Archives for category: Education Industry

Politico.com has a valuable new education blog in the morning, written by experienced education journalists.

This morning’s report by Nirvi Shah ponders whether the departure of Tony Bennett will show that his (and Jeb Bush’s) beloved A-F grading system is damaged goods. The discovery that Bennett toyed with the system to protect a school owned (and named for) a major GOP donor is reason enough to doubt its validity.

In fact, if you read the article closely, you will understand that the A-F system is intended to facilitate privatization. It sets up schools to fail and to be privatized. Once a school is labeled D or F, it goes into a cycle of decline that is usually irreversible as families leave, good teachers leave, funds and programs are cut, and the school dies, a victim of failed policies and malign neglect.

Unfortunately no critics of accountability like Bob Schaeffer of Fairtest or Paul Thomas of Furman University are quoted. There is a quote from a Néw America Foundation analyst but she seems to say, one, Bennett really did rig the numbers, but two, let’s not give up on test-based accountability.

I disagree. The evidence is now overwhelming that test-based accountability encourages a slew of negative behaviors, including teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, cheating, and gaming the system.

Bennett tried to game the system and got caught. New York State rigged the system to inflate scores but stopped after it was revealed in 2010. Beverly Hall gamed the system and will be tried for cheating. Schools across the nation have abandoned the arts or cut back on recess. The superintendent in El Paso is in jail for gaming the aystem.

How much more fraud and miseducation will be tolerated until thinkers and leaders step forward and admit that test-based accountability IS the problem

Pasi Sahlberg, Finland’s education ambassador to the world, recently warned the British government that high-stakes testing would not improve student achievement and that choice would undermine equity.

Pasi’s excellent book “Finnish Lessons” has been translated into 15 languages.

Finnish education is the reverse of everything we do, yet their students excel on international tests.

When asked what advice he would give England’s education secretary, he said:

“‘I am afraid, Mr Secretary, that the evidence is clear. If you rely on prescription, testing and external control over schools, they are not likely to improve. The GCSE proposals are a step backwards’.”

Pasi was equally dismissive of the minister’s enthusiasm for academies (similar to our charters). He said:

“He is similarly dismissive about Gove’s enthusiasm for academies and free schools, largely modelled on those in Finland’s neighbour, Sweden. “In Sweden,” Sahlberg says, “everybody now agrees free schools were a mistake. The quality has not improved and equity has disappeared. If that is what Mr Gove wants, that is what he will get.”

As state superintendent in Indiana, according to this news story, Tony Bennett sent a lot of business to Charter Schools USA. When Bennett moved to Florida, his wife got a job with Charter Schools, USA.

Whether she was qualified is irrelevant. Public officials should not only avoid conflicts of interest but the appearance of a conflict of interest. If Florida has any ethical standards, this situation would not be permitted. Charter Schools, USA, is a for-profit chain.

Mercedes Schneider argues that corporate reform is driven by ideology and greed, not evidence or the pursuit of better education.

She looks at the recent NCTQ report, which had no evidence for its large claims, and at vouchers and course choice in Louisiana. Vouchers have failed, but their champions won’t admit it. Course choice is ll about dollars, nothing more.

Without big money on offer, she writes, corporate reform would disappear: “If there were no six-figure salaries to accompany their ideological push, the likes of John White would be out of the door.”

Crazy Crawfish worked in the a Louisiana Department of Education. He has an aversion to lying. This is why he is angry, and this is why he is dangerous. He knows too much. And he knows how politicians and their mouthpieces twist the facts any way that serves them.

In this post, Crazy Crawfish (aka Jason France) describes a valiant effort by the poorest parish in the state to get out from under state control, which has been a disaster. He also describes the fancy dancing by the state to justify holding on.

While the national media love to sing the praises of Louisiana’s Recovery School District, France reminds us that the RSD is the lowest performing district in the state.

He writes: “The RSD was initially sold as a temporary fix, a band aid to be applied and removed. What it has become is the source of infection and a creator of festering sores. It’s no coincidence that RSD, after 7 years, is the lowest performing district in the state. (The state claims they are the second lowest performing district, but they also exclude the lowest 10-20% of their schools from their district average for the first 2 years after they get taken over by RSD which can be perpetuated if they simply change operators every two years.)”

And this is his warning:

“St Helena has fallen into RSDs grasp, and is trying to fight back, and we all need to do what we can to help them escape the state, the RSD.

“When you see these types of lies, this raging hypocrisy, do any of you feel safe in your higher performing districts? You shouldn’t.

“Reformers, charter operators, and RSD will be coming for all of your community schools soon enough.

“The state has control of the data, and the messaging. When they decide it’s time to make new inroads into new parishes for their corporate puppet masters, none of you, none of us and none of our children will be safe.”

I wrote a blog critical of the race-based, ethnicity-based, income-based targets for student achievement in Alabama’s Plan 2020, which many other states have adopted.

I received the following critique from Melissa Shields, who teaches in Alabama:

As a nationally board certified teacher in Alabama of more than 20 years, I have long admired Dr. Diane Ravitch and read her blog regularly. She often says what I’m thinking and seems to “get” what’s really happening in education. However, my admiration took a jolt when I read the recent post, “Alabama Sets Un-American Goals for Students.”

She was referring to our Alabama PLAN 2020. Unfortunately she relied on one newspaper article that focused on one narrow area of this plan. Since she is one of the country’s best-known education researchers, it is regretful she didn’t try to learn more. She would have discovered that rather than being vilified as a race biased effort to set lower expectations for certain groups of students, PLAN 2020 should be applauded (and I wonder why Dr. Ravitch ignored comments in the article by a local superintendent and the dean of the College of Education at the University of Alabama defending PLAN 2020).

Plan 2020 looks at individual students and groups of students, determines baselines as to where they are functioning, acknowledging the fact that some students and groups of students are not on a positive trajectory for success and follows with an individualized and differentiated trajectory of improvement to address those gaps. The entire system is based on a goal of ALL students reaching 100% proficiency while at the same time understanding that everyone may not get there on the same day at the same time which was perceived as failure under NCLB.

Dr. Ravitch states in her piece about Alabama using subgroups to better determine how instruction should be individualized, “the state of Alabama should ditch the race-based, economic-based, disability-based goals and focus on one center American idea” equality of educational opportunity for every child.”

But I would remind her that this is not the fantasy world of Lake Wobegon where “all the children are above average.” Instead, the real world is one where at-risk and poor children often do not perform as was as their wealthier and/or gifted counterparts. I have been fortunate to have taught in a thriving Christian private school, affluent public schools, and rural lower-income public schools. I know what it takes to help children believe in themselves, often when no one else does. I also know it takes to help our “at-risk” students find academic success, even surpassing the successes of their wealthier grade-level peers. If the truth be known, those successes are my proudest moments in the classroom. Teaching children who want to learn is easy; teaching those who don’t think they do is a challenge, one we teachers embrace with vigor. It didn’t matter if these students were black, white, or purple (or what NCLB projected their success rate should be), I wanted to help each of them find growth in my classroom…..and they did.

As a side note, I’m an English teacher. I taught 150-170 students a day (6 classes). Boys do not typically perform as well in English as the girls. I often wished I could receive more data on how well my male students were doing in relation to the females. Because I did not have that data, I gathered it myself, reflecting on how I might better meet the boys’ needs and interests to improve their performance in language arts disciplines. My point is, if we don’t follow students’ progress per subgroup, how can we ensure growth? The percentages in PLAN 2020 are actually higher than we’ve had before, which of course means we’re trying to raise the bar of expectation for them—not lower it.

The fact that we have publicly owned the fact that black/EL/poverty students (as a whole) are achieving at a lesser level than many their peers is the first and most important step to change this unacceptable reality. Regretfully sharing these facts and acknowledging that a HIGHER expectation must be put in place to remove this gap is being portrayed as racist. Would Dr. Ravitch prefer that we have this knowledge and not aggressively address it? I find it hard to believe that she would. </em

This is my response to Melissa:

I am sorry for singling out Alabama since many other states, encouraged by No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, are doing the very same things.

But I do not withdraw my distaste for setting goals by race, ethnicity, and income.

I wrote to Melissa that this approach represents stale NCLB thinking. Every child is a unique individual, and knowing his or her skin color or heritage or parental income should not be the basis for goal-setting.

There is a reason that Moses spent 40 years wandering in the desert before he was able to bring his people to the promised land. They had to learn to think like free men, not slaves.

We have to learn to think again like educators, not data hounds or accountants meeting arbitrary targets.

A comment from a reader in Arizona:

“I live in Arizona, am freshly retired from the US military, and have no children. Even from this vantage point, it doesn’t take much effort to see that Arizona’s under paid, hard working (at multiple jobs), parents are too busy trying to survive to notice that their legislators are feeding their tax dollars to private school corporations, by the buckets! We can write-off on our state taxes more than twice the level of donations to privates chools than public schools. We have until tax day the next year to do it for private schools, and only until Dec 31st of the tax year for public schools. And, we can only designate “extra curricular” activities for public schools, but can give it to the O&M, general educational fund for private schools. This state needs a giant court audit to declare its whole education funding system unconstitutional!”

Dr. June Atkinson, the state superintendent of instruction in North Carolina, said, ““For the first time in my career of more than 30 years in public education, I am truly worried about students in our care.”

Lindsay Wagner summarizes the damage done to public education by the North Carolina legislature:

It cut more than $500 million from the state’s public schools.

It passed a voucher program to allow students to take public money to private and religious schools.

And more:

The 2013-15 biennial budget introduces a raft of spending cuts to public schools that will result in no raises for teachers, larger class sizes, fewer teacher assistants, little support for instructional supplies or professional development, and what could amount to the dismantling of the North Carolina Teaching Fellows program. Teachers can also say goodbye to tenure and supplemental pay for advanced degrees.

Wagner asks, “Is this the beginning of the end for public education in North Carolina?”

The privatization movement is in full swing in North Carolina. What was once the most progressive state in the South is now leading the attack on public education. For the first time since Reconstruction, the governorship and both houses of the Legislature are in the hands of Republicans, and these are not moderate Republicans who want to preserve a strong public education system. These are radical privatizers who want to send public monies to private schools, religious schools, and entrepreneurs.

The governor’s education advisor, Eric Guckian, is a Teach for America alum. TFA won $5.1 million in the new budget.

This is breaking news.

The Ohio Supreme Court let stand lower court rulings that require the White Hat charter corporations to open its financial records to the board members of the charters.

White Hat is owned by David Brennan, one of the state’s biggest contributors to GOP campaigns. It is the state’s largest charter chain.

The boards of 10 White Hat charters sued the company to gain access to the finances of their schools. White Hat, a for-profit management company, collects 96% of the revenues but insisted it had no obligation to disclose how it spent the money or anything else about its finances because it is a private corporation. Brennan makes millions of dollars each year.

In this post, New York City activist Leonie Haimson explains what inBloom is, how the U.S. Department of Education weakened privacy protections in 2009 and 2011, and why parents should demand the right to withhold their child’s confidential data from inBloom.

The creators of inBloom talk about its benefits in creating customized learning tools, but Haimson warns that the real goal is to turn student data over to for-profit vendors that will target children for marketing their stuff.

An investigative journalist is needed to figure out why Arne Duncan’s Department of Education weakened FERPA, the federal law protecting student privacy, at the same time that Race to the Top offered incentives for states to build data warehouses, and along comes inBloom to open up student data for use by vendors. It is all too neat a package.