Archives for category: Education Reform

The trouble with hailing a school as a model is that you can’t predict what might happen next year.

This has never stopped Bill Gates!

In 2012, he visited the Eagle Valley High School in Colorado. In 2013, he celebrated the school in his annual letter as one that was successfully adopting his ideas.

But…Gary Rubinstein reviewed Eagle Valley High School’s latest state report, and it is no longer a model school. Gary doesn’t know why. Maybe it is just a regular school. No miracles here. Or maybe it is the Kiss of Gates.

Update On Colorado District That Gates Praised in 2013

Betsy DeVos and Randi Weingarten visited the public schools of rural Van Wert, Ohio. Randi wanted Betsy to see how important federal dollars are to a good public school. Betsy went along and got a promise from Randi to tour a school of choice with her.

Education Week says the “rifts” between them remain. Yeah, a rift the size of the Grand Canyon is not likely to close no matter how many schools they visit together or how often they meet.

Betsy’s spokesperson says she is not anti-public school. She just pours millions into campaigns of state and local candidates who support charters and vouchers, not public schools.

This effort to find common ground between polar opposites strikes me as pointless. It would be like bringing a devout Orthodox Jew to a Roman Catholic Church in hopes of changing his mind, or bringing a devout Roman Catholic to a synagogue and expecting to find common ground. Or hoping that a Bosox fan would be converted by a visit to the Yankees’ dugout. C’mon!

The New York Times’ account has this perceptive comment:

“Van Wert educators said they believed their biggest threat was school choice. An expanded voucher program would be “potentially catastrophic” for the district’s finances, said Mike Ruen, the district’s treasurer.
About 400 students now take advantage of a state open-enrollment policy, which Ms. DeVos endorsed during her visit. It allows students to attend an out-of-district school and take $6,000 in state per-pupil funding with them.
Most of them attend schools in a neighboring suburb. About 20 students are enrolled in an online charter school that has a 39 percent graduation rate. And a local vocational school takes 80 percent of the funding for each student who transfers there.

“Only one private school competes directly with Van Wert public schools: a small Catholic elementary school in town that the public school system provides special education services to, mostly at no charge. A Catholic high school 15 miles away is less of a draw, but could become one if parents receive vouchers. “I don’t think people are against choice,” Mr. Amstutz said. “But when you talk about expansion, taking money away from public schools, it gives people heartburn.”

Betsy DeVos will not change her mind about the importance of giving taxpayer dollars to every family to choose a charter school, a religious school, home schooling, a cyber charter, or whatever other option they want. They can even choose a public school. To the extent she is able, she will divert federal funds away from public schools to the other choices. She won’t resist Trump’s deep budget cuts. This visit will not transform her. It will not make her more attentive to the needs of the children in public schools. No doubt, she feels sorry for them because they are in public schools.

Randi will not stop being a union leader because of visiting a non-union charter or voucher school. She won’t stop believing in the importance or value of public schools. She won’t become a supporter of DeVos’s privatization agenda or Trump’s budget cuts.

Sorry, friends, but I don’t see the point of seeking “common ground.” There is none.

One of our regular readers, who is a member of a college mathematics faculty, sent this following comment about the state of math education today:

“I teach at a small four year college in NY. We administer a mathematics placement test to all incoming freshmen. The test we use was created in house and covers basic skills from algebra, trigonometry, and pre calculus. Questions are asked in a straightforward manner (unlike the current NYS common core based regents exams).

“Any student may take a statistics class (taught outside the mathematics department), regardless of placement score. However, we use the results of the placement test, high school coursework and individual discussions with the students to place students appropriately in the remedial algebra, college algebra, pre calculus, calculus sequence.

That said, fully 25% of our incoming freshmen place into remedial algebra–some should probably be placed lower than
remedial algebra, but we do not offer such a course. These students truly need the remedial work.

“The reasons why these students place low are varied. Some have not taken math courses for two years and have become rusty. Some students never really learned the material (the percentage of points required to pass the NYS regents exams is quite low and the tests are so poorly designed that scores are meaningless).

“I am continually bombarded by emails from companies who want to sell textbooks that combine remedial coursework with college credit coursework. Perhaps in some non STEM fields this approach works, but you cannot teach calculus to students who haven’t learned how to add fractions or who don’t understand basic laws of exponents.

“I do not blame their teachers. I blame a state system that shoves a scientific calculator in the hands of every fourth grader–before they’ve learned their multiplication tables, before they’ve learned how to add fractions, and before they’ve gained any practical sense of how numbers work, because apparently solving convoluted word problems is more important than understanding how numbers work. (Some never learn these basic skills–I have students in my classes who need a calculator to multiply 2 times 3).

“This same state system requires every student in algebra to have access to a graphing calculator with equally disastrous results. Calculator overuse is only a small part of the problem. The insistence that all students follow what used to be considered a college prep track and the subsequent rewriting of standards into a bizarre jumble of topics in which necessary skills and techniques are deemphasized in favor of solving pseudo “real world” applications are certainly major contributors.

“The regents exams have become a weird mishmash of questions with teachers left trying to guess all the permutations of how a question about a concept could be asked. I am afraid I have wandered off topic a bit. Anyway, many students truly do need remedial work that cannot be accomplished as part of another course. We do our best to get them through it and get them where they need to be mathematically. We are not 100% successful. Some simply do not have the ability, some do not make the effort, and saddest of all, some are just too far behind.”

Any comments from math teachers?

Colorado Senator Michael Bennett was previously superintendent of schools in Denver. There he set off the school choice frenzy and led the parade to open charters. Now he finds himself trying to explain that he is different from Betsy DeVos. He is a Democrat, one of DFER’s champions. She is a Republican, Trump’s pick as Secretary of Education. He sold out public education. She wants to privatize it. She loves vouchers. He doesn’t. She is a choice ideologue. So is he.

See the difference? Look closer. No, closer still. I know it’s hard but keep trying.

Michael Messer is a parent activist in Texas. He wrote this comment in response to Sara Stevenson’s post about the true cost of testing in Texas.


I am glad to see people writing about my bill. I am the original author of HB 1336 (aka, “Transparency in Testing”), and the person who Mrs. Stevenson saw speak at the Save Texas Schools rally. Representative Leach is the legislative sponsor. I am not a CPA, but I have been an accountant for the last seven years. During that time I have served as the Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Organizer for Save Texas Schools.

It was through my public education advocacy work that I found out that nobody has any idea how much we are really spending on standardized testing. The commonly reported number is $90 million per year, but that accounts for little more than the state’s contract with ETS & Pearson to print the test, score the test, and send out a few roaming consultants. It fails to include the bulk of direct costs associated with testing (most notably the salaries of certified educators who are forced to proctor the tests) which are paid for by the districts.

Recent estimates have indicated a price tag closer to $13 BILLION per year. That is over 1/5th our entire public education budget every year, or in terms Texans can appreciate, up to 10 times what we spend on our athletic programs or even administrative salaries.

I wrote HB 1336 in December to address what I believe is a material lack of transparency in the yearly financial reports submitted by our school districts to the Texas Education Agency. It was written in consultation with education experts from both sides of the political spectrum, and it has gained public support from county parties, elected officials, and candidates from across the state. Representative Jeff Leach, a noted conservative Republican, sponsored the bill, and it was co-authored by Representative Lina Ortega, a Democrat out of El Paso.

In short, HB 1336 adds just a couple of lines to the Texas Education Code which would require the districts to include a total of testing-related expenses on the financial reports they already submit to the TEA every year. In my opinion, we cannot expect to engage in any substantive conversation regarding the finance of our public schools without a full picture of how the funds are being spent.

Here is a link to the text of the bill:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/85R/billtext/pdf/HB01336I.pdf#navpanes=0

The draconian $5.4 billion cut imposed by the Texas Legislature in 2011 was devastating to our schools, and that was over a two year period. Every other year, the public has to fight over the scraps we are given for gifted, AP, disability, athletic, music, art, career & tech, and numerous other programs. Giving the public a view of exactly how much we are spending on standardized testing is the first step toward freeing up the $13 billion (and 45+ class days) per year we spend on the tests.

HB 1336 doesn’t eliminate standardized testing, but it sure as heck would change the dialogue about public education in Texas. For instance, I had one man ask me, “How much are you wasting on educating illegal immigrants?” Here is my response:

“While I’m not partial to calling anyone ‘illegal,’ nor do I consider education for anyone to be a ‘waste,’ I think I might actually be able to formulate a decent answer your question. First, let’s assume that you are asking about the total of all education-related expenditures on children of unauthorized immigrants who are also unauthorized themselves. Anyone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States.

According to a January 2016 report from the Migration Policy Institute, 834,000 children of unauthorized immigrants lived in Texas in 2013. Of those, 667,000 were U.S. citizens. That means that 167,000 were children who were at the time considered unauthorized immigrants.

Of the 834,000 children of unauthorized immigrants, 566,000 were of an age where they might have attended public school. Assuming the same ratio of roughly 80% U.S. citizens, the total number of unauthorized immigrant students in Texas in 2013 would have been approximately 113,200.

According to PEIMS statewide financial data which is publicly accessible on the Texas Education Agency’s website, we spent an average of $9,902.64 per student in 2013.

$9,902.64 x 113,200 = $1.1 billion

The acting assumption of most questions like yours tends to be that the parents of these children pay none of the associated taxes. While I could easily debate that with you, let’s assume that were true, and the entire $1.1 billion in funding associated with educating those children came out of the taxes paid by the rest of the children’s parents. That would mean that of the $9,902.64 schools get per student, $226.70 would be attributable to educating unauthorized immigrants.

If we were to presume instead that parents of unauthorized immigrant students pay sales and property taxes, then the only portion of the public education budget that this issue would apply to is federal funding. Of the $50 billion in total funding Texas public schools received in 2013, $5.6 billion came from the federal government. That’s approximately $1,101.27 per student.

$1,101.27 x 113,200 = $125 million (note the “m”)

Dividing that over the remaining student population would mean that $25.21 out of $9,902.64 would be attributable to educating unauthorized immigrants. So now we have a range we can agree is somewhere between $25.21 – $226.70.
By comparison, recent estimates indicate that we spend up to $13.4 billion per year on standardized testing. That’s around $2,700 per student. In light of all of this, wouldn’t it be more prudent to focus on how much we spend on standardized testing instead of blaming immigrant students for the scarce education resources our schools receive to teach our kids?”

It’s amazing how easy it is to put into perspective the scapegoats that have traditionally been used to justify minimal resources for public education when you’ve taken the time to research the numbers. Think about how conversations will change when the public has access to a full account of all expenses related to standardized testing. That is what HB 1336 (aka, “Transparency in Testing”) was written to accomplish. When we know better, we make better decisions.

If you would like to see a dramatic shift in the public discourse regarding public education in Texas, please visit my page, http://www.facebook.com/TransparencyinTesting, share the information, and ask your legislators to support HB 1336. Thank you!

Dear Senator Graham,

I hope someone on your staff sees this. If not, I hope that readers in South Carolina send it to you. This is an important message from one of your constituents.

She writes:

I had an opportunity to listen to Senator Lindsey Graham talk about how he lifted himself up and became the Senator from SC he is today. He said both his parents died before he began college.

But he failed to say his social security benefits (based on the death of his parents), at that time, continued through age 21 and that full-time tuition at a flagship state college in SC was roughly $287.00 per semester and $596.00 per semester, if you lived in a dorm (no food plan). This included University provide healthcare.

Back then it was easy to self-fund college on social security benefits and summer and part-time jobs. I know I did it, too. I earned $20.00- 30.00 per day waiting tables during the breakfast shift at Howard Johnson. My University even held my check for several weeks at that time. (My father was killed in Vietnam so I also had $330.00 per month VA but they paid really late during the semester). My husband also self-funded working a work study job and obtaining student loans. He left college as a chemical engineer with a $55.00 per month student loan.

He could not have done it today. Nor could I. Nor could my husband. It amazes me the disconnect of our politicians with the plight of our young people today. Comparing his experience of “lifting himself up by his bootstraps” with what our kids face today is ludicrous.

The Florida Speaker of the House said that the legislation recently passed was designed to attract national charter chains to take over low-performing public schools, such no-excuses charter schools as KIPP, SEED, and Uncommon Schools.

But according to this article in Politico, the chains thus far are not interested. KIPP has only one school in Florida, the most charter-friendly state in the nation (some might say that California is the most charter-friendly state).

Florida House Speaker Richard Corcoran wants nonprofits that have operated high-performing charter schools in other states to replicate their success here.

To that end, he’s made them an offer: $200 million to cover facilities costs, personnel and specialized educational offerings, plus a wish list of statutory and regulatory changes designed to help them prosper.

But it appears they’re not interested.

Several of the organizations the Land O’Lakes Republican has mentioned by name or that have appeared in front of House education committees — networks that operate charter schools in New York City, Boston, the suburbs of Washington, D.C., and Phoenix, among other locales — told POLITICO Florida they have no plans to open schools in the Sunshine State.

Others said the scenario Corcoran has proposed is not consistent with their models. The House’s plan would incentivize operators to open charters in neighborhoods where traditional public schools are struggling, potentially drawing out some or all of the students. An operator could also take over operations of a struggling school or convert it to a charter school, which are options that already exist under state law but would be enhanced by the proposal.

School choice produces segregation: racial segregation, religious segregation, socioeconomic segregation. That is why the idea of school choice originated with Southern governors in the wake of the Brown V. Board of Education decision. They were determined to defend racially separate public schools. Their strategy was school choice. They knew that if students could choose their schools, they could preserve segregation. The federal courts put a halt to that. For more on that, read Mercedes Schneider’s fine book School Choice, which provides a history of this idea in the United States.

But now along comes the Trump administration and Betsy DeVos telling us that school choice is the “civil rights issue of our time.”

This would be a sick joke if it weren’t so serious.

The latest evidence on this front comes from Michigan, where MLive, which is read across the state, reports that racial segregation has intensified as school choice took hold. The story focuses on Holland, Michigan, Betsy DeVos’s home town.

Mike Wilkinson of Bridge magazine writes:

For more than a decade, Holland Public Schools has watched its enrollment fall, prompting the closure – and demolition – of multiple schools.

The decline is not the result of an aging community with fewer, school-age children. Rather, it’s largely a reflection of Michigan’s generous school choice policies. Choice has, consciously or not, left districts like Holland not only scrambling for students, but more racially segregated as its white students leave, often for districts that are less diverse.

“When school choice started, that decline started,” said Brian Davis, superintendent of the Holland district. In 2000, Holland had 15 school buildings; it now has eight. About one-in-three students living within the district are now being educated in another district or charter school. Because state education dollars follow students to their new district or charter, Davis said that Holland’s white flight has shaken the district’s finances.

In the two decades since Michigan adopted school choice, Holland’s white enrollment has plummeted 60 percent, with 2,100 fewer white students. Today, whites comprise 49 percent of school-age children living in the district, but only 38 percent the school population (Hispanics make up 47 percent of Holland schools).

From Holland to metro Detroit, Flint to Jackson, tens of thousands of parents across Michigan are using the state’s schools of choice program to move students out of their resident districts and into ones that are more segregated, a Bridge analysis of state enrollment data shows.

Last week, Bridge showed how “choice” has made several metro Detroit districts less diverse, with white students moving to whiter districts and African-American students increasingly gravitating to almost-entirely-black charter schools.

Since the Brown decision of 1954, America’s public schools have strived, sometimes successfully, sometimes unsuccessfully, to bring together children from different backgrounds. This is part of the American project, to teach people of every race, religion, and ethnic heritage to live in peace as citizens of the same background.

We have a president and a secretary of education who do not believe in this project. When DeVos referred to Historically Black Colleges and Universities as “schools of choice,” it was not a mistake. She actually believes that segregation is just fine so long as parents choose it. Her only error was thinking that this was a choice, rather than a response to exclusion.

This is why we must all fight the Trump-DeVos agenda. It promotes the worst in us; it embraces segregation and separatism. What has made America great is not segregation but mutuality; not withdrawing to our enclaves, but joining together in a spirit of community that is large enough for all of us. The Trump-DeVos tent is too small. It is their tent. Most of us don’t fit in.

We need another Martin Luther King Jr. to lead us in singing “We Shall Overcome.”

You are not likely to hear anything more about DTS, which Trump used to mean DRAIN THE SWAMP. Remember when he used to complain about the lobbyists and moochers who filled the swamp of D.C. Politics?

He has filled an even bigger swamp with creatures from the depths.

“President Trump is populating the White House and federal agencies with former lobbyists, lawyers and consultants who in many cases are helping to craft new policies for the same industries in which they recently earned a paycheck.

“The potential conflicts are arising across the executive branch, according to an analysis of recently released financial disclosures, lobbying records and interviews with current and former ethics officials by The New York Times in collaboration with ProPublica.

“In at least two cases, the appointments may have already led to violations of the administration’s own ethics rules. But evaluating if and when such violations have occurred has become almost impossible because the Trump administration is secretly issuing waivers to the rules.

“One such case involves Michael Catanzaro, who serves as the top White House energy adviser. Until late last year, he was working as a lobbyist for major industry clients such as Devon Energy of Oklahoma, an oil and gas company, and Talen Energy of Pennsylvania, a coal-burning electric utility, as they fought Obama-era environmental regulations, including the landmark Clean Power Plan. Now, he is handling some of the same matters on behalf of the federal government.

“Another case involves Chad Wolf, who spent the past several years lobbying to secure funding for the Transportation Security Administration to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new carry-on luggage screening device. He is now chief of staff at that agency — at the same time as the device is being tested and evaluated for possible purchase by agency staff.

“There are other examples. At the Labor Department, two officials joined the agency from the K Street lobbying corridor, leaving behind jobs where they fought some of the Obama administration’s signature labor rules, including a policy requiring financial advisers to act in a client’s best interest when providing retirement advice.
This revolving door of lobbyists and government officials is not new in Washington.

“Both parties make a habit of it.

“But the Trump administration is more vulnerable to conflicts than the prior administration, particularly after the president eliminated an ethics provision that prohibits lobbyists from joining agencies they lobbied in the prior two years. The White House also announced on Friday that it would keep its visitors’ logs secret, discontinuing the release of information on corporate executives, lobbyists and others who enter the complex, often to try to influence federal policy. The changes have drawn intense criticism from government ethics advocates across the city.

“Mr. Trump’s appointees are also far wealthier and have more complex financial holdings and private-sector ties than officials hired at the start of the Obama administration, according to an Office of Government Ethics analysis that the White House has made public.

“This creates a greater chance that they might have conflicts related to investments or former clients, which could force them to sell off assets, recuse themselves or seek a waiver.”

An Ohio legislator has proposed lifting the income cap for private school vouchers, so that 74% of all families in Ohio would be eligible to use a voucher to attend a religious or private school.

The cost estimates of this proposal range from $70 million to $1.2 billion (if every eligible student were to use a voucher). The assumption–or hope–is that not every eligible student would use a voucher because there are not enough seats available in nonpublic schools. Presumably there would be an explosion of new private schools to take advantage of the money.

This is money that would be transferred from public schools to nonpublic schools. The public schools would essentially be defunded to favor religious and private schools.

The irony in this enthusiasm for vouchers in Ohio is that the voucher-friendly conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute recently released a study showing that students in Ohio who take vouchers to enroll in nonpublic schools actually lost ground academically as compared to their peers in public schools.

Does anyone in the Ohio legislature look at evidence?

Does Ohio want to destroy its future?