of miraculous results.

The Los Angeles Times reports that Billionaire Eli Broad is suspending the annual Broad prize for the most improved urban district. He will continue to award a prize for charter schools.

“Billionaire Eli Broad has suspended a coveted, $1-million prize to honor the best urban school systems out of concern that they are failing to improve quickly enough. And, associates say, he’s no longer certain that he wants to reward traditional school districts at all.

“The action underscores the changing education landscape as well the evolving thinking and impatience of the 81-year-old philanthropist.”

The truth comes out. Broad has low regard for public education. He thinks it works best when technocratic managers make data-driven decisions, close struggling schools, and open privately managed charter schools. He likes mayoral control, not democratic engagement. He funded a campaign to block a tax increase to support public schools in California. He thinks poverty can be overcome by good management .

“Some observers wonder whether Broad’s expectations for urban systems, including Los Angeles Unified, have been realistic.

“Urban schools are faced with huge challenges, some of which are simply related to concentrated poverty, and so many kids are coming to school with unmet needs,” said Pedro Noguera, a professor of education at New York University.”

Joey J. Cohen is principal of an elementary school in the Patchogue-Medford district in Long Island, New York, an area where parents are up in arms against high-stakes testing.

 

He wrote the following article and posted it on a school administrators’ blog. For a principal to speak out so forcefully about the misguided policies of the Governor and the Chancellor of the state Board of Regents takes guts. I am happy to place Joey J. Cohen on the blog’s honor roll for supporting public education, as well as the dedicated men and women who educate our nation’s children.

 

Misguided Direction
An Opinion Piece
By Joey J. Cohen, Ed.D., Principal – Patchogue-Medford School District
The future of education is not just in jeopardy with the current political climate set forth by Governor Cuomo, Chancellor Tisch and former Commissioner King, it is decidedly bleak. I have spent nearly twenty years in education, currently as an elementary principal, holding several post-secondary degrees including a Doctorate in Educational Leadership with a dissertation that focused on strategies to support students with disabilities. As a current practitioner, living with the mandates that exist in today’s classrooms, my experience and research in the field affords me greater perspective than the aforementioned policymakers responsible for the laws they so haphazardly implement. The flaws in education are not the result of the hardworking educators; it is the ignorant policymakers who are pushing the educational train directly toward derailment.

 
Governor Cuomo has succeeded in making public education, specifically teachers and principals, public enemy number one. As an educator and strong advocate for students, I am deeply troubled when I hear the Governor suggest that he cares about students, while teachers are only interested in protecting their jobs. The Governor’s constant rhetoric is nothing more than a political smoking gun designed to incite the public by placing blame on someone other than himself or his political allies who are only interested in advancing their own agendas. The State’s push for increased standardized assessments through partnerships with multimillion-dollar conglomerates such as Pearson provides no meaningful information to teachers, it only serves as a poorly constructed barometer to rank teachers, principals, schools and districts.

 
The reality is that the pressure of these high stakes exams continues to elevate student anxiety and withdrawal. A system predicated on punitive outcomes fosters fear and anxiety amongst administrators and teachers, which ultimately filters down to children. It is much like an anxious golfer who grips the club too tightly in an attempt to produce a better shot, yet the results fall far short of the intended goal. Teachers, administrators and students cannot operate in a culture of fear and expect optimal results. At the local level, we are left to address the emotional distress, and the unintended consequences of these high stakes exams, which actually takes additional time away from instruction in order to address the increased anxiety. I have witnessed students shut down and cry at the level of disproportional cognitive ability needed to succeed at these assessments considering their age. Students with disabilities and English Language Learners are at a particular disadvantage, and it is only due to caring teachers and administrators that these students still come to school motivated to learn. However, if the tide does not change soon, more students will turn their backs on education.

 
Since our schools across the state and nation are under such intense scrutiny to show better test results, some schools and districts have allowed standardized tests to hijack sound curriculum by placing too much emphasis on test preparation. The business of test making and creating instructional support materials aligned to the Common Core Exams has become a 1.7 billion dollar business with the two largest vendors being Pearson Education based in New York and McGraw-Hill Education, also in New York, (A., Ujifusa, Education Week, November 2012). With that kind of revenue, there is a great deal at stake, and one must question the rationale for subjecting students to these new reforms, as well as the continued emphasis on high stakes testing for all students in grades 3-8.

 
Governor Cuomo’s 2015 Opportunity Agenda clearly delineates that he did not get what he wanted from the stranglehold he put on districts by threatening to withhold the Race to the Top funds some years ago, so he is upping the ante. The Governor’s new proposal offers school funding at a 4.8% increase (1.1 billion dollars) if his reform agenda is accepted, in contrast to a sharply reduced 1.7% increase (377 million dollars) if it is not. His new proposal mandates 50% of a teacher’s APPR composite score be based on Common Core Standardized Assessments and 50% based on teacher evaluations, thereby eliminating the previously agreed upon local assessment. The Governor and those at the State Education Department continue to live in denial by discounting district and school disproportionality related to language barriers, cognitive disabilities, parental support, poverty or any other factor when evaluating teachers and principals. Those charged with enacting the laws continue to purport that the tortoise can beat the hare merely because you want him to be faster. There continues to be little to no regard for cognitive, developmental, linguistic or physical ability when enacting ridiculous laws that expect all students to take the same assessments and meet with the same success.

 
While many of our students come to school with all the love and support from home necessary to promote learning, many of our students come with great need. Some come without any knowledge of the language, some come with cognitive disabilities, some come with physical disabilities, some come from poverty, and some come from single family homes or abusive relationships. When a student walks into one of our public schools they are provided with security, emotional support and each and every child is nurtured and guided by a teacher who cares for their social and academic growth beyond any and all extrinsic factors. That can never be measured in any standardized test!

 
Our policymakers suggest that educators were never held accountable, evaluated with integrity and/or provided with constructive feedback, which necessitated APPR. In my nearly twenty year career, I have always been evaluated or evaluated my staff using a combination of formal and informal observations leading to dialogue that fostered increased student outcomes and elevated professional growth. Unfortunately, under the current APPR system and the ever-changing proverbial finish line to determine student mastery results are difficult, if not impossible, to compare. This, combined with the detrimental practice of labeling teachers and principals, has led to a system of distrust that fosters both student and teacher anxiety instead of collaboration and growth.

 
Since APPR was founded, it eludes me that the only members of a school system that are held to the state mandated evaluations are teachers and principals. This premise assumes that principals and teachers are given carte blanche to make every decision related to school operations, budgeting and instruction. The fact of the matter is that many decisions are relegated to other stakeholders, which significantly influences student outcomes. The decisions that impact our schools are collective ones that begin with the State Education Department. But, let us only hold the principals and teachers responsible.

 
We need only look at the rollout of the Common Core as well as the NYS ELA and Math Modules to see where the problem began. Imagine the rating the former Commissioner, Chancellor Tisch or Governor Cuomo would have received based on the pathetic and dysfunctional rollout of these materials, all while ignoring the tremendous voice of concern from teachers, administrators, parents and students. Or perhaps we should evaluate them on the roughly 30% proficiency rate across the state. Instead of giving our former Commissioner a “developing” or “ineffective” rating, we promoted him to one of highest positions in the Department of Education. Talk about hypocrisy!

 
The reality is that the current and proposed APPR reform agenda is a flawed, completely misguided system that does not work. Top down reforms will continue to breed fear, distrust, anxiety and compliance, not ingenuity, which will do little or nothing to advance our schools. John Maxwell, author of 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership, asserts that leaders transform change by forming meaningful relationships, building trust, having skill in the field, consider timing and morale, and the most critical component…having followers. Those responsible for contriving these misguided reforms have failed to listen to the people vested in improving our schools, namely teachers, administrators, parents and students, and subsequently, there are few, if any, followers.

 
Let us be silent no longer. Let us work together to change the laws and design a system that is founded on mutual collaboration from all the stakeholders leading to trust and professional growth, stemming from our collective wisdom, as practiced in the most successful professions and organizations.

Gary Rubinstein—high school
math teacher, author, blogger, reformer of TFA–has been writing letters to reformers he knows–and sometimes getting a reply. Now he is writing letters to reformers he doesn’t know and inevitably he must write to Bill Gates.

Gary is civil, polite, and candid. He patiently explains to Bill that the “reforms” he has underwritten have failed. He likens the malfunctions of “reform” to buggy software. He writes as one computer programmer to another.

“Creating a bug-free software package is not something that happens by accident. You don’t just hire a bunch of programmers and have them, unsupervised, write five million lines of spaghetti code, then without even testing it, hit ‘compile’ and ship it out to customers. No. You start with a sound plan and stable architecture. The specifications must be clear and easy to test to see if they are met. Throughout the development lifecycle, components of the product are created and tested. When these components are assembled, there is another round of robust testing to make sure that the components interface with each other properly. Good software design would include a team of experts that will surely, from time to time, disagree about the best way to make the program work. This sort of disagreement is useful since if everybody on the team always agrees, there will be an issue when one person is wrong about something, therefore everyone is wrong about something. What good is a team of ‘Yes Men’? A productive team includes people who disagree. Excluding people who are known computer experts because they are skeptical of the direction the team is taking is not going to result in a robust program. Only after the program passes all the quality review tests and the program is declared to be reasonably bug free can the product be deployed to the customers….

“I spent several years as a debugger in Colorado working on the one-time giant of desktop publishing Quark XPress. I’m hoping that my abilities as a veteran teacher and also as a one time professional debugger will make you willing to listen to me when I say this current version of education reform is in need of some serious debugging. Whatever the original specifications were, maybe to raise test scores in this country?, it isn’t accomplishing that. What it is accomplishing, unfortunately, is making education worse.

“I know that it has already been deployed. But just as buggy computer software can now be updated easily by downloading patches, the ed reform bulldozer you’ve created can also be fixed — but only if you’re willing to accept that it is currently not functional. Modern ed reform is the Windows ME of education. But just as you pretty quickly replaced Windows ME with Windows XP which everyone liked, you can do the same with education reform, I’m certain. Debugging ed reform is not easy. Since it was never properly designed with a plan to ensure quality, you’ve got yourself a bug riddled mess. It was not developed modularly so it is difficult to track down where the most critical bugs are even occurring.”

Gary walks Bill through the flawed assumptions of the “reforms” he has subsidized. They aren’t working.

Gary notes that in 2013 Bill sang the praises of a Colorado school that had adopted the Gates’ approach to teacher evaluation. Gary shows that this very school was experiencing declining test scores and was actually lagging the state.

Gary gives Bill candid advice:

“I do believe that you want your money to go to a good cause. This is admirable. The problem is that most of your money is going to people I’d describe as education hucksters. I’m going to be as blunt as only someone who is not on the payroll can be. In the education game you are what’s known as a ‘fat-cat,’ a ‘mark,’ a sucker.

“You are like the Emperor who was swindled into purchasing non-existent clothes. But that Emperor was brought back to reality when a blunt child said what everyone else what thinking. In ed reform it is blunt experienced teachers who are willing to say the obvious.”

Gary speaks respectfully to Bill but bluntly. I hope Bill reads Gary’s letter. Gary is trying to help him by straight talk.

Peter Greene has done an amazing investigative review of the Boston Consulting Group. What is BCG? Why do reformers in so many cities hire this management consulting firm? What is its connection to the Gates Foundation and Arne Duncan?

Greene writes:

“Word went out today that immediately after Arkansas decided to make Little Rock Schools non-public, the Walton family called a “focus group” meeting “in conjunction with the Boston Consulting Group. This is worse than finding the slender man in the back of your family portrait. For a public school system, this is finding the grim reaper at your front door. And he’s not selling cookies.”

Greene reveals BCG’s business strategies, which are totally inappropriate for education but beloved by reformers.

“Bottom line? Say a little prayer for the formerly public schools of Little Rock, because BCG is in town and they’re sharpening their axe.”

Paul Karrer, a veteran elementary teacher in California, likes to read David Brooks, even when he disagrees with him. But he was taken aback recently when Brooks said that the teachers’ unions are the biggest impediment to education “reform.”

 

Karrer knows that education reform is not what it appears.

 

He explains to Brooks, as if Brooks might read his column:

 

So far Ed Reform has been a nightmare, a massacre, a coup de grace on democratic public education institutions. Ed Reform has plundered the public sector, crushed teachers’ souls, and offered virtually no positive improvement even when measured by the right’s own yardstick. The right benefits on many levels in its relentless assault on public schools.

 

First, privatization feeds the Republican DNA of the government’s role as an agent of profit for business. Public education viewed through Republican eyes is viewed as a feeding trough opportunity of financial benefit. Hence, the many hedge funds lauding, testing and assessment companies, charter corporations and publishing empires whose spread will fattened wallets.

 

Virtually every mantra about Ed Reform is false or basely wrong. Charter schools do not perform better when equal measure are used. Rather, often worse. End of story. They skim the best, the brightest the motivated. And they boot out those who don’t behave.

 

Those attending charter schools have parents who have guided them to charters. Many of my students have guardians. There is a difference.

 

Because he respects Brooks, he invites him to his classroom to learn about what really matters:

 

So friend David Brooks, I invite you to spend a few hours with me at my poorest of the poor schools. Run a lap with my fifth-graders and me in the morning, see what it’s like in the mucky trenches of gang-infested poverty. Then just sit and watch, no principal, no superintendent present, observe 30 fifth-graders and their old teacher. We’ll talk, later, about the subtractive brutality and injustices of ed reform.

 

Your words carry great weight. Please be careful how you [use] them.