Archives for category: Education Industry

 

A Republican Legislator has proposed turning over the Muncie School District to Ball State University and allowing the University to replace the elected board with an appointed one of its choosing. Muncie currently has a large deficit and an emergency manager. The state has starved the schools of adequate funding.

“During a hearing on Thursday, Sen. Karen Tallian, D-Portage, questioned the bill’s author, Rep. Tim Brown, R-Crawfordsville, and the university president about a provision that would exclude a BSU-run MCS from having to follow numerous education laws.

“The bill would allow BSU to govern financially distressed MCS effective July 1 by appointing a new seven-member school board to replace the current five-member elected school board.

“There is a list four pages long, Tallian said, of “a huge part” of the Title 20 education code that the school district would not be required to follow, such as collective bargaining rights for teachers, health insurance, “the entire body of the school transportation law,” accreditation, equal education opportunity, teacher licensing, “the whole body of law about school curriculum” and data reporting.”

Ball State’s record running charter schools is unimpressive, although it’s lab school has high ratings.

“A laboratory school is a school run by a university, like Ball State’s highly rated Burris Laboratory School, which has much less poverty among students and many fewer minority students than the city school district.

“Unlike teachers in Indiana’s traditional public schools, Burris teachers lack collective bargaining rights. Charter schools are not required to participate in collective bargaining with teachers, either.

“A charter school is a public school operating under a contract, or charter, between the school’s organizers and a charter school authorizer, such as BSU, which oversees but doesn’t manage more than two dozen charter schools around the state, nearly half of which are rated D or F.”

So Ball State runs a successful elite school on campus but nearly half its charters are rated D or F.

The people of Muncie are divided about whether this is a good idea.

Ball State thinks it will burnish the university’s reputation. The heads of businesses and law firm like it. Legislators say “it’s a done deal.”

This is how democracy dies. One step at a time.

This is what you must read to understand how the richest and most powerful charter advocacy group imploded. It pretended to be the voice of powerless black and Hispanic families. It was the Waltons, the Broads, and assorted financiers. The ostensible cause for its demise was the licentious behavior of its founder and CEO, who apparently had multiple hookups with staff members and then made lewd comments to a non-staff member at the education reform Philos meeting. That was the end for him, and the organization collapsed too.

  1. Chalkbeat reports. Key in this account is that other charter leaders were disgusted by Eva’s hardball tactics. It worked for her but embarrassed the others. What the Chalkbeat story leaves out is the importance of the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars that the financiers were giving to Cuomo’s re-election campaign. So, organizing the kids, their parents and teachers by the thousands, hiring buses, staging a march, and waging a political campaign using the children as props was a speciality of FES. No real public school could do that; it would be illegal. But the money to Cuomo was even more persuasive in building the appearance of a “movement.”
  2. Mercedes Schneider reports, A deep dive into data. Her specialty.

 

Theresa Peña served as president of the Denver school board when reform began more than a decade ago.

She describes the promises and high hopes.

Now she admits that reform failed. 

The kids who lost were the poor black and Hispanic students, she says.

She writes:

Almost 11 years ago, when I served on the Denver Board of Education, the board and then-Superintendent Michael Bennet published a lengthy manifesto detailing how we planned to transform and radically improve public education in Denver.

They published their manifesto. They said:

“Ten years from now, let them say that Denver was the vanguard for reform in public education. Let them say, 10 years from now, that in Denver we saw what others could not, and laid down our adult burdens to lift up our children. Let them say that a spark flew in Denver that ignited a generation of educators, children, parents, and communities, and gave them courage to abandon the status quo for a shimmering future. We can do this in Denver; it is simply a matter of imagination and will.”

In 2007 our board believed we were starting a revolution. We were going to dramatically change outcomes for Denver students. We were going to construct a new educational system that served students first.

We believed that the goals in our strategic plan, known as the Denver Plan, would close the achievement gap and set a new path forward for all graduates of Denver Public Schools.

I am writing today to tell you that we failed. And, as a city and a school district we are still collectively failing our neediest students.

The Denver public school system is now a darling of the rightwing.

Last year, Betsy DeVos visited Denver twice; she praised the city for its charter efforts, but declared that it needed vouchers as well.

The Brookings Institution released its “Education Choice and Competition Index,” which ranked Denver first in the nation. The Index was created by Grover Whitehurst, who was George W. Bush’s choice to lead the Department of Education’s research division.

Charter champion David Osborne showered praise on Denver’s “portfolio” strategy in the rightwing journal Education Next.

Kevin Hesla of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools raved about Denver’s commitment to the privatization agenda, again in the rightwing Education Next.

Denver is where Democrats gave up the fight for public education and invited the fox of privatization into the henhouse. The conservative media and think tanks love Denver.

Peña dissents. She writes:

My conclusion calls into question the conventional wisdom about Denver Public Schools. Over the past decade, under the leadership of Bennet and his successor, Tom Boasberg, DPS has gained a national reputation as a forward-thinking, even visionary school district, which welcomes high-quality charter schools and grants the most deserving of its own schools unprecedented degrees of autonomy from the district bureaucracy. Enrollment has grown and student achievement has improved.

While elements of that sterling national reputation are deserved, and some real gains have occurred, they have been far too slow and inequitable. On perhaps the most critical measure of success, literacy in early elementary schools, low-income and minority students have improved at a much slower rate than their Anglo and higher-income peers. This has caused Denver’s abysmal achievement gaps to grow even wider.

In 2017 64 percent of students who did not qualify for free or reduced lunch were reading and writing at grade level compared to 26 percent of students who qualified for free and reduced lunch, a 38 percent gap. And only one of three low-income third-graders read and write at grade level.

Our aspirations of a decade ago have not been realized. Until and unless Boasberg and the Board of Education take concrete steps to fundamentally change the district to serve its students and schools, real progress will remain elusive. Over time, I have come to doubt whether this is even possible.

The new reform board promised innovation, school autonomy, transparency, accountability, closer monitoring of results, and higher expectations.

She concludes:

We failed on all counts.

Teacher turnover and principal turnover remain large. Achievement gaps are as large as ever, possibly larger.

Denver, the shining model of reform by charters and test-based accountability, is no model at all.

So says one of the reform leaders who was there at the beginning.

Jeannie Kaplan was a school board member also during those heady years. She quickly became disillusioned with the disruptive tactics. She is not sure whether Theresa Peña means what she says or has something else in mind. But she has long believed that the “reforms” failed the neediest kids.

What say you, Senator Michael Bennett? What say you, Superintendent Tom Boasberg?

Why not focus on what works? Reduced class sizes; support and retention of teachers and principals; collaboration; school nurses and clinics. Talk about root causes of low academic performance and focus on changes that address the root causes.

 

 

Ever since John Merrow realized that Michelle Rhee was a con artist, he has been on a tear, exposing the fraudulent  claims of reformers.

One of them is that the District of Columbia is a paradigm of reform, the very quintessence of the miracles that happen when test scores are the center of a system of rewards and punishments.

The recent graduation rate scandal sent a loud signal, bringing back memories of the test score scandal in 2011 that was swept under the rug.

Merrow writes here:

“The emperor has no clothes, and it’s high time that everyone acknowledged that. Proof positive is Washington, DC, long the favorite of the ‘school reform’ crowd, which offered it as evidence that test-based reforms that rewarded teachers for high student scores (and fired those with low scores) was the magic bullet for turning around troubled urban school districts.

“But now we know that about one-third of recent DC high school graduates–900 students– had no business receiving diplomas, and that they marched across the stage last Spring because some adults changed their grades or pushed them through the farce known as ‘credit recovery,’ in which students can receive credit for a semester by spending a few hours over a week’s time in front of a computer.

“The reliable Catherine Gewertz of Education Week provides a through (and thoroughly depressing) account of the DC story, which she expands to include data from DC teachers:  “In a survey of 616 District of Columbia teachers conducted after the scandal broke, 47 percent said they’d felt pressured or coerced into giving grades that didn’t accurately reflect what students had learned. Among high school teachers, that number rose to 60 percent. More than 2 in 10 said that their student grades or attendance data had been changed by someone else after teachers submitted them.”

First came George W. Bush’s “raise the test scores” campaign, followed by Arne Duncan’s “raise the graduation rate campaign.” Both of them produced lies (cf. Campbell’s Law).  Both superficial reforms proved to be malignant in their impact upon students, teachers, and schools.  Students were lied to about their proficiency, administrators and teachers cheated, school curricula were debased, standards were lowered, and confidence in public schools dropped.

Republicans and Democrats (CAP) are scrambling to work around this latest debacle.

Merrow reminds his readers: Henderson=Rhee. No change. No evidence that Antwan Wilson will change anything because he comes from the same cult of test-and-punish.

Another setback for “reformers,” who never admit failure even as their sand castles dissolve.

Iowa has one of the best school systems in the nation, but legislators are working to pass a voucher program.

They very likely belong to ALEC, where they got their marching orders to destroy public education.

The bill advanced on a party line vote, with Democrats opposed. Every student who gets a voucher will take $5,000 away from the state’s public school. That amount will not be enough for a high quality private school.

In recent studies, done by scholars of different views, vouchers depress student achievement. Do Iowa legislators know that? Do they care?

The sponsor admitted that his plan would reduce funding for public schools:

“Yeah, it’s going to take a student away and that funding will go away (for public schools),” he said. “But that’s no different than a student leaving for any other reason. So schools have to deal with that all the time – declining enrollment or enrollment changing.”

Citizens of Iowa must rise up and say no. No to vouchers! No to additional “flexibility” to charter schools! No to budget cuts for public schools.

One day it was open. The next day it closed. Gone.

That’s a charter school for you!

http://www.kcra.com/article/sacramento-charter-school-shuts-down-without-warning/16754549

 

A Rocketship Charter in Nashville was slated to be part of the state’s failed Achievement School District  but it closed a few months after opening.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2018/02/01/nashville-achievement-school-district-rocketship-nashville-partners-community-prep/1087161001/

The school expected  to enroll 190 students but only 50 signed up. Demand isn’t there for a school once hailed as a national model.

To add to the woes of Rocketship charters in Nashville, the IRS filed a lien against their property because of unpaid taxes of about $19,000.. Rocketship officials said it was a clerical error.

This from Politico this morning:

Open the post for the links. DeVos is having lunch with Trump and Pence today. Apparently that is the only event on Trump’s not-busy calendar. He will spend the rest of the day watching TV.

 

By Kimberly Hefling | 02/12/2018 10:00 AM EDT

With help from Caitlin Emma, Mel Leonor, Michael Stratford and Benjamin Wermund

BUDGET DAY TO SHOWCASE EDUCATION WISH LIST: The release of the administration’s first full-fledged budget proposal later this morning will spotlight President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ priorities for 2018 and 2019. On the higher education front, we already know the White House will suggest broadening eligibility for Pell grants, tweaking requirements for trade licensing and growing apprenticeships in its $1.5 trillion infrastructure plan in an effort to boost workforce training.

– Last year, the Trump administration called for a $9.2 billion, or 13 percent, cut to department spending – cuts congressional appropriators largely ignored. Administration officials indicate they will propose drastic reductions to nondefense programs in today’s blueprint, meaning education programs are likely to see proposed cuts yet again.

– A big caveat: Congress raised the strict caps on how much the government can spend in the next two years when it passed its fiscal package, H.R. 1892 (115), early Friday amid the overnight government shutdown. As POLITICO’s Sarah Ferris has reported, Congress is even less likely to pay attention to the president’s funding request because it was written before the budget deal was reached. That’s important to keep in mind – especially in light of the inclusion of a $2 billion boost to higher education each of the next two years that congressional leaders agreed last week to spend.

– The White House said it would release an “addendum” to its proposal reflecting the raised spending caps because it was too late to rewrite the document. We’ll be watching closely to see how that affects education spending.

– The budget request will land at 11:30 a.m. and the Education Department has a 2 p.m. conference call to discuss it.

– Here are some things to watch for:

– School choice: Last year, support for school choice in Trump’s proposed budget came at a cost. The president proposed big and unpopular cuts across the K-12 spectrum, on everything from teacher training to after-school programs. But he also proposed about $1 billion to encourage public school choice, $250 million for private school choice and a 50 percent boost for charter schools. Education policy watchers are watching to see whether similar priorities – and cuts – are pitched for K-12 programs. House and Senate GOP appropriators largely rejected the school choice proposals, although they did vote to give a small boost to charter schools – just not at the level the administration wanted.

– STEM: Trump last year issued an executive order directing DeVos to spend at least $200 million in existing grant funds per year on the promotion of high-quality STEM education and, in particular, on computer science education. Education Innovation and Research grants could be one place where the Trump administration signals that priority.

– Career and technical education funding. Trump called for more vocational schools in his State of the Union address, and has repeatedly touted career and technical education since taking office. That didn’t stop his administration from proposing a more than $1 billion cut last year to the programs that support the type of vocational education he says he wants to bolster and expand.

– Education Department workforce reductions: The Trump administration has taken steps to streamline government agencies, including efforts to cut personnel. In recent months, 69 Education Department employees accepted buyout offers. The budget blueprint may spell out proposals for additional workforce cuts.

– School infrastructure funding: There have been no indications that the administration will include funds for crumbling school buildings in its infrastructure push, but many public school advocates have been pushing hard for a share and will be watching to see if any of the funds are targeted for K-12 upgrades.

– Student aid programs. Higher ed watchers are looking to see if the administration will again call for deep cuts , including cutting $3.9 billion from the Pell grant surplus and eliminating entirely the $733 million Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, which provides grants to help low-income students attend college. Last year, it also called for cuts the TRIO and Gear Up programs, which help low-income students prepare for college. House and Senate appropriators mostly ignored these recommendations, although appropriations committees in both chambers did agree to cut billions from the Pell grant surplus.

– Early education: The Trump administration cited insufficient Head Start Funding for its decision last month to waive an Obama-era rule requiring Head Start centers to offer full-day preschool year-round to at least half of their students by next summer. Preschool supporters are watching to see if the administration will again propose no funding increases for Head Start. Last year, the administration also proposed axing the Preschool Development Grants program, which Congress created in the Every Student Succeeds Act to target 4-year-olds from low- and moderate-income families – a recommendation rejected by congressional appropriators.

 

During the Obama years, the Center for American Progress reliably cheered on the administration’s education policies. As one after another failed, CAP never backed down. Charter schools good. Closing schools good. Common Core great. Despite the convergence of evidence that these policies did not work, that they destabilized fragile urban neighborhoods, that they demoralized teachers and created shortages, CAP never wavered.

As Peter Greene shows in this post, the CAP has learned nothing from the past 15 years of failed reforms. They are still pushing policy ideas cribbed from the GOP.

They still are pushing state takeovers and turnarounds.

He writes:

”And what example do folks who support takeovers and turnarounds like to cite? Of course, it’s New Orleans. Do we really have to get into all the ways that the privatization of the New Orleans school system is less than a resounding success? Or let’s discus the Tennessee experiment in a recovery school district, in which the state promised to turn the bottom five percent into the top schools in the state, and they utterly failed. As in, the guy charged with making it happened gave up and admitted that it was way harder than he thought it would be, failed.

“The whole premise of a state takeover is that somebody in the state capital somehow knows more about how to make a school work than the people who work there (or, in most cases, can hire some guy who knows because he graduated from an ivy league school and spent two years in a classroom once). The takeover model still holds onto a premise that many reformsters, to their credit, have moved past: that trained professional educators who have devoted their adult lives to working in schools– those people are the whole problem. It’s insulting, it’s stupid, and it’s a great way to let some folks off the hook, like, say, the policy makers who consistently underfund some schools.

“Most importantly, at this point, there isn’t a lick of evidence that it works.

“We have the results of the School Improvement Grants used by the Obama administration to “fix” schools, and the results were that SIG didn’t accomplish anything (other than, I suppose, keeping a bunch of consultants well-paid). SIG also did damage because it allowed the current administration and their ilk to say, “See? Throwing money at schools doesn’t help.” But the real lesson of SIG, which came with very specific Fix Your School instructions attached, was that when the state or federal government try to tell a local school district exactly how things should be fixed, instead of listening to the people who live and work there, nothing gets better. That same fundamental flaw is part of the DNA of the takeover/turnaround approach.

“But CAP is excited about ESSA because some states have included this model in their plan. So, yay.”

Worst of all, CAP ends it’s paean to ESSA by linking to a paper produced by a Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change.

If proof is needed of a mind meld between “centrist” Democrats and free-market, DeVos-style Republicans, This is it.

 

 

 

Hurrah for New Zealand!

The Minister of Education in New Zealand, Chris Hipkins, announced that the government is putting an end to national standards and charter schools. 

“Both National Standards and charter schools were driven by ideology rather than evidence. Both were rejected by the vast majority of the education sector. The Government’s strong view is that there is no place for them in the New Zealand education system.”

The bill includes provision for existing charter schools to operate under their contracts while the Ministry discusses possible options, including in the state system, on a case-by-case basis.

“My preferred option is to explore early termination of contracts by mutual agreement.”

My hunch is that New Zealand has a strong tradition of good public schools and common sense. Also, the financial industry and tech sector did not spread campaign contributions to elected officials.