Archives for category: Education Industry
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

MUST-READ: Thomas Picketty Slams Jeb Bush and Other Republicans Who Think School Choice Will Cure Inequality

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2015 //
21

Thomas Picketty, the French economist whose book “Capitalism in the 21st Century” was a huge bestseller last year, told MSNBC’s Krystal Ball that Republicans–most especially Jeb Bush–were decidedly on the wrong track in responding to inequality.

 

In a post on Salon.com, Picketty told the interviewer that:

 

“there’s a lot of hypocrisy” in the rhetoric of conservatives who condemn inequality while failing to support policies like an increased minimum wage and ramped-up infrastructure spending.

 

“You’re saying let’s tax the top and invest that money into education for all. [Jeb Bush] is a proponent of school choice, of giving schools vouchers so they can attend public school or private school, whatever they want. Is this a good solution in terms of dealing with what he calls the opportunity gap?” Ball asks Piketty.

 

“From what I can see, he doesn’t want to invest more resources into education. He just wants more competition… there’s limited evidence that this is working. And I think most of all what we need is to put more public resources in the education system. Again, if you look at the kind of school, high school, community college that middle social groups in America have access to, this has nothing to do with the very top schools and universities that some other groups have access to,” Piketty replies.

 

“[I]f we want to have more growth in the future and more equitable growth in the future, we need to put more resources in the education available to the bottom 50% or 80% of America. So it’s not enough just say it, as Jeb Bush seems to be saying, but you need to act on it, and for this you need to invest resources,” he says.

 

Asked about claims by Bush and other conservatives that a so-called “skills gap” is responsible for the growth in inequality, Piketty dings that narrative as simplistic.

 

“The minimum wage today is lower than it was 50 years ago, unions are very weak, so you need to increase the minimum wage in this country today. The views that $7 and hour is the most you can pay low-skilled worker in America today… I think is just wrong — it was more 50 years ago and there was no more unemployment 50 years ago than there is today. So I think we could increase the minimum wage,” Piketty says, adding that the U.S. should also invest in “high-productivity jobs that produce more than the minimum wage.”

 

Education is important, Piketty acknowledges, but education alone is not enough to ameliorate inequality.

 

“You need wage policy and you need education policy,” he says. “And in order to have adequate education policy, you also need a proper tax policy so that you have the proper public resources to invest in these public services. Also you need infrastructure. Many of the public infrastructure in this country are not at the level of what the very developed should have. You cannot say, like many of the Republicans are saying, we can keep cutting tax on these top income groups who have already benefitted a lot from growth and globalization over the past 30 years.”

Categories Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Jobs, Privatization

EduShyster on White Shoe Lawyers, Civil Rights, and Charters in Massachusetts

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2015 //
4

EduShyster has written a scintillating post about how three of Boston’s most prestigious law firms (“white shoe” lawyers) have combine to litigate for more charter schools in the name of civil rights. She asks some pertinent questions: Do they know that charters are more segregated than public schools? Do they know that children in charter schools abandon their civil rights at the door? Do they know that many charter schools do not “backfill” (i.e., accept students who apply to enroll in grades after their entering class)? Do they know that the odds of young males graduating from a charter school in Massachusetts are small?

 

She writes:

 

What? You want to know how it is that civil rights can be used to argue for more charter schools, when, according to a growing body of case law, students in charter schools don’t actually have civil rights? Or how, in the course of four decades, *civil rights* could go from a fierce battle over desegregating schools and diversifying the teaching force to the right of students to attend more segregated schools and be taught by young, mostly white teachers? Or why our pro bono-ists seem so charmingly ill-informed, not just about the state’s charter schools, but about all of the schools that are publicly attended? All mere trifles, reader.
While the constitutional challenge to the charter cap has yet to make its official debut, it gets underway unofficially this week with the hottest ticket in town: the annual charter school lottery. Our pro bono-ists will identify a handful of lottery losers, invite them to become plaintiffs, then introduce them to the press, Vergara-style. Of course, the bold plan is not without its challenges. Like getting past that *awkward* bit about the plaintiffs being denied access to *high-performing seats* that have no students in them because of the charter lobby’s staunch position against *backfilling.* Also, probably best to avoid including a would-be 9th grade boy in the plaintiff pool, as he turns out to have about as much chance of graduating from a Boston charter high school, going to college and completing college as he does of winning the actual lottery. But I digress. (The links are in the post.)

 

 

She also helpfully explains why certain law firms are called “white shoe” and includes a very realistic illustration of a white shoe, the kind seen in olden times on Ivy League campuses.

 

 

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Massachusetts, Privatization

Jill Lepore: The Hoax of “Disruptive Innovation”

By dianeravitch
March 11, 2015 //
24

One of the shibboleths of the corporate reformers is their belief in “creative destruction,” “innovation, and “disruption” as an end in itself. These ideas justify their efforts to tear apart traditional public school systems, replace experienced teachers with inexperienced youngsters, close schools, and experiment with charters, vouchers, and anything else that will destroy the status quo. To be sure, some are in the school reform business to make money, but others see themselves as heroes of a movement that sees itself as blowing up “failing schools” and forcing fresh innovations into a stagnant sector of the economy.

 

This remarkable article by Jill Lepore, published by the Néw Yorker, explodes the dogmas of “disruption” as progress. I posted the article last year, but am posting it again because I see it as a classic. It sheds light on our narrative about how change happens.

 

Lepore attributes the fascination with disruption to the influential work of Harvard business professor Clayton Christensen. He popularized the idea that big companies die as they are overtaken by nimble start-ups that embrace innovation. Business leaders took heed and committed themselves to persistent re-invention and self-disruption, or buying up the start-ups before they overtook the established industry leader.

 

In education, we have seen the dogma of disruption in the policies of Arne Duncan, the Bloomberg administration of education in New York City (with its focus on closing schools and opening schools and closing the schools it opened), the Rahm Emanuel model (closing 50 public schools on the same day), the Broad Foundation, the Gates Foundation, the Walton Foundation, and business groups. They scorn incremental change and pursue the disruptive idea–like closing schools, the Common Core, federally funded tests–that will shake up schools across the nation with a series of bold and experimental strokes.

 

Do schools need to be disrupted by techniques borrowed from the business world? Do families need to be disrupted? Do communities need disruption? According to disruption theory, disruption is the precursor to success.

 

Lepore, it can be fairly said, demolishes disruption theory by showing that Christensen’s examples provide no evidence for the theory. To the contrary, the successful companies over the long haul were not the innovators that disrupted the industry, but those that changed incrementally, tinkering and constantly improving their processes and their products.

 

One of Christensen’s leading examples of disruption was the disk-drive industry. This was the subject of his doctoral dissertation. In his telling, a company called Seagate Technology fell by the wayside as competitors disrupted its market. But, Lepore shows, Christensen was wrong.

 

“In fact, Seagate Technology was not felled by disruption. Between 1989 and 1990, its sales doubled, reaching $2.4 billion, “more than all of its U.S. competitors combined,” according to an industry report. In 1997, the year Christensen published “The Innovator’s Dilemma,” Seagate was the largest company in the disk-drive industry, reporting revenues of nine billion dollars. Last year, Seagate shipped its two-billionth disk drive. Most of the entrant firms celebrated by Christensen as triumphant disrupters, on the other hand, no longer exist, their success having been in some cases brief and in others illusory…..

 

“As striking as the disruption in the disk-drive industry seemed in the nineteen-eighties, more striking, from the vantage of history, are the continuities. Christensen argues that incumbents in the disk-drive industry were regularly destroyed by newcomers. But today, after much consolidation, the divisions that dominate the industry are divisions that led the market in the nineteen-eighties. (In some instances, what shifted was their ownership: I.B.M. sold its hard-disk division to Hitachi, which later sold its division to Western Digital.) In the longer term, victory in the disk-drive industry appears to have gone to the manufacturers that were good at incremental improvements, whether or not they were the first to market the disruptive new format. Companies that were quick to release a new product but not skilled at tinkering have tended to flame out.”

 

Lepore systematically demolishes disruption theory. This is one of my favorite stories she tells:

 

“Christensen’s sources are often dubious and his logic questionable. His single citation for his investigation of the “disruptive transition from mechanical to electronic motor controls,” in which he identifies the Allen-Bradley Company as triumphing over four rivals, is a book called “The Bradley Legacy,” an account published by a foundation established by the company’s founders. This is akin to calling an actor the greatest talent in a generation after interviewing his publicist. “Use theory to help guide data collection,” Christensen advises.”

 

Lepore’s article is one of the best critiques of the corporate reform move my in education that I have read. The belief that education will improve if schools are closed and opened, closed and opened again, if change and turmoil are goals, if leaders are trained to accept disruption as a positive method, there we find the workings if disruption theory.

 

Lepore says it’s hooey.

 

She writes:

 

“Disruptive innovation as an explanation for how change happens is everywhere. Ideas that come from business schools are exceptionally well marketed. Faith in disruption is the best illustration, and the worst case, of a larger historical transformation having to do with secularization, and what happens when the invisible hand replaces the hand of God as explanation and justification. Innovation and disruption are ideas that originated in the arena of business but which have since been applied to arenas whose values and goals are remote from the values and goals of business. People aren’t disk drives. Public schools, colleges and universities, churches, museums, and many hospitals, all of which have been subjected to disruptive innovation, have revenues and expenses and infrastructures, but they aren’t industries in the same way that manufacturers of hard-disk drives or truck engines or drygoods are industries. Journalism isn’t an industry in that sense, either.

 

“Doctors have obligations to their patients, teachers to their students, pastors to their congregations, curators to the public, and journalists to their readers—obligations that lie outside the realm of earnings, and are fundamentally different from the obligations that a business executive has to employees, partners, and investors. Historically, institutions like museums, hospitals, schools, and universities have been supported by patronage, donations made by individuals or funding from church or state. The press has generally supported itself by charging subscribers and selling advertising. (Underwriting by corporations and foundations is a funding source of more recent vintage.) Charging for admission, membership, subscriptions and, for some, earning profits are similarities these institutions have with businesses. Still, that doesn’t make them industries, which turn things into commodities and sell them for gain.”

Categories Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Scandals Fraud and Hoaxes

Vermont: The Heavy Fist of the Federal Government Demands Testing!

By dianeravitch
March 10, 2015 //
38

Vermont is not only a beautiful state, but it is a wonderful state when it comes to education. Early on, Vermont policymakers made clear that its educators would do what was right for children and would not be bullied by federal bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

 

But something strange is happening. Keri Gelenian, the principal of Rivendell Academy, sent out a letter to 196 other principals and SBAC testing coordinators the Common Core test to inform them that the school would not administer the test. The response was silence. Then State Commissioner Rebecca Holcombe, who was earlier named a hero of American education by this blog for her steadfast values, wrote a letter to all schools warning that they would lose all federal aid–Title I, special education, and everything else– unless they gave the Common Core test. I assume she believes this to be true or she would not have sent out this warning.

 

But we learn something important from Holcombe’s letter: the federal government is using its power to force states to give the Common Core tests. This is grounds for a lawsuit challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s for interfering with the curriculum or instruction at any public school, a prohibition written into law. Everyone knows that tests drive curriculum and instruction. The media endlessly repeats the lie that Common Core and Common Core testing are in no way tied to the federal government. The lying must stop. Common Core and Common Core testing are driven by federal might, not by the voluntary endorsement of the states.

 

Please read the following correspondence, written by Michael Galli, dean of students at Rivendell Academy in Vermont:

 

 

Those of us who administer the SBAC test in silence will not be condemning our students to wear “a scarlet letter,” rather we will be stitching that ruddy sign to the lapels of our breast.

A Response to Secretary Holcombe’s February 17th SBAC Memo

On December 11, 2014 a principal from Vermont penned an anonymous letter to Governor Peter Shumlin and Secretary of Education Rebecca Holcombe.1 It was in response to the Governor’s statements that school budgets are too high. The principal declared, “I am not arguing against the need to examine how we fund our schools … [but] neither one of you truly understands the crisis facing our school children.” He/she then presented three detailed case studies of individual students in his/her district that struggle with abuse, poverty, drugs, and mental illness; four very real problems that virtually all public educators in this nation encounter. What I found odd about the letter is that this “30 year” education veteran felt the need to write in secret for fear that his/her district would “come under political fire.” I thought that I had left that climate far behind when I moved out of California. After all, last year colleagues and I drove to Montpelier to speak with Secretary Holcombe regarding our concerns about education in Vermont. I found her to be open, reflective, and transparent, the very opposite of fear-inducing. After my visit I sent her a research article I wrote critizing the corporate path to the Common Core.2 It never occurred to me not to sign it. If, however, such a practice is an aberration in this state, then, for the first time in my five years here, I am fearful. Any time those of us who toil in the academic arena, the education ground of democracy, withhold our voice out of fear, our republic suffers.

 

On February 10, 2015 Rivendell Academy Head of Schools Keri Gelenian penned a 338 word open letter to 196 of his fellow Vermont administrators and SBAC test coordinates in which he declared:

 

The amount of instructional time and administrative time that has been devoted to preparing for the testing is completely disproportionate to any conceivable benefit that I can see coming from our results… We have been lulled into accepting testing as a useful practice without questioning the impact, if any, on learning or meaningful change in school structures… From my vantage point, this more mechanistic testing structure is pulling me, teachers, and students away from important instructional time… I am beyond the point of questioning the educational relevance of SBAC testing. I am at the point of questioning the moral implications of the testing, especially for our most vulnerable learners. I have been vocal about my concerns with this latest round of testing but I am kicking myself for not being vocal enough. My next board report will include a request that Rivendell not administer the test.3

 

On February 11, Dr. Gelenian received only one response from the one hundred and ninety-six. It read, “Thanks for your thoughts.” How can such silence be accounted for if fear is removed from the equation?

 

Six days later Secretary Holcombe published a memo to all Vermont Superintendents and Principals. It begins:

 

It has been brought to my attention that some school leaders in Vermont are contemplating an “opt out” of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (“SBAC”) test at the local level. I know that for some of you, there is frustration around the timeline and the work involved with the initial administration of the SBAC. While this frustration is understandable, I want to be very clear that if we (AOE, school administrators and school board members) in Vermont do not maintain fidelity to federal requirements, we/you will forfeit federal funds. As federal fund recipients, at both the state and local level, we must be clear that schools, districts or systems that do not administer the test will not be eligible for any federal funding, without exception. This includes federal programs such as IDEA, Title I, Title II, and federal support for Child Nutrition.4

From memos like this, one begins to understand the origin of the fear factor. I hypothesize that the Secretary’s choice of the phrase “some school leaders” is just a polite way of not singling Dr. Gelenian out. I suspect this because if others were publically contemplating an opt-out, why wouldn’t they have shared their views with Rivendell’s Head of Schools? If, indeed, there are others, in the spirit of transparency I would ask the Secretary to share their reasons. What is not made clear in Secretary Holcombe’s memo is whether or not she endorses the threat to pull federal funds (not to be confused with being in a position where she may be forced to carry it out), although the fact that “without exception” is underlined does not bode well. That being said, I would be interested in hearing her view on the matter.

 

What such a threat means for Rivendell is the loss of more than half a million dollars. Because such funding is intertwined with state and local dollars, a complicated matrix to be sure, the negative impact on the percentage of the 520 students in our district who receive special education and reading support is difficult to calculate. One fixed metric that can be calculated is the number of children (the anonymous principal’s case study souls) that the government will no longer feed breakfast and lunch.

 

Secretary Holcombe makes clear that she “objects” to the “punitive use” of the SBAC test “under NCLB,” aptly criticizing the SBAC’s “proficiency threshold” that is likely to condemn “two thirds of our high school students” as “not proficient” despite the fact that Vermont ranks “seventh in the world in math and science.” She writes, “It is a virtual certainty that once again, all our public schools will be labeled [by the federal government] ‘low performing.’” And despite the “anonymous” principal’s claim at the top of this letter that the Secretary does not understand the crisis facing our school children,” she clearly does, as evidenced by her attached citation of Gary Orfield:

 

“Setting absurd standards and then announcing massive failures has undermined public support for public schools . . . We are dismantling public school systems whose problems are basically the problems of racial and economic polarization, segregation and economic disinvestment.” (Educational Researcher, August/September 2014, p.286)5

 

This is why I find her underlined plea to “not let the inappropriate uses to which tests are put under NCLB undermine what value there is in tests, when used appropriately” difficult to accept, especially after equating the government’s use of the tests as akin to forcing students “to wear [a] ‘scarlet letter’ of shame,” hence Dr. Gelenian’s “questioning the moral implications of the [SBAC] testing.” Equally confusing is that on September 18, 2014 the Vermont Agency of Education sent out a memo inviting “K-12 educators, higher education faculty, parents, and community members from Vermont to participate in the Online Panel for Achievement Level Setting for the new Smarter Balanced Assessments in English language arts/literacy and mathematics… to help ensure these new state assessments are accurate and fair measurements of college and career readiness for all students,” yet in a statement to the SBAC governing states six weeks later Secretary Holcombe declared that “as of yet we have little empirical evidence related to the validity of the proposed cut [SBAC test] scores for actually discriminating between those who are ‘college and career ready’ and those who are not.” 6, 7 As she writes in her February 17 memo, Secretary Holcombe has good reason to “worry that too much emphasis on test-based accountability creates a new kind of equity gap, as schools — and particularly high poverty schools– feel compelled to narrow curriculum to what is tested, and away from other critical learning children need to thrive as adults in civic and economic life.” The Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium website celebrates its “level setting” success with an eight minute video that shares comments like this from Larry, a social science curriculum coordinator:

 

We’re going to have an instrument that will truly gauge what our student’s know and are able to do, and we can make more informed decisions regarding enhancing their education moving forward.

 

Or Susan, a 7th grade math teacher:

 

These recommendations are crucial to align exactly what we are supposed to be teaching with what they are actually testing to get really good quality information on the achievement of our students.8

 

Yet this is not the only “inappropriate use” that has astute educators concerned. In January 2011 the U.S. Department of Education and the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium’s “Cooperative Agreement” was released stipulating that the SBAC consortium “must provide timely and complete access to any and all data collected at the State level to ED or its designated program monitors, technical assistance providers, or researcher partners.” 9 In a troubling turn of events, in December of that same year, without any congressional oversight, the U.S. Department of Education made significant changes to the Family and Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) allowing non-governmental agencies access to student information without obtaining parental consent.10 One month later the U.S. Department of Ed released an updated version of its National Education Data Model, a database of 240 individual student descriptors including discipline, disability, pregnancy status if unmarried, class rank, and co-curricular activity “for states to collect the data they need to fully understand their progress on successfully adopting the Common Core State Standards or any other standards.”11,12 In response to concern over the federal government’s data mining of students, Secretary Holcombe signed a letter addressed to Arne Duncan in January 2014 pledging “not [to] share any personal identifiable information about K-12 students with the USED or any federal agency” with the understanding that such a stance “is consistent with…the cooperative agreement between the consortia and the USED,” which, as cited above, appears not to be the case, and there is no indication that such a pledge carries the weight of law. 13

 

The goal of the legislation that led to SBCA testing has always been to link teachers to students for “the development of performance-based teacher evaluation systems.” 14 According to a 2013 report published by The National Council on Teacher Quality, thirty-five states “require student achievement” to be “a significant or the most significant factor in teacher evaluations.” 15 An interesting case to watch will be that of fourth grade teacher Sheri Lederman from Great Neck New York. She is suing the New York State Education Department for tying “20 percent of her evaluation score … to local tests and 20 percent … [to] state tests.” 16 To her credit, Secretary Holcombe has resisted this trend, even going as far as questioning Arne Duncan directly in March 2014 about the appropriateness of using “high stakes” test to evaluate teachers.17 Duncan told her that Smarter Balanced should answer such a question. She then informed him that she did put the question to Smarter Balanced and was told to ask Duncan. Appearing to dodge the question, Duncan finally admitted in the exchange with Holcombe that test score data should be used to “identify top-performing teachers and not punish low performing ones,” even though he is on record of supporting “50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation [be] based on student achievement data.” 18 Even though Secretary Holcombe questions the validity of using student scores in teacher evaluations, Vermont schools have been forced to submit data to the AOE for the past two years linking individual students to individual teachers. As to the use of this data, the Agency’s response is less than reassuring as evidenced by a statement published by the Secretary’s predecessor on March 13, 2012 supporting the teacher/student link for “an analysis of teacher effectiveness.” 19 And then there is the following statement published on the Agency’s SECT FAQ page:

 

The VT DOE is required to collect these data. However, the types of analyses and reports created from these data have yet to be determined but we have identified many benefits of having access to the information linking teachers and students. 20

In December of 2013 Vermont principals “were surveyed regarding their districts’ teacher evaluation practices.” 21 Of particular interest was question # 3:

 

Does your evaluation process include student assessment results, including student growth measures, as a criterion in determining teacher performance?

 

I eagerly await the SBAC’s white paper on the “appropriate and inappropriate use of test scores.” It is important to understand, however, that even though under the Shumlin administration our current Secretary of Education is able to resist using SBAC results to punish teachers, the punitive machine, embraced by the federal government and, so it would seem, the majority of states, has been built, and has our number; something that will be passed on to the next administration.

 

And then there is the largest “inappropriate use” of all, administering the SBAC test as part of U.S. national security policy. No, this isn’t a statement of hyperbolic fancy. The long road to the Common Core began with the 1983 report A Nation at Risk and culminated in its 2005 ideological successor, Rising Before The Gathering Storm, a title poached from Winston Churchill’s 1948 work chronicling the rise of the Nazi state. 22,23 Penned by a committee that included Norman R. Augustine, retired chairman CEO of Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, Lee Raymond, chairman and CEO of Exxon Mobil Corporation, the world’s largest oil company, and Robert Gates, former director of the CIA and future Defense Secretary of the world’s largest military, “ Rising Storm” repackaged A Nation at Risk’s claim that public education in America is a failure and poses an imminent national security threat. This, despite the fact that between 1983 and 2005 both the economy and weapon’s spending, development, and deployment reached an all-time high.

 

Ironically, or logically, depending how you look at it, the Common Core SBAC test that we are about to deliver to our students will use software developed by Amplify – a subsidiary of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp – to report and analyze test results.24 The CEO of Amplify is former New York City school chancellor Joel Klein who, in 2010, published a “Manifesto” along with Michelle Rhee in the Washington Post declaring “everything we use in assessing teachers must be linked to their effectiveness in the classroom and focused on increasing student achievement” so that we can “establish a performance driven culture in every school.”25 In 2012 Klein, along with Condoleeza Rice, published a report for the Council on Foreign Relations titled U.S. Education Reform and National Security, as well as an article for CNN titled Education Keeps America Safe.26 Klein and Rice argue that education in America is “on a trajectory toward massive failure” which poses a “direct threat” to our “national security.”27 Their proposed solution? “States should expand the Common Core State Standards and implement assessments that more meaningfully measure student achievement” as well as “launce a ‘national security readiness audit’ to hold schools and policy makers accountable for results and to raise public awareness.” Until policy makers divorce themselves from the use of fear mongering war rhetoric when discussing public education, absurd militant mandates and threats like “100% proficient” and “do as we command or you will be defunded,” will continue to be issued.

 

There is no evidence that SBAC data will improve education in Vermont. And, in fact, if you believe as I do, that what is needed to properly equip more students to prosper in the 21st century is more instructional time, coupled with better mental health services, then SBAC testing actually retards such work. The idea that SBAC data will inform teachers which students are “career and college ready” and which need better support is laughable. Though “career and college ready” is more a political than academic descriptor, if schools in Vermont do not already know, from a very early age, which of their students are on track to succeed after graduation and which are likely to struggle, then I think one could agree with Klein and Rice that our education system is on a “trajectory toward massive failure.” This, of course, is not the case because schools in Vermont do know this information and can list the strategies that they have in place to support their students at risk. I put this question to Secretary Holcombe. Why not ask each school for the following information to be provided to the Vermont AOE in a confidential manner:

 

  1. Define your criteria for “career and college ready.”
  2. Provide of list of students in each grade that are at risk for not meeting this criteria.
  3. Provide list of reasons why each of these students are at risk.
  4. Provide a list of supports and interventions you have in place for these students.
  5. Provide a list of supports that you believe these students need but are not getting.

 

With this information, the Secretary could convene a more meaningful, relevant, and problem solving dialog among Vermont educators than SBAC data could ever hope to provide. And, of course, one of the reasons why Vermont ranks “7th in the world” is because we already have strategies in place that work. We can, of course, do better.

 

Maybe Dr. Gelenian’s memo was not ignored by his peers out of fear, but resignation, though I can hardly judge which is worse. Just because so many of us who fill the ranks of public education come from roots embedded deep within the working class, does not mean we need to plod along in silence like Orwell’s old plow horse Boxer. The Vermont AOE is not a knackery. Secretary Holcombe, who renowned education scholar Diane Ravitch has labeled “a hero of American education” needs to hear our voice.28 I believe she wants to hear our voice. Remember, we work within the academic arena. We get paid to think. What a privilege!

 

Respectfully to all,

 

Michael Galli

Dean of Students

Rivendell Academy

mgalli@rivendellschool.org

 

Sources

  1. Letter from Anonymous Principal: http://legislature.vermont.gov/assets/Documents/2016/WorkGroups/House%20Education/Vermont%20Principals’%20Association/W~Anonymous%20Vermont%20School%20Principal~Testimony~1-29-2015.pdf

 

  1. The Corporate Father of the Common Core: http://troi135.blogspot.com/search/label/Corporate%20Fatther%20of%20the%20Common%20Core

 

  1. Email to SBAC Coordinators: http://troi135.blogspot.com/search/label/Email%20to%20Vermont%20SBAC%20Cordinators

 

  1. AOE SBAC Memo: http://troi135.blogspot.com/search/label/AOE%20SBAC%20MEMO

 

  1. AOE MEMO to SBAC Governing States: http://education.vermont.gov/documents/VT_SBAC-Governing-States_Performance-Categories_11_2014.pdf

 

  1. Vermont Agency of Education Invites Educators and Others to Online Panel to Recommend Achievement Level Scores for Proficiency on Smarter Balanced Assessments: http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-Opportunity_to_Participate_in_Setting_SBAC_Achievement_Levels.pdf

 

  1. AOE MEMO to SBAC Governing States: http://education.vermont.gov/documents/VT_SBAC-Governing-States_Performance-Categories_11_2014.pdf

 

  1. Video on Achievement Level Setting: http://www.smarterbalanced.org/achievement-levels/

 

  1. COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Between the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and the SMARTER BALANCED ASSESSMENT CONSORTIUM: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-assessment/sbac-cooperative-agreement.pdf

 

  1. EPIC v. The U.S. Department of Education: https://epic.org/apa/ferpa/

 

  1. Common Education Data Standards (CEDS) Version 2 Data Model Guide: https://ceds.ed.gov/pdf/ceds-data-model-guide.pdf

 

  1. Common Education Data Standards: https://ceds.ed.gov/FAQ.aspx

 

  1. CSSO Letter to Duncan: http://pb.dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/pb/pdf/Chief_Data_Letter01-23-14.pdf

 

  1. State Implementation of Reforms Promoted Under the Recovery Act: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20144011/pdf/20144011.pdf

 

  1. National Council on Teacher Quality: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nctq.org%2FdmsView%2FState_of_the_States_2013_Using_Teacher_Evaluations_NCTQ_Report&ei=N2vzVJKbMMK2yATXmoLgBw&usg=AFQjCNFEvtP7kgGogmthJCgQkO18n4inpQ

 

  1. Will test-based teacher evaluations derail the Common Core?: http://hechingerreport.org/will-test-based-teacher-evaluations-derail-common-core/

 

  1. Duncan Addresses Council of Chief State School Officers: http://theprincipal.blogspot.com/2014/03/duncan-addresses-council-of-chief-state.html

 

18. The Tennessee Way: Lessons for the Nation: http://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/tennessee-way-lessons-nation

 

  1. SECT MEMO: http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-Memo_2012_03_13_Student_Educator_Course_Transcript_Data_Collection.pdf

 

  1. SECT FAQ: http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-Data_Collection_SECT_FAQ_Report.pdf

 

  1. Teacher & Principal Evaluation Survey Results: http://education.vermont.gov/documents/EDU-Memo_0914_Teacher_Principal_Survey.pdf

 

  1. A Nation at Risk: http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html

 

  1. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11463/rising-above-the-gathering-storm-energizing-and-employing-america-for

 

24. Amplify Insight Wins Contract from Common-Core Testing Consortium: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/marketplacek12/2013/03/amplify_insight_wins_contract_from_common_core_testing_consortium.html?intc=mvs

 

  1. How to fix our schools: A manifesto by Joel Klein, Michelle Rhee and other education leaders: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2010%2F10%2F07%2FAR2010100705078.html&ei=fHXzVMG5C8OZyASZsYKgAg&usg=AFQjCNH3P-3fXBXNSqb6W3dPt6hUljDB6g

 

  1. S. Education Reform and National Security: http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-national-security/p27618

 

27. Rice, Klein: Education keeps America safe: http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/opinion/rice-klein-education/

 

  1. Rebecca Holcombe, a Hero of American Education: https://dianeravitch.net/2014/08/07/rebecca-holcombe-a-hero-of-american-education/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Categories Accountability, Common Core, Education Industry, Testing

NEPC: 21 Myths About Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
March 10, 2015 //
14

I blogged about this report from the National Education Policy Center when it first came out a week or so ago, but I like Valerie Strauss’s report better than my own.

 

So I am posting part of it here. The report is a response to a publication by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which claims to separate fact from fiction. The National Education Policy Center reply also attempts to separate fact from fiction.

 

 

 

Criticism: “Charter schools are not public schools.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “As defined in federal and state law, charter schools are public schools.”

 

It is true that federal and many state laws define charter schools as public schools. Further, charter schools are funded primarily with public funds. But the actual legal status, in any meaningful policy discussion, is much less clear. A recent law review article, helpfully titled “The Legal Status of Charter Schools in State Statutory Law,” is available to the public online2 and walks the reader through this nuanced landscape. The authors conclude, “While charter schools are generally characterized as ‘public schools,’ courts have had a difficult time determining their legal status because charter schools contain both public and private characteristics.”

 

To understand the extent to which charter schools are de facto either public or private, it is necessary to examine various aspects and components of the schools, such as ownership, public accountability, governance, management, employee status, and the extent to which the schools are open to all and are pursuing democratically and publicly established objectives.

 

*Most charter schools are governed by nonprofit boards. It is increasingly the case that charter school buildings are privately owned by the charter’s founders, by an affiliated private company, or by a private trust.
*In schools operated by private education management organizations (EMOs), the materials, furniture, and equipment in the schools are usually privately owned by the EMO and leased to the school.

 

*Except for a small number of states that require teachers to be employees of the charter school, it is common for teachers to be “private employees” of the EMO.

 

*Although most charter schools have appointed nonprofit boards intended to represent the public (i.e., taxpayers’) interest, a growing portion of charter schools are operated by private EMOs, and key decisions are made at corporate headquarters, which are often out-of-state.

 

*Public schools, like other public entities, are subject to transparency laws. Charter schools and their private operators increasingly refuse to share information and data in response to public requests. This issue is explored further later in this review. In 2011-12, 42% of the nation’s public charter school students were enrolled in privately operated charter schools. Based on trends in the growth of EMOs, it is estimated that by 2015-16, more than half of the nation’s charter school students will be enrolled in schools owned and operated by private EMOs.

 

Thus, while claiming to be “public,” and while having some elements that are public (most importantly, public funding for a no-tuition education), their operations are basically private.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools get more money than other public schools.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “On average, charter schools receive less public funding than traditional public schools.”

 

When comparing public funding of charter schools with that of district schools, it is critical that the portion of “pass-through” funds to charter schools from school districts be subtracted. Otherwise, the district revenues are erroneously and vastly inflated. For instance, if a public school district has the responsibility of providing transportation of charter school students, then the taxpayer funding for that transportation should be attributed to the charter schools, not the public school district. But sloppy calculations do not do this.
Further, it is necessary to account for private dollars devoted to charter schools that are not publicly reported. This private funding is almost non-existent for some charter schools, but it is very large for others. A study of KIPP found that KIPP schools were actually receiving $800 more per pupil in public sources of revenue than local school districts. Further, while KIPP schools reported no private revenues in the federal district finance data set, a review of IRS 990 tax forms revealed that KIPP schools were receiving an average of $5,700 per pupil in private sources of revenue in 2008.

 

Nevertheless, there is indeed a widespread research consensus that charter schools receive less public funding per pupil than surrounding district schools. This is largely explained by charter schools spending less on special education, student support services, transportation, and food services.

 

Charter schools can receive a lot more public resources if they wish. Yet, they can only receive additional (categorical) funding if—for example—they serve more children with moderate or severe disabilities and if they start offering programs such as vocational technical programs that would qualify them for targeted funding. Most state funding formulas seek to provide equitable funding for charter schools and district schools alike. What a given person sees as fair probably depends on which sector one works in or otherwise identifies with.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools receive a disproportionate amount of private funds.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Charter schools receive fewer private funds per pupil than traditional public schools.”

 

NAPCS provides no valid support for its claim. Nor do we know of any solid study upon which to make this comparison nationally. What we do know is that the variation within both sectors—charter and traditional public—is great, meaning that privately provided resources likely drive inequities in all these schools. The NAPCS report attributes this finding to a study conducted by researchers at the University of Arkansas’s “Department of Education Reform.” However, this report was about an issue completely different from private funding disparities: the claim that charter schools operate with fewer funds in total. The fatal flaw in the study was—as noted above—in erroneously classifying pass-through money to charters as public school expenditures.12 To make matters worse, the Walton report considers “other” funding to be the same as private philanthropy. Increasingly, charter schools set up private trusts that receive and spend private revenue on behalf of the charter school. This “off the books” revenue is not reported.

 

Criticism: “There is a lack of transparency around charter schools’ use of funds.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Charter schools have greater accountability and scrutiny over their finances than traditional public schools.”

 

The report does not cite any evidence to substantiate this claim. Instead it cites a few reports about “ideal” standards for authorizing and oversight, but these do not comport with practice. The reason some policymakers are calling for oversight standards is the broad recognition that charter school oversight is inadequate.

 

As journalists and researchers are finding, charter schools are often not responsive to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. One of the authors of this review (Miron) sent out over 400 FOIA requests to charter school governing boards requesting a copy of their contract with their Education Management Organization (EMO). Only 20% of the charter school boards provided a copy. Another 10% responded, claiming they were not legally required to share this contract. The remaining 70% simply did not respond.

 

While public transparency is a growing concern, there are an increasing number of cases in which charter school boards are not able to obtain data and information about their own schools that is held by the private EMO. In Ohio, charter school boards are currently engaged in litigation to force White Hat Management to share details on how this private EMO is spending public dollars on charter schools that are—by nearly all accounts—struggling and failing.

 

Criticism: “Charter school teachers are less qualified than teachers in traditional public schools.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Like all public school leaders, charter leaders aim to hire talented, passionate, and qualified teachers who will boost student achievement and contribute to a thriving school culture.”

 

The report cites one of its own issue briefs as the only source of evidence to support this claim. But a number of independent empirical studies show that charter schools do, in fact, have a less qualified work force, if measured by experience or certification levels. Teacher attrition rates are extremely high in charter schools, and dissatisfaction with salaries and working conditions are common among the teachers who leave charter schools. A national study of charter school finance reported that district schools spend substantially more on teacher salaries than do charter schools (districts devoted 21.3% of their current operating expenditures on teacher salaries, compared with 15.1% spent by charter schools).
Criticism: “Charter schools are anti-union.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Charter schools are neither pro-union nor anti-union: They are pro teacher.”

 

Charter schools as originally designed are not inherently anti-union. However, the advocacy groups and the groups that sponsor them, such as the Walton Foundation, do have a track record of being opposed to unions. In fact, the NAPCS claim echoes Walmart’s statement that the retailer is not anti-union but pro-associate.

 

The NAPCS report points out that 12% of charter schools are unionized, but the largest portion of unionized charter schools are public school conversions. A rapidly increasing proportion of charter schools are operated by EMOs and, aside from Green Dot (a nonprofit EMO), very few of the schools operated by private EMOs are unionized.

 

Charter schools were originally intended to be “pro-teacher.” Al Shanker, past President of the American Federation of Teachers, is credited with playing a foundational role in the design and creation of the charter school concept. He and others involved with teachers’ unions believed that charter schools could provide new opportunities for teachers to innovate and create new learning environments, as well as providing opportunities for professional development for teachers. Yet what can be found in practice in today’s charter school is far from that ideal, given the above-mentioned research on working conditions, attrition and pay.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools aren’t accountable to the public since their boards aren’t elected.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Charter schools are directly accountable to the public.”

 

Once again, this is a claim that is based on a charter school ideal rather than on actual evidence. It equates following public laws and filing periodic reports with being “directly accountable to the public.” Any form of accountability relies on transparency and the communication of accurate, relevant information. Although some appointed charter school boards assume fiscal and legal responsibility for their school, many boards consider themselves to be in an advisory role; their power and responsibility is curtailed by the private EMOs that operate the schools, with a large portion of decisions taken at corporate headquarters which are often located halfway across the country.
It is common practice for EMOs to write charter school proposals and determine how the school will be managed and operated long before a board is appointed. It is also common practice for the private EMO to provide a list of names for board members which the authorizer then approves. In recent years, board members have been refused access to information about how money is being spent. Further, there are cases where EMOs have asked the authorizer to remove board members when they start asking uncomfortable questions about finance.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools cream or cherry-pick the best students from traditional public schools.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Public charter schools are generally required to take all students who want to attend.”

 

No empirical evidence is cited to support the NAPCS claim. While it is superficially true, it does not rebut the criticism. A variety of practices and abuses are used by charter schools to shape their enrollment. In fact, some staunch charter supporters, most notably Michael Petrilli of the Fordham Institute, see this relative exclusivity as “a feature, not a bug.”

 

There are a number of actions charter schools take to help ensure that they can end up with a more homogeneous set of higher-performing students. In some cases charter schools use admission tests to determine “academic interest.” In other cases, charter schools such as KIPP use “admission” or “placement” tests to make decisions on student grade levels assignments. Rather than be held back one to three grade levels, struggling students often simply return to the district school so they can stay with their peer group.

 

Many of the so-called “no excuses” charter schools use grade repetition as a means of weeding out weaker students. (Empirical research shows that the most prominent predictor of a student dropping out of school is requiring them to repeat one or more grade levels). Harsh or push-out school discipline practices can also drive away more difficult students or drive them out once enrolled.
Because parents and students choose the school, it is almost impossible to avoid self -selection of students and families who are more engaged and who have more knowledge and skill in navigating school choice systems, even setting aside any active steps taken by the charter schools themselves.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools don’t enroll children from under-served families.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Public charter schools enroll more students of color and from low-income backgrounds than traditional public schools.”

 

There is a terribly misleading bit of truth to this claim. The report is apparently comparing charter schools that are mostly in urban areas with a national population of traditional public schools. Looking beyond the gross numbers to compare the demographics of students in charter schools with those of their sending districts, it is true that the populations of minority and low-income students generally reflect the pool from which they were drawn. But the analysis should not stop there.

 

The differences emerge when we look at school-specific data. While the aggregate percentage of minority students in charter schools is similar to that of the sending districts, a distinct pattern emerges beneath that surface. Charter school enrollment tends to fall into a bimodal distribution, with either high-concentration minority or high-concentration white. In a 2010 study that examined the ethnic background of students in charter schools, one quarter of the charter schools had proportions of minority students that were similar to their local district schools (i.e., a difference of fewer than 10 percentage points). The other three-quarters of the charter schools were either segregative white, segregative black, or segregative Hispanic.

 

Aside from a few reports generated by advocacy groups, there is a substantial body of research concluding that charter schools are accelerating re-segregation by race, class, measured achievement, special education status (particularly when severity of disability is considered), and English-Language Learner status.28 Two national studies in 2010 examined student characteristics and found that charter schools accelerated segregation of public school systems. Both studies found that charter schools accelerated segregation by race and class.30 One of the studies also looked at special education status and English-Language Learner status of students and found that charter schools were also much more segregative than the local district schools.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools serve fewer English Learners than traditional public schools.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “There is no significant difference in the percentage of English Learners served by traditional or public charter schools.”

 

This claim by NAPCS is unsubstantiated and demonstrably false. In 2013 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that it was unable to compare English-Language Learners (ELL) enrollment in charter schools and traditional public schools because “Education’s only available data on school-level ELL enrollment were unreliable and incomplete. Specifically, for over one-third of charter schools, the field for reporting the counts of ELLs enrolled in ELL programs was left blank.”

 

In Miron, et al.’s 2010 study of charter schools operated by for-profit and nonprofit EMOs (which accounted for more than 40% of all charter school students at that time), comparisons between charter schools and the districts in which they lie found that charter schools were highly segregated when it came to serving ELLs. In this study, only 4.4% of the students in the EMO-operated charter schools were classified as ELL, compared to 11% of all students in the nation.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools serve fewer students with disabilities.”

 

NAPCS claim: “According to the most recent publicly available data, 10 percent of charter school students are students with disabilities, compared to 12 percent of students in traditional public schools.”

 

Once again, the response from NAPCS is intentionally misleading and false. It is true that the proportion of children with disabilities in charter schools has increased, although the proportion of children with severe and moderate disabilities still remains very low. There are close to 60 charter schools in the country that focus on or almost exclusively serve students with disabilities. Most charter schools, however, continue to enroll between 0% and 7% students with disabilities, and these are largely children with mild disabilities, while the districts are still responsible for children with moderate and severe disabilities. The national average for district schools was 13% in 2011.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools’ strong academic results are attributable to charters ‘counseling out’ under-performing students, either explicitly or implicitly, through strict discipline and attendance policies or high academic or parent involvement expectations.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “There is no evidence of charter school policies that explicitly push out students.”

 

The manner in which the critique is worded implies that charter schools have “strong(er) academic results” than traditional public schools, which is not correct. The overall performance of charter school students relative to demographically similar district schools students is mixed, and the results vary considerably among and within states. The claim that charter schools do not “explicitly push out students” is misleading. Over the past decade, charter school results have been improving and catching up to those of district schools, largely due to the expansion of college-prep charter schools and so-called “no excuses” charter schools. These schools market themselves as having high standards and rigorous expectations for students. Responding to this marketing, families self-select.

 

Families with children who have shown past academic commitment, families that can manage to provide transportation, and those that can meet parent volunteering and tutoring expectations are more likely to self-select into these charter schools. Many charter schools use placement tests and require students to repeat grades to ensure that students meet grade-level expectations. Students who are placed back a grade or who are retained in grade often decide instead to return to district schools. Many students realize they cannot meet the high academic or disciplinary standards and choose to return to the district school, or they are suspended or expelled, causing them to return.

 

Charter schools are also not required to back-fill the resulting empty places. Again, this is acknowledged, and again charter advocate Michael Petrilli has identified it as a feature, not a bug. When students leave during the school year, in most states the money will stay with the charter school, even though the local district has to receive students at any time in the academic year. Further, the district is required to provide an education for all students even if the money for that academic year stays with the charter school.
These and a variety of other practices and abuses have resulted in charter schools actively shaping the population of students they enroll.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools have higher suspension and expulsion rates.”

 

NAPCS claim: “Federal data show that the expulsion rate for public charter schools is no higher than that of traditional public schools.”

 

This sweeping NAPCS claim is based on an Education Week article, which drew from a small number of major city comparisons. Among the selected cities, Los Angeles, Newark, and San Diego had much higher suspension rates for charter schools. For expulsions in 2011 -2012, three of the four highlighted cities (Philadelphia, Washington, and Chicago) had vastly higher expulsion rates for charter schools. NAPCS does report that only about one-fourth of charter schools are in the data set, which raises the further question of what the missing three-fourths of the data might say. Self-selection effects by students remain unaddressed.

 

In New York City, charter schools regularly have suspensions and expulsion policies that violate students’ civil rights. In Massachusetts, charter schools enroll 3% of all public school students but account for 6% of all disciplinary removals. Charter schools in this state (especially the Boston-based charter schools) have much higher discipline rates—many over 20%.

 

The NAPCS claim is simply not supported.

 

Criticism: “Charter school students do no better than traditional public school students.”

 

NAPCS claim: “Between 2010 and 2013, 15 of 16 independent studies found that students attending charter schools do better academically than their traditional school peers.”

 

The citation for this claim comes from an internally produced NAPCS study. Since there are more than 80 independent and generally accepted studies that examine student achievement in charter schools, such an omission raises the question of why only these 16 are examined. The NAPCS narrative further restricts its focus to only two of the 16 reports:

 

*First is the well-known CREDO study that indicates there is no meaningful difference between charter schools and district schools. Maul and McClelland report, “. . . the study overall shows that less than one hundredth of one percent of the variation in test performance is explainable by charter school enrollment.”
*The second study, ascribed to the University of California at San Diego, is a Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) study that in more lukewarm terms, states, “Charter schools on average produce results that are at least on par with and, in many cases, better than district-run public schools.” This study was later criticized for reporting exaggerated positive results for statistically insignificant findings.

 

It is interesting to note that the most rigorous study, and by far the most expensive, commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, is not even mentioned. This study, undertaken by Mathematica, examined a sample of oversubscribed (i.e., popular and thus presumably better on average) charter schools and compared students at those schools to students who were on the waiting list but did not get a place. This longitudinal study showed no overall effect for charter schools.

 

Mathematica’s large-scale study identified a large pool of students who applied for charter schools. It then compared charter school students who received a place with students who didn’t and enrolled instead in their district school. The study found no overall difference between the two groups of students. It did find that urban charter school students did slightly better and suburban charter school students did slightly worse.

 

The clear answer that appears repeatedly is that after controlling for student demographics, charter schools show test-score results at levels that are not meaningfully better or worse than district schools. Thus, the criticism (“myth”) is very accurate.

 

Criticism: “Underperforming charter schools are allowed to remain open.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Charter schools introduce an unprecedented level of accountability into public education. If a public charter school is not improving student achievement as laid out in its foundational charter agreement, it can be closed down.”

 

This assertion, which is frequently repeated by charter school advocacy groups, is based on how charter schools are supposed to work rather than on actual practice. The core bargain underlying charter school policies is that these schools would be freed from various governmental regulations and collective bargaining agreements, and in turn the schools would have to demonstrate strong performance, as set forth in each specific charter.
Indeed, we recall that charter school accountability in the 1990s was sometimes referred to as mission-driven accountability. But saying they can be closed is not the same as saying that they are closed. The staunchly pro-charter Center for Education Reform reports that about 15% of charters have closed over the past two decades, but most of these closures were for financial or mismanagement reasons. Only 19% of the closures (or about 3% of all charter schools) were closed due to underperformance.

 

Criticism: “Charters are an urban-only phenomenon.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Nearly half of all public charter schools are found outside city limits in rural communities, suburban areas, and towns.”

 

This is a criticism not often heard, and it is interesting to consider why the NAPCS report takes it up. The report does not provide a source for its numbers and does not break out the percentage of charter schools located in suburban or urban areas. Given that school choice typically requires a concentration of potential customers within a short commuting distance, it is not common for charter schools to locate in rural areas.

 

With the increasing involvement of private EMOs in drafting the charter proposals and determining the location of schools, a more sophisticated use of market analyses is emerging to identify ideal locations. In some cases, this means locating a charter school just inside the boundary of a suburban district so it can recruit from the city as well as the suburb. If per-pupil funding is higher in the urban district, the charter is often then located just inside the urban district boundary.

 

Criticism: “Competition from charter schools is causing neighborhood schools to close and harming the students attending them.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “No research has shown that the presence of public charter schools causes neighborhood schools to close.”

 

The NAPCS narrative does not address the issue it raises. Instead, it digresses on an unrelated review of school closures because of low student test scores. While the research base includes no studies that we are aware of that show a direct causal relationship between charter school expansion and neighborhood school closure, there are plenty of documented instances of charter schools replacing neighborhood public schools and otherwise draining those schools of resources, thus causing closure.
The Journey for Justice Alliance asserts that charter school expansion and public school closures have had a devastating effect on minority communities. A study by Arsen and Ni demonstrated that after district schools lose their most resource-rich families to charters and other forms of school choice, they have less capacity to respond or compete.

 

District schools remain at a disadvantage since they must take all students whenever they arrive. They also have fixed costs for infrastructure and must maintain a staffing complement so that they can serve all students, including those who leave a charter school in the middle of the year. Contrary to the clear implication of the NAPCS claim, all of these factors have the direct effect of closing neighborhood schools and replacing them with charter schools.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools take funding away from traditional public schools.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Public school funding is sent to the public school that a student attends.”

 

Note that the NAPCS claim does not address the criticism. In the ideal narrative of charter advocates, “money follows the child.” Thus, when children move from public schools to charter schools, the traditional public schools lose money that then goes to the charter schools. Accordingly, in this ideal narrative, charter schools do in fact take money away from traditional public schools. A separate question is whether this harms public schools, given that the charters also take away the redistributed students (this is, in part, the question addressed in the previous criticism).

 

The NAPCS report returns to the different claim, that charter schools get less money than traditional public schools. As previously addressed, this does not take into account that the public school provides other services (e.g., transportation, special education, and food services) that charter schools may not provide. Furthermore, in many cases, charter school money is a flow-through from the public school. This results in inflated costs when the money is double-counted. A closer look at high-poverty urban communities reveals that limited resources are now being stretched across two parallel systems of education that are, based on school performance measures and financial need claims, both struggling.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools resegregate public education.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Parents decide where to send their children to school within the options available to them.”

 

Again, note that the NAPCS claim does not address the issue. There is a growing body of virtually undisputed evidence that charter schools segregate students. The above discussion of criticisms concerning skimming and of serving fewer percentages of various high-need groups applies here as well. But the important question here is whether segregative and stratifying effects of charter schools can be justified or excused by invoking the exercise of choice. Is society’s obligation to eliminate segregation and to provide equal opportunity satisfied by pointing to the choices of parents? Or, put another way, if policymakers decide to create a system based on parental choice, do they have an obligation to mitigate segregative effects caused by that policy?

 

Criticism: “Some charter schools are religious schools.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “No public school, whether traditional or charter school, can operate as a religious school.”

 

After citing a federal law, this categorical claim is not discussed further. Reality is somewhat more nuanced. In Gary Miron’s work evaluating charter school reforms for state education agencies, he never observed religious instruction during classroom instruction, though he observed schools in which religiosity was evident—for instance, teachers, students, and parents engaged in Christian prayers at lunch time and outside the regular classroom schedule. During site visits for a state evaluation of charter schools in Michigan, a large portion of students enrolled in charter schools operated by National Heritage Academies reported that they believed they were in a Christian school.

 

In Colorado, the Douglas County School Board used the charter school law to create a shell charter school that then packaged the state money into vouchers for private (mainly religious) schools. Further, in the 1990s, a small number of charter schools were started by Christian churches or church-affiliated groups. Church leaders direct some charter schools, and some charters lease facilities from church groups represented by the founder or charter school director. Over the past 15 years, there has been a growing number of charter schools catering to Islamic minorities, and there are growing networks of Hebrew charter schools serving the Jewish community.
At national conferences, it is not uncommon to see at least one report session devoted to research on religious-oriented charter schools, and there is in fact a growing body of literature about “religious” and “faith-based” charter schools. If researchers are studying religious charter schools, it is very likely that religious charter schools do in fact exist.

 

Criticism: “Charter schools aren’t the incubators of innovation that they claim to be.”

 

NAPCS Claim: “Public charter schools are using their autonomy to push boundaries to better serve students, generating lessons that can be refined and shared throughout the broader public school system.”

 

The NAPCS report cites only a few anecdotes to support its claim, yet there has been substantial empirical work on the issue of innovation in charter schools, which the report ignores or overlooks. Much of this research was conducted between 1994 and 2004, a time when one of the strongest arguments for charter schools was that they would be innovative and create unique or innovative instructional practices and learning materials.

 

With some notable exceptions, this has not been the case. Independent research on the issue shows that charter schools increasingly operate in much the same way as public schools. In fact, over the past decade, charter school advocates have noticeably shifted away from rhetorical claims that charter schools are innovative, shifting instead to claims that charters benefit communities by replicating popular existing models of schooling.

 

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, Privatization

Ohio: Politically-Connected Virtual Charter School Spends $2.7 Million on Advertising

By dianeravitch
March 10, 2015 //
11

Stephen Dyer of Innovation Ohio reports that the virtual charter school Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow spent $2.7 million on advertising.

 

Dyer writes:

 

The Dispatch reported this weekend that the Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow — the nation’s largest for-profit charter school run by huge political donor William Lager that received all Fs and one D on the latest report card — spent $2.7 million last year on advertising. That bill equates to $155 per student. That’s about 2% of their budget.

 

Let’s have some fun with numbers, shall we?

 

If every district in this state spent 2% of its overall expenditures on advertising, that would be $381 million — or about the amount that was sent from higher performing districts to lower performing charters in the 2012-2013 school year

 
That $381 million is more than was budgeted in the state funding formula to pay for all the state’s poverty aid for this school year

 
If every district in this state spent $155 per pupil on advertising, that would be $246 million

 
That $246 million is more than the state was budgeted to spend in its funding formula for the third-grade reading guarantee, gifted education and career-technical education … COMBINED

 

 

The owner of ECOT is a generous donor to legislators and the Governor. That is why there is no accountability for the “school’s” poor results. Its graduation rate is 35%. Dyer wonders why they are permitted to advertise without disclosing their poor results.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Privatization

John Kuhn: The Big Error of “Accountability”

By dianeravitch
March 9, 2015 //
24

John Kuhn, Texas superintendent, is a brilliant orator and writer. In this article, he skewers the cheerleaders for high-stakes testing in Texas by showing how they cherry pick data to buttress their case for testing kids more and more instead of providing adequate resources for them to learn.

 

He begins by demonstrating how they situate their love of testing as a civil rights issue. They cite the Brown decision and in other ways claim that they love the children who are poor and needy and want the best for them. But what they never do is to advocate that the Legislature restore the billions of dollars that were cut from the schools attended by the children they claim to love.

 

Here is a small sample of a smartly argued and well documented analysis:

 

In “The Big Idea of School Accountability,” their slick apologia for high stakes testing and punitive accountability, both of which have dominated American education politics and pedagogy since the 1980s, Bill McKenzie and Sandy Kress start out on the high road. McKenzie is a high-ranking opinion-shaper at the George W. Bush Institute and a former editorialist for the Dallas Morning News. Kress was an architect of Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and, though he leaves this out of his bio attached to the essay, a long-time lobbyist for Pearson, the world’s leading vendor of K-12 standardized tests. The two edu-lobbyists begin their essay by mentioning historical moments in education policymaking and politics that would seem to appeal to a wide audience. They condemn segregation and celebrate Brown v. Board of Education. They praise the Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965 (later renamed ESEA) and they celebrate its noble intention that “schools in disadvantaged communities would receive the resources to provide their students a decent education.”

 

Pay close attention to that statement, because it is the last time the authors will refer to resources as a necessary element to ensuring quality education in disadvantaged communities. Through the sleight of hand that has been perfected by the modern education reformer—and McKenzie and Kress are education reformers of the highest order—the writers deftly pivot from any and all talk of the need to provide equitable educational resources across all communities so that schools in even the poorest areas can deliver on the promise of education, and they spend the remaining pages of their article discussing something much easier on the taxpayer’s pocketbook: accountability, or the careful creation of just the right punishments to make teachers and students succeed in making learning happen, without respect to the pesky details of resources available to them (or unavailable to them, as they case may be). In the next paragraph—without establishing that the equity of resources LBJ’s law intended to guarantee was ever successfully attained—the writers begin to speak of campuses being “held responsible,” of the need to “hold schools accountable” and of “what should happen if schools do not show progress for all their students.”

 

Pivot complete.

 

The authors have shifted totally from an inconvenient conversation about fair and equitable investment in children and communities—investment that is adequate and comparable regardless of a student’s zip code or skin color—to one about holding children and communities responsible for their own outcomes. Accountability is constructed on the principle of blame and consequences as leverage to move schools and kids forward (blame and consequences, it should be noted, entirely directed at the teachers and students, with no consequence whatsoever reserved for citizens outside the schoolhouse who may or may not provide adequate fiscal supports for schools and children). At the urging of testing advocates like the authors of this essay, educational improvement via punitive test-based policies has eclipsed humane concepts of shared assistance and support for hurting American children (particularly anything resembling the investment of tax receipts) as the “civil rights issue of our time.” Educational accountability is designed as a low-cost replacement for social responsibility.

 

Children in America’s poorest neighborhoods lack all manner of opportunities and resources from birth that many American families take for granted. This isn’t to say they can’t learn. Of course they can learn, but there are obstacles they must overcome that society has kindly ensured do not litter the path of many other children from middle and upper class areas. From birth weight forward, all the data in impoverished zones is stacked against children, and elevating accountability for schools as our primary lever for improving these children’s lives has the effect of squelching any urgency and attention directed at efforts to feed and clothe and love and help them outside the school. We hear reformers speak of “the fierce urgency of the now” when they speak of improving schools, but we never hear it when they speak of improving lives. More than anyone in the United States, the poor child needs a hand up. More than any organization in the United States, the public school—the place where our children gather, and where they come as they are—needs support…..

 

Folks in the accountability camp like to say “we can’t throw money at the problem.” In fact, they apparently prefer actively pulling money away from the areas where the greatest problems exist. It is lunacy to believe that a testing program can do anything to help children who are being denied the same educational resources provided to their peers in wealthy communities. And to compare those under-funded students with their better-funded peers is nothing short of cruelty.

 

Thanks to the shift in focus toward testing and away from resourcing, in 2015 Texas sank to 49th in the nation in school funding (2). The accountability clique convinced lawmakers that funding was of little import; academic success could be forced upon children at a discount via test-based coercion and threats. An analogy might be if the Good Samaritan in the Bible story had stopped beside the injured traveler and, instead of lifting him out of the dirt and paying for his recuperation at an inn, had stood over him with a stopwatch and told him to hurry and get up, and assured him that he was comparing his time with that of uninjured people.

 

After quickly dismissing the topic of equitable funding for schools in poor areas, the authors praise bipartisanship and claim the legacy of Lyndon B. Johnson and Robert Kennedy as they discuss the debate surrounding ESEA. But even as they quote LBJ opining how his signature education law meant more “to the future of America” than anything he had signed before, they neglect to mention that what they are advocating in this essay—the continuation of required annual standardized testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school and significant punishments for schools, teachers, and students based on said tests’ results—were nowhere in LBJ’s bill.

 

Kuhn knows that reformers like to say that any reference to poverty means that you don’t believe poor children can learn. He knows that poor children can learn, but he also knows that poor children need at least the same resources as affluent children to learn. The “big error” of the accountability hawks is that they think that high-stakes testing is a substitute for resources. It is not. A brilliant and powerful essay.

Categories Accountability, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Poverty, Testing

Arkansas: Elites Move to Create a Statewide Charter District for Privatization

By dianeravitch
March 9, 2015 //
23

Max Brantley, columnist for the Arkansas Times, writes that legislation has been filed to create a statewide district for low-performing schools. The legislators apparently want to copy the failed Achievement School District in Tennessee (which has made minimal progress towards its goals of turning low-performing schools into high-performing schools within five years) and the failed Recovery School District in Louisiana (one of the lowest ranked districts in the state). The distinguishing characteristics of these districts is that 1) they eliminate public education; 2) they eliminate school boards elected by the people; 3) they allow the legislature to lower standards for teachers; 4) they enable the schools to be turned into privately managed charter schools, often (usually?) run by out-of-state operators. The proposed legislation says that the new district will be run by a nonprofit but experience shows that the nonprofit outsources many of its functions to for-profits and pays its executives salaries that far exceed those of local superintendents.

 

Some of the key elements of the bill:

 

The commissioner can assign whole districts or single schools to the state “achievement district” for purposes of such out-sourcing.

 

The law significantly advances existing takeover powers by allowing the commissioner to waive the teacher fair dismissal act. Due process in firing? Gone. The state can also waive the fair hearing law and any requirement to engage in collective bargaining. Employees become at-will — fireable for any, or no, reason

 

The nonprofit operators need not hire licensed teachers.; observe laws on length of day and holidays; or have a school board. The nonprofit operator DOES get to claim the voter-approved local property tax, whether residents of the district like that or not.

 

If only a specific school is taken over, the rest of an existing school district can be forced to provide transportation, meals and such for the taken-over school. This scheme is followed in some other states where charters have taken hold on a broader basis. You could call it taxation without representation. The Walton Family Foundation and the education “reformers” it subsidizes at the Walton campus of the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville probably would call it canny business practice,

 

The nonprofit operator can get existing school buildings — again built by local tax millage — for free (sorry, $1 a year.)

 

Minimum takeover period would be three years. But it could be five years before residents would get their schools back under local control.

 

Yes it applies after the fact to the Little Rock School District.

 

One thing we have learned from the New Orleans experience. Those schools that are taken over will never be returned to their local school district. The state will keep raising the bar to keep them privatized.

 

Call it legal theft. Give big campaign contributions. Control the legislature. Ask them to give public schools and public property to entrepreneurs. Privatize public education. It is more than breathtaking. It is sickening.

 

A public school or school district that is classified by the State Board of Education as being in academic distress and taken over by the state board as of the effective date of this act is eligible to become part of the achievement school district at the discretion of the Commissioner of Education.

 

Breathtaking.

 

I’m surprised the bill specifically doesn’t allow these charters a waiver from civil rights, gun, vaccination and public record laws, given the Republican backing. Gays MAY be discriminated against, of course, because they are not covered by state civil rights law. And Bart Hester aims to keep it that way.

 

I’ve had persistent reports of Gov. Asa Hutchinson having met with some of the wealthy Arkansans who are backing the “reform” movement to talk about dramatic upheaval in education. This would certainly be it. It first faces an Education Committee evenly split on partisan lines, but the Billionaire Boys Club (Walton, Stephens, Hussman, Murphy fortunes) has also worked to win friends on the Democratic side.

 

 

Categories Arkansas, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Privatization, Walton Foundation

Charter Investors’ Conference: Your Tax Dollars at Work:

By dianeravitch
March 8, 2015 //
42

Laura Chapman investigated the charter investors’ conference on March 10. And this is what she learned:

The US Department of Education will be at the charter school “investors” conference, representing you, dear taxpayer, in a scheme to subsidize the financing of charter school facilities that LISC is marketing, along with the Gates and Walton Foundations and a long list of profit seekers investors who get tax credits for doing deals, among other perks.

LISC stands for Local Initiatives Support Corporation, in operation for about 35 years and known mainly as a “partner” in leveraging public and private financing for community development projects. Here is the pitch for the NYC investor’s conference:

“LISC’s education work is focused on the need to create efficient financing sources for charter schools in low-income communities. Charter schools often struggle to cover school facilities costs and therefore must sacrifice competitive teacher salaries, robust extracurriculars, and much needed learning materials.” (Pitch: If we did not have to pay for facilities, we could pay teachers more, buy important stuff, and add some frills).

“Our keynote speakers…. will be Whitney Tilson, co-founder of Democrats for Education Reform and vice-chairman of the Board of Trustees of KIPP NYC and Ryan Hill, executive director of KIPP New Jersey.

“Join us for this one day symposium on charter school credit worthiness. Hear inside perspectives from investors, authorizers, academic experts, nonprofit lenders, rating agencies, and charter school borrowers. Learn and understand the value of investing in charter schools and best practices.”
Here is the program lightly edited, without names.

9:00 am – 10:15 am Morning Keynote Speaker(s) (see above)

10:30 am – 11:15 am. Panelists cite data from LISC’s Charter School Facility Finance Landscape and Bond Study and report on innovative financing mechanisms for facilities. Panelists from Utah State Treasurer’s Office, LISC, Charter School Advisors.

11:20 am – 12:20 pm. Charter school authorizers and lenders assess academic and financial performance. Panelists from SUNY Charter Schools Institute, Self-Help, New Jersey Dept. of Education, Wells Capital Management, New Orleans Parish School Board, National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

2:15 pm – 3:15 pm. Assessing the credit quality of a charter school (e.g. enrollment, financials, relationship with the authorizer, academic quality.) Panelists from Public Impact, Charter School Growth Fund, KIPP New Jersey, Charter Schools Development Corp., EdBuild, LISC.

3:30 pm – 4:30 pm Assessing charter schools from investors’ perspectives.
Panelists from Nuveen Investments, Utah State Treasurer’s Office, Standard & Poor’s, Piper Jaffray, Bank of America, LISC

4:35 pm – 5:30 pm Tools to create a more efficient market, such as: pools, credit enhancement, more state involvement, etc. Trends in borrower characteristics and continued disclosure needs. Panelists from Alliance Bernstein; BB&T Capital Markets; Prudential Financial; US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (USDE), Achievement First, Orrick.

Here is why USDE is represented at this conference. USDE operates a State Charter School Facilities Incentive Grant Program. State education agencies may apply for a grant if the state has a law in place authorizing “per-pupil facilities aid” for charter schools. (This is not the first instance of USDE baiting states to change laws so charters are given favorable treatment.)

These USDE facilities grants, available since 2004, are authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Title V, Part B, Subpart 1, Section 5205B). Awards have averaged $10 million annually, and can be continued at lower levels for up to five years. Under a new authority in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, funds may be channeled to preschool education in charter schools.

The marketing schemes championed at this NYC March 10, 2015 conference are designed to put private dollars into “brick and mortar” charter schools with token public support (federal, state), but with ownership of the facilities in the hands of private investors.

Here is the unpublicized caveat.

LISC supports charter and alternative schools, but only in “distressed neighborhoods.” LISC set up its Educational Facilities Financing Center in 2003. This center functions as a national operation to pool funds from low-interest loans, then leverage the funds for charter and alternative school facilities (new or renovated) “for underserved children, families, and neighborhoods.”

Schools financed by private entities and profit-seeking investors are PINOs “public in name only.” By design LISC and its many bundlers of money intend to keep low-income students and their families trapped in distressed neighborhoods, and coincidently, in my opinion, support the segregation that usually defines such neighborhoods. The cover story is all about neighborhood revitalization.

LISC boasts that it has raised millions in grants and loans from the Walton Family Foundation, Prudential Insurance, Bank One, The Boston Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, CEOs for Fundamental Change in Education, Citibank, City National Bank, Excellent Education Development, the Indianapolis Local Public Improvement Bond Bank, the Indianapolis Mayor’s Charter Schools Office, the Low Income Investment Fund, the Massachusetts Charter School Association, the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Charter School Office, the Massachusetts Development Finance Agency, Prudential Insurance, Wells Fargo,

and…. you—courtesy of Congress and the U.S. Department of Education.

Learn more at http://www.lisc.org/section/ourwork/national/education

Categories Charter Schools, Education Industry, U.S. Department of Education

Outrage: High-Stakes Testing in Kindergarten

By dianeravitch
March 8, 2015 //
52

High-stakes testing has reached down into kindergarten, where it is developmentally inappropriate. Kindergarten is supposed to be the children’s garden. It is supposed to be a time for learning to socialize with others, to work and play with others, to engage in imaginative activities, to plan with building blocks and games. It is a time when little children learn letters and numbers as part of their activities. They listen as the teacher reads stories, and they want to learn to read.

 

But in the era of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, kindergarten has changed. Little children must be tested. The great data monster needs data. How can their teachers be evaluated if there are no standardized tests and no data?

 

This frightening article in Slate by Alexandria Neason describes how high-stakes testing now permeates kindergarten.

 

The author describes the kindergarten classroom of Molly Mansel in Néw Orleans.

 

“Mansel’s students started taking tests just three weeks into the 2014–15 school year. They began with a state-required early childhood exam in August, which covered everything from basic math to letter identification. Mansel estimates that it took between four and five weeks for the teachers to test all 58 kindergarten students—and that was with the help of the prekindergarten team. The test requires an adult to sit individually with each student, reading questions and asking them to perform various tasks. The test is 11 pages long and “it’s very time-consuming,” according to Mansel, who is 24 and in her third year of teaching (her first in kindergarten).

 

The rest of the demanding testing schedule involves repeated administrations of two different school-mandated tests. The first, Measures of Academic Progress, or MAP, is used to measure how students are doing compared with their peers nationally—and to evaluate teachers’ performance. The students take the test in both reading and math three times a year. They have about an hour to complete the test, and slower test takers are pulled from class to finish.

 

The second test, called Strategic Teaching and Evaluation of Progress, or STEP, is a literacy assessment that measures and ranks children’s progress as they learn letters, words, sentences, and, eventually, how to read. Mansel gives the test individually to students four times throughout the year. It takes several days to administer as Mansel progresses through a series of tasks: asking the students to write their names, to point to uppercase and lowercase versions of letters, and to identify words that rhyme, for example.

 

Although more informal, the students also take about four quizzes per week in writing, English, math, science, and social studies. The school’s other kindergarten teacher designs most of the quizzes, which might ask students to draw a picture describing what they learned, or write about it in a journal.

 

“By the end of the school year, Mansel estimates that she’ll have lost about 95 hours of class time to test administration—a number inconceivable to her when she reflects on her own kindergarten experience. She doesn’t remember taking any tests at all until she was in at least second grade. And she’s probably right.”

 

Whoever made this happen should be arrested for child abuse and theft of childhood.

Categories Childhood, Pre-K, K, Education Industry, NCLB (No Child Left Behind), Race to the Top, Standardized Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »