Archives for category: Education Industry

When I worked in the U.S. Department of Education in the early 1990s, I was frequently reminded by colleagues and counsel that the Department was forbidden by law from interfering into what was taught in the schools. When the Department made grants to professional groups of teachers and scholars to create “voluntary national standards,” I made a point of never interfering in their work. I extolled the value of having standards that states, districts, and schools might find useful but made clear that the decision to use or not to use the standards was strictly voluntary. There was no thought that the Department could advocate for the standards or use money to bribe states to adopt them. That would have been illegal.

This is what the law says:

Public Law 103-33, General Education Provisions Act, sec 432,reads as follows:
“No provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, [or] administration…of any educational institution…or over the selection of library resources, textbooks, or other printed or published instructional materials…”
**********************************************************
But consider this: in 2009, the federal Department of Education used billions of dollars as part of its “Race to the Top” to lure states to adopt the Common Core standards. That is the reason that 45 or 46 states adopted them. According to Robert Scott, former commissioner of education in Texas, his state was asked to adopt the CCSS before they were finished. Since the Department of Education could not pay for the creation of the standards, the Gates Foundation stepped in and provided the necessary millions. In order to win a waiver from the absurd demands of NCLB, states had to agree to adopt the Common Core standards.
The role of the federal government in offering money to states to adopt the standards may well have been illegal. Secretary Duncan’s fervent advocacy for the standards at every opportunity may well be illegal. His denunciation and ridiculing of critics of the standards as Tea Party extremists belies his insistence that the federal government had nothing to do with the Common Core standards. If he had nothing to do with them, why is he their number one salesman? Why does he so stridently belittle their critics and mischaracterize their motives?
This is dangerous territory. These are questions that should be carefully considered by Congressional committees, not brushed aside as unimportant. No matter how frequently the Business Roundtable and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and major corporations publish ads to support the CCSS, there remains the question of whether the federal government acted legally and properly.
And we might ask those major corporations why they care so much about the Common Core and so little about the scandalous growth of child poverty in the United States. And we might ask whether they will pledge to stop outsourcing jobs to low-wage countries so that our high school graduates and college graduates are not only “career-ready” but have careers that exist for them once they graduate.

Fred Smith is an experienced testing expert who now advises a group called “Change the Stakes,” in opposing high-stakes testing. He was invited to testify before a committee of the New York State Senate about the woeful recent history of state testing. The scores went up, up, up until 2010, when the state admitted that the previous dramatic gains were illusory, a consequence of artful adjustments of the “cut score” (passing rate). Then the scores began to rise again, until this past year’s Common Core tests, when the state scores fell deep into the basement, and three quarters of the state’s children were marked as failures.

As Smith quite clearly describes, testing has become a political game that hurts children.

Please read through his testimony, linked at the bottom of the page.

He wrote this to me:

This is my statement to the NYS Senate Education Hearing on October 29th –an umbrella for testimony concerning common core, its assessment and how to protect data privacy from data piracy. It includes data and findings that I have developed since 2006 pertinent to the New York State Testing Program that expose the 2013 core-aligned ELA and math tests analytically, as failed unreliable instruments incapable of serving as a baseline or foundation. It raises issues about the efficacy and ethics of stand-alone field testing procedures which SED and Pearson will continue to follow until they are stopped.
 
It appeared on Senator John Flanagan’s web page: hhtp://www.nysenate.gov/event/2013/oct/29/regents-reform-agenda-assessing-our-progress which gave links to the testimony of other invited speakers and provided a video of the hearing. Here’s mine:
 
http://www.nysenate.gov/files/pdfs/Fred%20Smith.NYSSEN.pdf

Meg Norris was a seventh-grade teacher in Georgia who left teaching because she no longer believed in what she was mandated to do. She saw her students struggling with the Common Core standards. She believed that they were written in ways that were far beyond the students’ understanding.

This is the letter that Meg Norris wrote to her students and which she posted online for all to read and share:

 

To My Students,

I did not return to the classroom this year and I want to apologize.  I am truly sorry for having left you.  It was the hardest decisions I have ever made. I want you to understand why I left.  It had nothing to do with you.  I still love you and believe in you.  You are still amazing and you can do anything you want to do.  I did not give up on you.  I left to fight for you.

I saw you struggling with Common Core skills.  Even with the new curriculum from the district, no matter how I broke it down for you I could see you didn’t understand.  I saw the frustration on your faces.  And when time ran out and we had to take the county’s test (on the county’s schedule), I saw the tears roll from your eyes.  You failed.  I saw you missing school more days than normal.  I saw you with long sleeves covering up the cutting scars on your arms.  I saw how the sparkle in your eyes dimmed. I saw the small bald spot on your head where you had pulled out your hair.  And it wasn’t just in my class.  You hated going to math.  You came early everyday for homework help, but it didn’t make any difference.  You still could not understand.

I want you to know none of this is your fault.  It is not you.  I know the school, the county and the state call it “rigor.”  That is a horrible word.  Look it up in the dictionary for me.  Rigor is for dead people.  You are not failing because it is too hard.  You are not failing because you are not working hard enough.  You are not failing because of your teachers.  You are failing because Common Core was not written by teachers. Common Core was not written to help you.  Let me explain why this hurts you so much.

Your brain, as it develops, can only learn certain things at certain times.  Common Core is trying to force you to learn things your brain is not ready to learn.  Researchers for decades have found that the things Common Core requires you to do are impossible until you reach high school, at the earliest.  No matter what your teachers do to get you to learn it, you aren’t going to be able to.  There is nothing wrong with you.  Your brain was designed perfectly.  Common Core standards were not.

Common Core was written by businessmen trying to make money off of you.  You and your learning are a grand experiment in corporate profits.  If you fail at school, if your teachers fail to teach you, these corporations can sell more books, workbooks, tests, software and technology to schools and even to your parents to try at home.  None of it will work.  These same businessmen want to convince states to let them and their companies take over your schools.  Your parent’s tax dollars would then go to these companies.  Over $600 billion is spent on education every year in this country.  This money should go to your education, not to private companies. It is very similar to what was done to prisons several years ago.

Common Core is the first time in the history of this country that a privately written and copyrighted plan has become public policy.  There is no research to back it and it has never been tested.  Politicians are pushing it because these corporations are giving them money to push it.

When I left I met with members of your Board of Education and told them what was happening.  They ignored me.  I went to the local newspaper and they ignored me too.  When I spoke to the state Senate education committee they dismissed me as a political nut job.  When I came back to chaperone your fall dance I was told I was “no longer one of you” and I could not come in because of my position on Common Core.  Ghandi once said, “First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”  We will win.  We will win for you and every student after you.  This is not political.  This is for the future leaders of our country.  These corporations don’t want to teach you how to think.

It is time for you to talk to your parents. Help them understand that opting you out of state testing will protect your personal information as well as stop the data that is being used to unfairly judge you and your teachers. Schools where more than 80% of kids have been opted out are cancelling these stressful tests that measure nothing.  There is a new test coming to replace the CRCT, which is why politicians like Governor Deal and Superintendent Barge want to keep Common Core.  Have your parents demand a portfolio of your work be kept and that your hard work be used to decide if you should go on to the next grade, not a random test.  Any test not written by and graded by your teachers should never be allowed in the classroom.

Please do not worry about me.  I am strong and people have called me worse names and banned me from much better places. Standing up for what is right is not always the easy thing.  I knew that when I left my classroom.  I have 32,000 other teachers from all over the country who are standing with me. I have education experts and child psychologists standing with me.  I have politicians standing with me.  I have famous authors standing with me.  And the group is growing.

Just this week I got an email from Judy Blume, author of famous children’s classics like Tales of a Fourth Grade Nothing, Blubber, Are You There God, It’s Me Margaret, Forever, and Tiger Eyes. She shared with me that she was a horrible test-taker.  She is very grateful that she is not in school taking the kinds of tests you are taking.  Can you imagine how horrible it would be if our favorite authors gave up because they could not do well on standardized tests that meant nothing?  I don’t want to find out.

Talk to your parents and let them know what is happening in your classrooms.  Every time you take a test or a survey, tell your parents.  Be brave and keep making me proud.  You can be anything you want to be. I am always here for you.

Mrs. Meg Norris, Ed.S.

7th Grade (former) teacher

Georgia

Meg Norris is a doctoral candidate in education and a certified teacher in Georgia.  After 18 months with Common Core in her classroom her observations compelled her to walk away from her dream job of teaching to fight against the implementation of Common Core and high stakes testing.  She was banned from her former school because of her stance against Common Core.

 

 

The Next Generation Science Standards are under attack for a variety of reasons. Even defenders of the Common Core are dissatisfied. Read here to learn why.

This is a comment by an educator in New Mexico:

 

My name is Tine Hayes. I have been teaching high school in Gallup NM for 14 years. I am dual certified in Fine Arts and Social Studies, and I am level three and National Board certified. This year more than ever in the past I am disheartened and distressed by the actions of the PED [state education department] and the attitude toward students and teachers offered by this department. Students are tested into total submission and teachers are disregarded and disrespected at every turn.

Our current educational climate in New Mexico is predicated on assumptions held by our governor and our secretary of education.

First, the success of a school and its students can be summed up by test scores. Second, a Value Added Model of teacher evaluation meaningfully provides a measure of teacher effectiveness.
I take issue with both of these assumptions. The issue of assessment has been at the core of the public education policy since the advent of NCLB. This law requires the use of decontextualized assessments to evaluate school performance. This test based evaluation system was and is a windfall for the test developers and resulted in massive bureaucracies whose job it is to evaluate, analyze and regurgitate test results.

Each year more and more focus has been given to testing, and each year less focus is given to the child being tested. I have sincere doubts about the value of high stakes testing, but I could see how it might provide some meaningful information.

Under Skandera the PED attaches value only to test scores. Although some other areas are given lip service in the school grading system, it is clear the PED only cares about the test scores. The PED claims to be interested in student success, but what they really mean is they want better test scores.

An examination of the Value Added Model indicates that it is a justification of test scores as the sole expression of the quality of teacher student interaction. Hopefully we live in a world where the success of a child is more multifaceted than a test score and the human experience of teaching is about more than performance on the NMSBA.
The data from test scores is specious. Millions of dollars every year are spent on the test itself, and then thousands of man hours are spent interacting with the data. New Mexico has changed tests and test vendors many times since the establishment of NCLB. The State assessment is modified and reworked almost every year since its inception, making it nearly impossible to gather meaningful data.

Next year it will again change to the PARCC assessment. At my high school it has been very difficult to collect and compare relevant data due to both these changes, and the limited number of students who are tested. With the new budget restraints placed on states and districts resulting from the economic downturn these costs are an increasing burden.

For example, the NMSBA now is 80% multiple choice and 20% writing. The reason is not pedagogical. It is financial. It costs too much to grade writing. At this juncture in GMCS only selected grades are given the NMSBA, because it is too expensive to test everyone. While financial restraints have made the tests questionably meaningful the PED continues to double down on the importance of the scores.

Meanwhile budgets get smaller every year, and students have to raise money to go on field trips or participate in extracurricular activities. We do not have the money to pay for gas to go on field trips or to offer vocational programs, but The PED signs contracts with private companies in the name of improving the tax payer’s return on investment in education.

Testing has, despite its questionable effectiveness, become the holy grail of our educational system, at the expense of student experience. This hypocritical misuse of tax payer dollars is intolerable. Students in my wife’s third grade class have to sell pickles and candy to pay for the gas and the bus driver to go on their field trips, yet the PED signed a two year contract with Teachscape, a California based company, for 3.6 million dollars.

Is sending millions of New Mexico dollars to private contractors out of state putting student’s first? How are New Mexico tax payers getting a good return on their investment?

The Value Added Model and the new system for teacher evaluation misses the point. Let me first say I believe the quality of the teacher is the main indicator of the quality of the student’s school experience. I am also keenly aware teacher quality needs to be improved. But once again the myopic PED turns to test scores.

Even the portion of the teacher evaluation based on the principles observation is really based on test scores. The principle is judged on how well their evaluations match the teacher’s scores. The value added model is essentially an academic justification for using test scores to judge the quality of a teacher. It tells us nothing we did not already know. Good teachers impact student’s lives. Good teachers improve test scores.

What the Value Added Model does not tell us is what makes a teacher good. And what it does not allow for is that good teachers were having a positive impact on student’s lives long before NCLB. The PED has embraced this model because it justifies their investment in test scores. The problem for them is that not all subjects are tested. Because they insist on using test scores to evaluate teachers the PED has to come up with tests in each content area.

Thus in order to judge the quality of a Physical Education teacher or an Art teacher, for example, the PED has developed a high stakes assessments in those content areas. The PED is wasting time and energy on a way of thinking disconnected from the student’s experience. I wonder how these tests make the experience of a student in Art or PE more meaningful.

At my school we do not have funds to support sending chorus to regional competition, but the state has the funds to develop an End of Course Exam for chorus. The decision to develop EoCs in electives is not student centered. It is anti-teacher. Skandera will tell you she is dedicated to giving teachers and principals the tools to improve. The tool she provides is apparently Teachscape. This tool serves no function except as a data warehouse for the teacher evaluation system. New Mexico just bought a 3.6 million dollar filing cabinet.

Law suits are being brought against the PED with regard to overstepping its authority, but legal arguments are narrow and specific in focus, and my concern is general. Skandera’s vision of Education in New Mexico is disassociated from the children. Data is currently more important than children and that is wrong and must change.

Please use your position in the New Mexico legislature to return the focus of education to students. Stand up for the children of this state and demand that decisions made by the PED reflect a truly student first approach.

EduShyster, tongue firmly planted in cheek, defends the huge salaries collected by charter operators in New York City. That’s the price of excellence, she says. She links to an article by Rachel Monahan of the New York Daily News, who listed 16 charter executives who make more money to run a small charter school or a small charter chain than the chancellor of the City of New York. Missing from Monahan’s list was Geoffrey Canada, who is paid somewhere between $400,000-500,000. .

Some of those on Monahan’s list have charters in other cities, and it would be interesting to know if they are receiving additional payments as executives in multiple sites.

When you see these rewards, you can understand the lure of charters for those young people who are eager for fame and fortune. They won’t win it in the classroom, so it makes sense to open a charter, spend huge amounts of money to market the product and lure customers, conduct a lottery (thus excluding the families who are not alert enough to do the paperwork for a lottery), exclude students with severe disabilities and students who don’t speak English, and counsel out troublemakers and students with low scores. It is a formula that always works!

And those who follow the formula get very rich and are idolized by the media.

Collateral damage: America’s democratic public school system.

Tough. But that’s the price of excellence for the few.

Want to know why spending on public education has mushroomed?

Look no farther than the booming education industry that federal dollars have created through No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, are siphoned away from schools to pay for consultants and services that have no track record but promise the moon. Private contractors will train your teachers, train your leaders, create teacher evaluation systems, sell you new technology, turn your school around with minimal or maximal pain, your choice.

As soon as Congress opens the door to the education industry, the industry returns the favor with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

Our tax dollars at work!!! Al the while, class sizes grow larger, the arts are eliminated, and basic needs go unmet because “we can’t afford it.”

Consider NCLB’s requirement that low-scoring students must receive tutoring. A sound idea, no? Unfortunately, it encouraged the creation of thousands of inexperienced, incompetent tutoring companies that recruited students by promising rewards to students or principals. The results: Nil.

Consider this story from the Texas Tribune, republished in the New York Times:

“Under the No Child Left Behind tutoring program, underperforming schools had to set aside a portion of the federal financing they received for economically disadvantaged students to get outside tutoring. In Texas, with minimal quality control at the state level, it resulted in millions of dollars in public money going to companies that at best showed little evidence of their services’ academic benefit, and at worst committed outright fraud.

“The program has been suspended in Texas, as the state secured a waiver from the federal law’s requirements last month. Education officials have said that, for now, there are no plans to continue the program at the state level.

“But as No Child Left Behind awaits Congressional reauthorization, the tutoring industry is energetically pushing federal policy makers to preserve public financing for tutoring, either in the updated law or other legislation — lobbying efforts expected to be duplicated at the state level in Texas, where over the years tutoring companies have cultivated powerful political ties.

“I have no doubt that the next legislative session, they will lobby for this way of spending dollars to be decided in Austin instead of the neighborhood school level, and I think that would be a real disservice,” said State Representative Mike Villarreal, a San Antonio Democrat who passed legislation during the 2013 session tightening regulations on the federal tutoring program.

“The law resulted in a booming industry that created an unprecedented role for commercial tutoring companies in public education. At the time, the program’s proponents said such private-sector involvement would fuel innovation in public schools while offering top-notch instruction to students who needed it.

“Instead, it flopped, bringing years of complaints from school districts, which detailed practices like the use of incentives like iPads to recruit students into programs as well as significant concerns about instructional methods and falsified invoices.”

But the lucrative tutoring industry will not let failure for kids get in the way of profit, no-sir-see!

Here is more:

“Texas has taken a “shortsighted, irresponsible approach,” Stephanie Monroe, a former assistant secretary for education in the United States Office for Civil Rights, wrote in a letter to the editor published in The Fort Worth Star-Telegram in response to The Texas Tribune’s series on the program.

“Without the tutoring program, Ms. Monroe said, the state’s poorest students will “no longer have access to the services they need to succeed and otherwise are unable to afford.”

“She said her organization acknowledges that stronger oversight of tutoring services is needed. But Ms. Monroe, who left her government post in 2009 to found a lobbying firm, added that “allowing states like Texas to arbitrarily eliminate them altogether due to a few bad actors is just reckless public policy.”

“Tutor Our Children, which describes itself as a group dedicated to preserving free tutoring for economically disadvantaged students, has spent almost $900,000 in federal lobbying expenses, including on contracts with Ms. Monroe, since it began in 2010. An additional $500,000 has gone to marketing, public relations and fund-raising costs, according to the organization’s tax filings.”

The lobbying was intense in the governor’s office and the legislature:

“In the last two years, the company has spent an estimated minimum of $240,000 on lobbying teams in Austin and Washington. The company’s founder, Charles Young, has given more than $140,000 in political contributions to state Republican lawmakers, including $20,000 to Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and $26,000 to Mr. Perry.

“Mr. Young served on a 2013 Texas Education Agency committee that developed recommendations for the state’s school accountability system — a panel that also included Sandy Kress, a former Bush education adviser who has lobbied for Tutors With Computers. The company’s own advisory board has included Rod Paige, the former United States secretary of education and Houston Independent School District superintendent, who helped put No Child Left Behind into place.”

This is called “leaving no child behind,” or “students first,” that is, as long as there are federal dollars attached.

David Gamberg, the enlightened and thoughtful superintendent of the Southold school district in Long Island, New York, wrote a letter to the president of inBloom and asked that the corporation remove any data pertaining to the students of his district.

For his willingness to say “no, not with our students,” David Gamberg is hereby added to the honor roll as a champion of American education. He has done the honorable thing. He has defended his students against commercial exploitation and defended their right to privacy and their right to be left alone by a government and a private sector that believes that privacy is dead. Not in Southold!

New York is one of the few states in the nation that has agreed to hand over all personal, confidential student information to inBloom.

inBloom is the corporation funded by the Gates Foundation and the Carnegie Corporation ($100 million from Gates) to collect personal, identifiable student data. The software was created by Wireless Generation, part of Joel Klein’s Amplify, which is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation. The data will be stored on a “cloud” managed by amazon.com.

Gamberg does not want the personal data of the students in his district on that cloud. Good for him!

What’s is in the data set? 400 data points about every student. Personal, confidential, identifiable.

How is this legally possible? In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education changed the regulations for the federal privacy act, known as FERPA. As a result, this data may now be released to third parties without parental consent.

Why was all that data collected? In some cases it was necessary for the schools and the districts, but the sudden creation of huge data warehouses was mandated for those states that received funds from Race to the Top or waivers from NCLB.

In other words, friends, the Gates Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education worked together to assure that every piece of data about the children of America would be assembled in one place. inBloom makes no guarantees that the data cloud cannot be hacked.

Please read Superintendent Gamberg’s letter to the president of inBlooom, Mr. Iwan Streichenberger. It is attached to the link above. Ever superintendent and school board should use this letter as a model to protect the privacy of their students and families.

Today, voters in Douglas County, Colorado, will decide the future of public education for the children of their county. In response to an earlier post about the election battle for control of the schools in Douglas County, where the school board is eager to privatize the schools, this reader made the following comment:

We should be courageous and move in the opposite direction from the so-called corporate reformers, the for-profit charter schoolmasters, and the naysayers of American public education. Administrators, teachers, staff, parents, students and concerned citizens should follow what is happening to American education. It is a violent, destructive force against public education.

The landscape is changing; on the horizon, we do not see public schools or parish schools. We see a disproportionate number of for-profit charter schools and schools serving segregated populations. The closure of neighborhood public and parochial schools widen the gaps, decreasing opportunities to grow and prosper. The demise of neighborhood schools adversely impacts the community life and spirit.

We see the end of public school funding and with that, the end of the significant role public schools play in democratizing our young citizens. In this model, the for-profit schools control the market place and the market values.

Back in the olden times, advocates claimed that charters would provide healthy competition and beneficial innovation. This would benefit the public schools and urban districts as well.

But it turned out to be a false promise.

By skimming off the best students in poor neighborhoods, charter schools leave the public schools in worse condition, overburdened with the neediest students that the charters don’t want and lacking the resources to educate them appropriately. Where the public school system is struggling to improve, charter schools may actually hasten their collapse.

Now Moody’s Investors’ Service has issued a bulletin warning that the proliferation of charters in economically weak cities damages those cities’ economic viability.

The report summary says:

The dramatic rise in charter school enrollments over the past decade is likely to create negative credit pressure on school districts in economically weak urban areas, says Moody’s Investors Service in a new report. Charter schools tend to proliferate in areas where school districts already show a degree of underlying economic and demographic stress, says Moody’s in the report “Charter Schools Pose Growing Risks for Urban Public Schools.”

“While the vast majority of traditional public districts are managing through the rise of charter schools without a negative credit impact, a small but growing number face financial stress due to the movement of students to charters,” says Michael D’Arcy, one of two authors of the report.
Charter schools can pull students and revenues away from districts faster than the districts can reduce their costs, says Moody’s. As some of these districts trim costs to balance out declining revenues, cuts in programs and services will further drive students to seek alternative institutions including charter schools.
Many older, urban areas that have experienced population and tax base losses, creating stress for their local school districts, have also been areas where charter schools have proliferated, says Moody’s. Among the cities where over a fifth of the students are enrolled in charter schools are Cleveland, Detroit, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Washington, D.C. Nationwide about one in 20 students is in a charter school.
One of the four risk factors Moody’s identifies as making a school district vulnerable to charter school growth is that the school district is already financially pressured and grappling with weak demographics.
A second factor is having a limited ability to adjust operations in response to a loss of enrolment to charter schools.
“Shifts in student enrollment from district schools to charters, while resulting in a transfer of a portion of district revenues to charter schools, do not typically result in a full shift of operating costs away from district public schools,” says Moody’s Tiphany Lee-Allen, the Moody’s Associate Analyst who co-authored the report. “Districts may face institutional barriers to cutting staff levels, capital footprints and benefit costs over the short term given the intricacies of collective bargaining contracts – leaving them with underutilized buildings and ongoing growth in personnel costs.”
A third risk factor for a school district is being in a state with a statutory framework promoting a high degree of educational choice and has a relatively liberal approval process for new charters and few limits on their growth, as well as generous funding.
For example in Michigan, the statutory framework emphasizes educational choice, and there are multiple charter authorizers to help promote charter school growth. In Michigan, Detroit Public Schools (B2 negative), Clintondale Community Schools (Ba3 negative), Mount Clemens Community School District (Ba3 negative) and Ypsilanti School District (Ba3) have all experienced significant fiscal strain related to charter enrollment growth, which has also been a contributing factor to their speculative grade status.