Archives for category: Duncan, Arne

Laurel Sturt says that old-fashioned schoolyard bullying has evolved into Internet malice, protected by anonymity. She says bullying has become a national pastime for some political leaders. New Jersey Governor Chris Christie has cultivated a reputation as a bully, jabbing his finger at lesser mortals.

And then bullying is built into education policy–federal, state, and local.

She writes:

“Though the psychopathic rush of inflicting pain on another human being is not one most of us would appreciate, we have only to look at the realm of education to see an acceleration of bullying, in multiple guises. Take, for example, the oppressive federal mandates sent down from on high, No Child Left Behind, and its successor, Race to the Top. Here we have, for all intents and purposes, sadistic edicts impossible to fulfill, the charge of NCLB, “proficiency” for all children by 2014, nothing short of an iron mask for teachers and kids alike; states were bullied to participate to get millions in federal school funding. One would think subjecting kids to the torture of test prep and testing while losing a decade of authentic education, tilting futilely at an arbitrary data windmill, would have been consigned to the mistakes file. Yet, showing that arm twisting through policy is an equal opportunity, bipartisan affront, through his Bully of Education Arne Duncan, the very premise of Obama’s RTTT has relied on the legalized notion of bullying, bribery and extortion: sign on to our agenda or you’ll starve for funds.

“Within the Race to the Top straitjacket, then, the bullying theme has continued with the individual mandates: bullying standards developed undemocratically by not educators but profit-motivated bullies; bullied instruction forced on teachers by these standards; and parents bullied to share their children’s private data, their rights to privacy stripped by education business lobbyist cum bullies. Then there’s the bullying of teachers through evaluations unfairly tied to the test scores of the bullied kids, victimized students who, subjected to impossible work and tests, are displaying symptoms of bullying–depression, anxiety, insomnia, nausea, hopelessness, with the added bonus of a PTSD scar for life.

“Move down to the next level of power, and state and local bullying is flourishing. Here in New York we have a governor and education officials stonily unmoved by the pain they’ve signed us onto with RTTT, with no movement in sight to end it, notwithstanding a coming fall election; their intransigent coercion in the face of hardship is bullying. New York City teachers and students recently endured a decade of bullying micromanagement under the dictator Michael Bloomberg, a mayor in control of the schools, a nationwide experiment which has yielded low achievement results but a much higher degree of yes, bullying.”

Bullying moves into the classroom, where teachers are compelled to violate their professional ethics by authoritarian principals.

The bullying will continue until teachers stand united and resist. Those who bully them, steal their reputations and their profession can and must be stopped. Resistance is the best defense against the bullies. Don’t stand alone. Stand together.

Edushyster asks the inevitable question: what is the one sure way to improve medicine? The Obama administration has found it: pay for performance!

It hasn’t worked in education, but that’s no reason not to try it in medicine.

What happened: totally unexpected side effects:

“Here’s where our story takes a completely unexpected and yet astonishingly familiar turn. Intended to reward *high quality health care,* the Obama administration’s introduction of pay for performance for doctors and hospitals has ended up punishing those that treat *large numbers of poor people.* Also, also the payment policies are *unintentionally worsening disparities* between rich and poor by shifting money away from doctors and hospitals that care for disadvantaged patients. Also, also, also providers with a disproportionate share of disadvantaged patients appear to *provide lower quality care* than they actually do.”

What lessons can be learned? Read the link.

I posted this on my trip home from the hospital earlier today. I made a mistake and hit “publish” before I wrote the post. Here is the post that was supposed to accompany the title!

In a speech to the Education Writers Association, Arne Duncan said that racial isolation has gotten worse in the past two decades, including (one assumes) during his own tenure in office.

An article in Education Daily by Frank Wolfe (sorry, don’t have the link) says:

“While the Education Department has promoted a number of programs and measures to improve the achievement of disadvantaged students, the singularly thorny problem of racially isolated schools has remained and has worsened, Education Secretary Arne Duncan acknowledged on Tuesday.
“While [Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 107 LRP 36247 (1954)] struck down de jure segregation as unconstitutional, de facto school seg- regation has worsened in many respects in the last two decades,” Duncan told the Education Writers Association national seminar in Nashville. “Since 1991, all regions of the nation have experienced an increase in the percentage of black students who attend highly segregated schools, where 90 percent or more of students are students of color. Here in the South, more than a third of black students attend such racially isolated schools. In the Northeast, more than 50 percent do.”

What? Who should be held accountable for this backsliding on our nation’s commitment to equality of educational opportunity (not separate but equal)?

The US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has powerful enforcement powers. What are they doing about this retrograde trend? Are they demanding that charter schools reach out and seek integrated enrollments? What have they done in Chicago and Néw York City, both highly segregated urban school districts. What have they done about the proliferation of all-black vouchers? Why has Duncan been so forceful in advocating on behalf of racially segregated charter schools? When will he be held accountable for his failure to do anything to promote racial integration? How has he used the considerable powers of his office to make a difference?

The Department of Education responded to questions by Education Daily, defending its record.

“Six decades after Brown, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is vigorously working to steer America away from racial isolation,” ED said in a statement in response to questions from Education Daily®. “When we find examples of race segregation and discrimination, we put a stop to it. We negotiate settlements with districts to bring them into compliance with our civil rights laws. We carry a huge hammer. Any district that refuses to work with us faces the prospect of our withholding federal funds. Once those agreements have been signed, we closely monitor their implementation — sometimes for years. We issue guidance to schools on their responsibilities to ensure racial equality. We provide grass roots technical assistance at our regional OCR offices around the country. The goal that drives our work is simple — to promote excellence in education that’s colorblind and equal for all.”

Here is an example of empty bureaucratic blather. The US Department of Education has not played a forceful or effective role. If it had, segregation would not be worsening. Why don’t they just apologize and say, “We have really fallen down on the job. Our boss wants more charter schools, even though they are more segregated than the surrounding district. He likes to go to all-black schools and celebrate their success. Actually we have been sitting on our hands where racial integration is concerned, just like the last Bush administration. Frankly, racial integration is not on our radar screen these days. We can’t afford to offend the charter lobby. Sorry, our hands are tied.”

Laura Chapman writes:

Unfortunately, this next generation of teachers is not just subject to manipulation by Teach for America.

The new EdTPA (Teacher Performance Assessment) is one of the new gatekeepers for entry into teaching. EdTPA was designed by scholars at Stanford. It has been rubber-stamped by the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (AACTE). AACTE represents 800 teacher education programs..

EdTPA is aligned with the CCSS. It honors direct instruction made evident in video snippets of teaching and plans that prospective teachers submit for scoring. Scoring has been outsourced to Pearson who charges a minimum of $300 per test, while paying $70 per hour to raters of the tests. In early 2014, edTPA was being used in 511 educator preparation programs in 34 states and the District of Columbia. CCSS plus training for direct instruction over authentic education will not just fade away. http://edtpa.aacte.org/about-edtpa

States can use edTAP scores for teacher licensure. Teacher education programs can use the scores for state and national accreditations.

The edTPA scores of graduates, and gains in students’ scores that they produce on the job will now be used to rate the “effectiveness” of teacher education programs. In other words, Obama+Duncan’s flawed K-12 policies are being foisted on teacher education. The Gates’ desire to track student test scores produced by graduates of teacher education programs in on track for becoming the new normal. Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/barack-obama-arne-duncan-teacher-training-education-106013.html#ixzz2zwfJdsRs

it is hard to be optimistic. In addition to EdTPA, other tests for teacher certification require knowledge of the CCSS (e.g. Praxis http://www.ets.org/praxis/ccss). Other certifications of teacher education programs are no less troubling.

For example, the Council for the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), approved new standards for teacher education in August, 2013. CAEP is a new entity merging NCATE, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education and TEAC the Teacher Education Accreditation Council. In 2013, the merged organizations had accredited over 860 programs. CAEP standards must still be approved by USDE and appear to have been written for that purpose.

The standards from CAEP illustrate how hard it is to bury bad policies, and overcome horrific language about education.

Programs that prepare teachers are now called “providers.” Teachers who graduate are now called “completers.” The CAEP standards rely on 110 uses of the term “impact” to describe what teacher education and teachers are supposed to do. (Ask Diane what “impact” meant for her knee, or consider how ‘impacted” sardines may feel in a can).

Here is CAEP’s Standard 1.4 for teacher education: “Providers ensure that completers demonstrate skills and commitment that afford all P-12 students access to rigorous college-and career-ready standards (e.g., Next Generation Science Standards, National Career Readiness Certificate, Common Core State Standards).” http://caepnet.org/accreditation/standards/standard1/

CAEP Standard 4.1: “The provider documents, using multiple measures, that program completers contribute to an expected level of student-learning growth. Multiple measures shall include all available growth measures (including value-added measures, student-growth percentiles, and student learning and development objectives) required by the state for its teachers and available to educator preparation providers, other state-supported P-12 impact measures, and any other measures employed by the provider.” http://caepnet.org/accreditation/standards/standard4/ This standard is absurd. It requires the use of “measures” that are known to be invalid and unreliable.

CAEP Standard 5.4: “Measures of completer impact, including available outcome data on P-12 student growth, are summarized, externally benchmarked, analyzed, shared widely, and acted upon in decision-making related to programs, resource allocation, and future direction.” http://caepnet.org/accreditation/standards/standard5/

Clearly, the demolition derby on K-12 is expanding to damage the independent voice of faculty in higher education, especially those most directly responsible for teacher education.

The “provider” language signals that alternative paths to teachers preparation are being honored. The 42 member “commission” charged with developing CAEP’s standards was dominated by high-level administrators in education and entrepreneurs who appear to be totally unaware of (or indifferent to) the meaning of due-diligence in developing standards. They ignored sound scholarship that should have informed their work, including extensive peer-reviewed criticisms of the CCSS, value-added and related “growth” measures, as well as all the well-document flaws in industrial strength management strategies from mid-century last.

Damn the torpedos, ignore the evidence, full steam ahead.

Valerie Strauss notes the growing number of studies that debunk the value of judging teacher quality by the rise or fall of test scores, and naturally she wondered what Secretary Arne Duncan thought about them.

There was the report of the American Statistical Association, which said: l

“VAMs should be viewed within the context of quality improvement, which distinguishes aspects of quality that can be attributed to the system from those that can be attributed to individual teachers, teacher preparation programs, or schools. Most VAM studies find that teachers account for about 1% to 14% of the variability in test scores, and that the majority of opportunities for quality improvement are found in the system-level conditions. Ranking teachers by their VAM scores can have unintended consequences that reduce quality.”

Days ago, a new Gates-funded study found no correlation between “quality teaching and the appraisals teachers received.”

Another study by a team led by Marianne P. Bitler, an economist at the University of California, said that VAM ratings had about the same relationship to reading and math scores as to changes in a student’s height.

VAM is the centerpiece of Race to the Top..

Strauss called the u.S. Department of Education to ask whether Secretary Duncan was aware of the research and whether it had changed his views. The answers: yes, he was aware of the research; no, it had not changed his views.

Peter Goodman, a political analyst who is close to the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, concludes that the November elections are looking increasingly bleak for President Obama and the Democrats. It is beginning to look like Democrats could lose control of the Senate, which would leave Obama with little more than veto power.

This could have serious consequences. Credit Obama with two excellent Supreme Court appointments–Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. With a Republican Senate, there would be no more. A Republican House and Senate would spend two years rolling back whatever Obama has done.

The election will turn on motivating core constituencies and getting them out to vote.

One of the most loyal Obama blocs has been teachers. To say the least, they are angry and alienated by Arne Duncan’s policies.

There are three million teachers who may sit on their hands on Election Day because of the misguided policies of Race to the Top.

Goodman says that if President Obama has any hope of winning back the teacher vote, he must fire Arne.

That would be a start. But he also would have to fire Ted Mitchell, who was just confirmed as Undersecretary of Education. Mitchell is a prominent proponent of privatization, charters, and for-profit colleges. Almost all of Duncan’s assistant secretaries share his love of high-stakes testing.

Would Obama fire his basketball buddy? Not likely. But what if he could find a new job for him in another agency or make him an ambassador? If control of the Senate is the prize, firing Arne might not be such a bad idea.

Peter Greene is convinced that Arne Duncan is about to launch a series of new Ambassador programs, to spread the good word about the GREAT job that he is doing.

Why hide your light beneath a bushel or a barrel or a boxcar when the DOE has so many successful initiatives (especially if you work in its public relations department)?

Greene says keep your eyes peeled for these great initiatives:

“Ambassador Librarians

“Ambassador librarians will be embedded in school libraries, where they will make sure that students are following federal guidelines for reading selections. Should a student attempt to check out a book below his grade level for some lame reason like “he enjoys it,” the ambassador librarian will apply a federal ruler rigorously to the child’s hand.

“Ambassador Lunch Ladies

“Ambassador lunch ladies will be placed in cafeteria lunch lines, where they will make sure that every student takes some federal cheese (motto: still smelly after thirty years). Ambassador lunch ladies will also circle through the dining area to scold all students who have not eaten all their vegetables. They will also be responsible for monitoring the federal grumpiness guidelines, and report to the department any other lunch ladies who are too often cheerful.

“Ambassador Bus Drivers

“Ambassador bus drivers will be responsible both for making sure the bus travels where it is supposed to and also for making sure that all the passengers are happy about it. Ambassador bus drivers will be trained in leading the new federally-produced cheerily-engineered songs “If You’re Happy I Should Know It” and “It’s For Your Own Good.”

“Ambassador Parent

“Let’s face it. One of the major factors in student learning is the home situation, and we have learned that many of you weak, lying, sad excuses for parental units would rather talk about “love” and “support” and your precious baby than give the child the rigorous ass-kicking he probably needs. So this federal program will put an additional federally-funded parent in your home to monitor your proper use of motivational techniques and to oversee homework production. Families will also be instructed in proper use of federal bed time standards as well as the federally-approved manner for tucking small children in without exceeding the federally-supported number of bedtime kisses.”

Reader Laura Chapmam reminds us that the corporate-government combine wants Big Data. The demise of inBloom is only one stop in a long journey that invokes hundreds of millions of dollars and a foundational belief that what can be measure matters most:

Chapman writes:

The bare bones infrastructure for data-mongering was expanding in 1990, jump-started by a concerted effort to standardize vocabularies to characterize public education–think almanac–but expanded to fit the architecture of computer and information retrieval programs.
In tandem (as usual) Gates and USDE poured massive amounts of money into data-mongering starting in 2005, this intended to link student and teacher data in a continuum from birth to college and beyond.

Gates conjured the program called Teacher Student Data Link (TSDL), one facet of a data gathering campaign funded at $390,493,545 between 2005 and mid-May 2011 by the Gates’ Foundation.

This campaign envisions the link between teacher and student data serving eight purposes: 1. Determine which teachers help students become college-ready and successful, 2. Determine characteristics of effective educators, 3. Identify programs that prepare highly qualified and effective teachers, 4. Assess the value of non-traditional teacher preparation programs, 5. Evaluate professional development programs, 6. Determine variables that help or hinder student learning, 7. Plan effective assistance for teachers early in their career, and 8. Inform policy makers of best value practices, including compensation. See http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/about

The TSDL system is intended to ensure that all courses are based on standards, and that all responsibilities for learning are assigned to one or more “teachers of record” in charge of a student or class. A teacher of record has a unique identifier (think barcode) for an entire career in teaching. A record is generated whenever a teacher of record has some specified proportion of responsibility for “a student’s learning activities” identified by the performance measures for a particular standard, subject, and grade level.

In addition to the eight purposes noted above, the TSDL system aims to have ”period-by-period tracking of teachers and students every day; including tests, quizzes, projects, homework, classroom participation, or other forms of day-to-day assessments and progress measures”—a level of accountability (I call it surveillance) that is said to be comparable to business practices (TSDL, 2011, “Key Components”).

This system will keep current and longitudinal data on teachers and individual students, schools, districts, states, and educators ranging from principals to higher education faculty. The aim is to determine the “best value” investments in education and monitor outcomes, taking into account as many demographic factors as possible, including health records for preschoolers. In Bloom may be dead but there are data-warehouses supported in part by Gates committed to that vision of data mining ( e.g. Battelle for Kids in Ohio).

On the federal side we have The Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) Grant Program, authorized under Title II, Educational Technical Assistance of the ‘‘Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002 H. R. 3801.” The first grants were made in 2005, the same year that the Gates’ Foundation started the parallel Data Quality Campaign.

See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/slds/
Achieve promoted, and still promotes, the Data Quality Campaign with a special focus on getting state policy makers to track individual students’ progress from pre-K to graduation and to use that data “to improve outcomes.” The program is being extended to teacher education with college programs measured by the test scores their graduates produce when they enter classrooms. See http://aacte.org/index.php?/Media-Center/AACTE-in-the-News/administration-pushes-teacher-prep-accountability.html.

In Bloom may be dead but all this other work is still in motion.

I think it wise to listen to some experts on Big Data. “We are more susceptible than we may think to the ‘dictatorship of data’—that is, letting the data govern us in ways that may do as much harm as good. The threat is that we will let our-selves be mindlessly bound by the output of our analyses even when we have reasonable grounds for suspecting something is amiss.

Or that we will attribute a degree of truth to data which it does not deserve.” Viktor Mayer-Schönberger & Kenneth Cukier. (2013). Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work, and Think. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. p. 166.

The centerpiece of Race to the Top is evaluating teachers by test scores. The students of good teachers, Arne Duncan and Barack Obama believe, get higher scores. If they have low scores, it is the fault of bad teachers. There was no evidence for their beliefs, other than the speculations of economists and statisticians. Real teachers never believed the theory, because they know that many favors affect test scores, not just teachers.

Thirty five states and DC followed Duncan’s lead, even though his hunch lacked any evidence . Lyndsey Layton has a comprehensive article in today’s Washington Post, describing the latest study to disprove Duncan’s theory.

Spurred on by Duncan, many states now use test scores to determine tenure and compensation. Duncan recently said he wants to judge the quality of teacher education programs by the test scores of students taught by their graduates.

Secretary Duncan’s love affair with standardized testing is inexplicable. There can be no question that he has caused immense damage to children, teachers, and public education.