Archives for category: Education Reform

Myra Blackmon, veteran journalist, writes that people from all backgrounds in Georgia joined to defeat Amendment 1, the governor’s plan to change the state constitution to allow the state to take over low-scoring schools and turn them into charter schools. Whatever their race or their place, Georgians didn’t want to give up local control of their public schools.

Now that the ALEC plan for state takeover has gone down to defeat, Blackmon has some positive ideas for helping the 127 schools that were picked for state takeover.

First, we can use the same techniques to insist the Legislature fully fund the Quality Basic Education formula that promises equitable and sufficient funding for all schools. Changing the formula will do no good if we don’t know what would happen if we actually funded the one we have had in place for decades. We must also insist that money that would have been spent on the Opportunity School District be used to help those 127 schools on the original target list.

Second, we must advocate for allowing the state Department of Education to do its job. As state School Superintendent Richard Woods outlined in a recent piece, the state DOE has the knowledge and expertise to help struggling schools improve their performance. In recent years, however, the governor and the Legislature have regularly bypassed the DOE and its elected head, imposing new rules and ignoring any input from the one department of state government that has the personnel, experience and reach most likely to help solve our problems.

Third, we must insist on appropriate assessment of school performance. The College and Career Ready Performance Index is being misused to “grade schools” as passing or failing when it was designed to simply measure growth. Further, the CCRPI wrongly relies almost entirely on the results of the Georgia Milestones standardized tests.

Throwing money at schools doesn’t help them, but neither does starving them of resources they need. New funding should be used wisely to reduce class sizes, to hire experienced teachers, give them the supplies and support they need, and retain them, and to make sure that children have a full and rich curriculum, including the arts.

Getting the politicians out of the way of educators is a swell idea. For some reason, state legislators think they should tell educators how to do their job; they are wise enough not to do that to any other profession.

Blackmon points out that the Georgia tests have changed frequently and have never been useful for teachers or students.

Despite the hundreds of millions of our tax dollars invested in the Georgia Milestones, the tests have never been validated as reliable measures of education. That is, they have never been put through the statistical process that guarantees that the questions actually measure what they are intended to. For the last two years, at least portions of the test results have been completely unusable; the tests themselves have changed annually and the results provide no diagnostic information to help teachers zero in on what students need. The test is used punitively when a more effective use would be to provide individual data that would allow schools to tailor instruction to student needs.

Last, she suggests that all the energy that went into defeating Amendment 1 should now be channeled to help the schools and school boards do a better job for the children.

Such common sense is rare these days and much needed.

Arthur Camins writes that in the wake of the election, with a public deeply divided, it is time to unify and organize around our public schools. Although the future of K-12 education was not part of the national election, it appeared on many state ballots, where significant majorities rejected privatization and voted to support their public schools.

He writes:

For many of us, our hopes and dreams are bound up with our expectations for our children. For that reason, it is ripe with potential for organizing to pressure our government to be more responsive to the needs of folks without privilege and to regain social trust.

Take a deep breath because now it is the time for a protracted struggle to revitalize the struggle for democratic, equitable education. Now is the time to reassert an ethos of citizen’s responsibility for one another in education policy and practice. Now is the time to reassert an ethos of improvement for all over the restrictive idea of improvement for a few. Now is the time to utilize the revitalizing power of collaboration instead of the divisiveness of competition as the primary lever to advance the academic, social and emotional learning of all students. Now is the time to advance the broad promises of education to prepare every student for life, work, and citizenship.

Several decades of a myopic bipartisan focus on the imposition of test-based accountability and punishment systems has failed to significantly narrow race and class-based opportunity and achievement gaps. Several decades of effort to create privately-controlled, but taxpayer-funded, charter schools and to provide tuition vouchers for private schools to compete with democratically funded public schools have increased segregation without achieving widespread improvement. Several decades of purposeful ideological propaganda and on-the-cheap silver-bullet solutions have undermined public confidence in democratic government as a problem-solving mechanism.

Public education remains as a commitment to the commons. Obviously, most of what we do is outside the commons. But the commons must be strengthened, preserved, transformed to represent the community’s commitment to its children, all of them.

Nicholas Tampio, a professor of political science at Fordham University, says that it is time for a clean sweep of the rancorous education problems in New York state. The state has had a massive parent-student opt out of standardized testing based on the Common Core for two straight years; more than 200,000 (or about 20%) of the eligible students did not sit for the tests. There is near unanimity that the rollout of the Common Core under former Commissioner John King (now Secretary of Education) was badly botched. Governor Andrew Cuomo formed a commission that recommended a revision of the Common Core standards to respond to teacher and student complaints.

But as Tampio reports, the “revised” standards are almost identical to the original Common Core. The original errors of the standards for early childhood education remain age-inappropriate, continuing the expectation that kindergarten children will be able to read “emergent-reader texts with purpose and understanding.”

Tampio says it is time for the New York Board of Regents to steer the ship of state. They are in charge. The new chancellor knows that the Common Core is riddled with problems, as are the tests. Tampio says it is time to get a new Commissioner of Education and to dump the Common Core.

Jonathan Pelto, writing at thehill.com, warns of the fiscal burden that charter school pose to states, school districts, and public education.

In most states, charters have little or no oversight, even though they are funded by taxpayers. Charters have gone to court to fight public audits.

It is time for charters to demand accountability and fiscal oversight, lest they be overcome by scandals in their own backyard.

While the subprime mortgage crisis remains the epitome of what occurs when greed and corruption go unchecked, a growing number of experts and observers are warning that a new economic scandal is taking shape in the United States.

In an article published earlier this month, Business Insider observed: “We just got even more evidence supporting the theory that charter schools are America’s new subprime mortgages.” The magazine wrote: The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released the results of a damning audit of the charter school industry which found that charter schools’ relationships with their management organizations pose a significant risk to the aim of the Department of Education.

The findings in the audit, specifically in regard to charter school relationships with CMOs, echo the findings of a 2015 study that warned of an impending bubble similar to that of the subprime-mortgage crisis one of the authors, Preston C. Green III, told Business Insider.

With more than 6,700 charter schools spread across 42 states and the District of Columbia, fraudulent activities associated with the publicly funded, but privately owned, charter school industry have become the fodder for almost daily news stories.

According to an October 2015 investigation conducted by the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), the federal government has spent more than $3.3 billion over the past two decades on the creation and maintenance of the charter school industry.

Teresa Kendall, a reader, says this about Mike Pence, the Vice-President-elect and head of the Trump transition team:

“Pence is far worse than Trump, because he truly believes he has the moral authority to impose his beliefs on others.

“Quick list of his dirty deeds, just as Governor of IN: did everything possible to keep Glenda Ritz, the one who took the head IN Ed spot from Tony Bennett, from doing her job by appointing a shadow Ed agency that had more power than she did; got the IN legislature to strip Ritz of her powers; shut down most Planned Parenthood clinics in rural areas resulting in an HIV epidemic in small rural counties; got the Religious Freedom (RFRA) law passed that allowed legal discrimination [against gays]; set up a “state -run news bureau” that was intended to filter all state news releases to make Pence look good; allowed companies such as Carrier to leave Indiana and put hundreds out of work after they received millions in state incentive money that he refused to claw back; let the roads deteriorate so badly that a major interstate road (65) had to be rerouted while the state had an emergency fix on a bridge that was about to collapse; expanded private school vouchers to the tune of 131 million for students that have never attended a public school and putting public schools in financial peril; presided over a serious teacher shortage due to the low pay and restrictive work environment; refused an 80 million dollar federal grant for Pre-school and then two years later when preparing for a re-election run decided to take it; and one of the best- presided over an 38th ranking in the US of per capita income.

“Indiana wasn’t doing well under the previous GOP governor Mitch Daniels, but Pence actually managed to make it worse. Pence makes Trump look good, and the sad thing is that I feel the GOP will do everything it can to let Trump get himself into a serious enough situation so that he will have to step down and let Pence take over. And that would truly be the worst thing that could happen to this country. No joking, no exaggerations, just fact. Pence is horrible.”

Gay activists are worried about Pence and for good reason. They fear that Pence will lead an all-out assault on their right to equal treatment under the law.

Last week’s election was both a victory and a defeat for corporate education reform. On one hand, Donald Trump won with a strong commitment to school choice and privatization, which is the highest goal of corporate reformers. He will very likely appoint a Supreme Court justice (or justices) hostile to unions, another priority of the so-called reformers. Maybe now, they can give up their pretense of being Democrats and hail the new regime in D.C.

On the other hand, voters in two very different states–Massachusetts and Georgia–were asked if they wanted to “improve” their schools by turning them over to the charter industry, and both states answered with a resounding NO.

In Georgia, despite a deceptively worded constitutional amendment, a bipartisan majority voted 60-40 against allowing the governor to create a special district where low-scoring schools could be converted to charters.

In Massachusetts, the corporate financiers bundled $26 million, mostly from out of state donors, to promote Question 2, which would add 12 new charters every year. The advertising campaign tried to sell Question 2 as a civil rights issue. They promised it would not defund public schools. They swore it was only “for the kids.” Question 2 lost overwhelmingly by 68-32%. Two-thirds of the voters did not believe the promises.

Here is the big news: The largest vote against charters in the Massachusetts vote came in communities that already had charters. The voters knew that charters were taking money from their public schools. They didn’t like what charters were doing to their communities.

“Almost all of the fiercest Question 2 opponents were cities and towns whose public schools are losing money to charter schools.

“Easthampton topped all Massachusetts municipalities in the strength of its opposition — 76.2 percent voted ” No,” or 7,324 against 2,290 “Yes” votes — and that city will lose $940,000 to its charter school, Hilltown Cooperative Charter Public School, in fiscal 2016.

“It comes right off the top,” Easthampton Mayor Karen Cadieux said Thursday. “If you’re saying it doesn’t cost us anything, then you need to explain why I’m $940,000 short.”

“Hadley and South Hadley also followed the pattern, voting “no” to the tune of 73.7 and 68.9 percent. South Hadley contains Pioneer Valley Performing Arts Charter Public School and Hadley houses Pioneer Valley Chinese Immersion Charter School.

“Despite being located in Eastern Massachusetts, where opposition to Question 2 was not as high as in the rest of the state, Somerville also voted strongly against Question 2, with 71.2 percent of voters opposed. The city houses Prospect Hill Academy Charter School.

“Greenfield, where Four Rivers Charter Public School makes its home, voted against Question 2 by 71 percent. In Holyoke, which contains Paulo Freire Social Justice Charter School, 66 percent opposed.”

Despite the millions of dollars in Dark Money, despite the big buy on television, despite the civil rights rhetoric, Question 2 was rejected.

The best part of this election, other than the victory of public education, was that opponents of Question 2 were fully informed about the threat that privatization posed to public education in General and to their public schools in particular. Only a handful of affluent districts supported the measure. The rest understood that they were repelling an existential threat to a democratic institution that belongs to their community: their public schools.

Senator Bernie Sanders published an opinion piece today assessing the path forward for the Democratic Party and the nation.

He writes:

“Millions of Americans registered a protest vote on Tuesday, expressing their fierce opposition to an economic and political system that puts wealthy and corporate interests over their own. I strongly supported Hillary Clinton, campaigned hard on her behalf, and believed she was the right choice on Election Day. But Donald J. Trump won the White House because his campaign rhetoric successfully tapped into a very real and justified anger, an anger that many traditional Democrats feel.

“I am saddened, but not surprised, by the outcome. It is no shock to me that millions of people who voted for Mr. Trump did so because they are sick and tired of the economic, political and media status quo.

“Working families watch as politicians get campaign financial support from billionaires and corporate interests — and then ignore the needs of ordinary Americans. Over the last 30 years, too many Americans were sold out by their corporate bosses. They work longer hours for lower wages as they see decent paying jobs go to China, Mexico or some other low-wage country. They are tired of having chief executives make 300 times what they do, while 52 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent. Many of their once beautiful rural towns have depopulated, their downtown stores are shuttered, and their kids are leaving home because there are no jobs — all while corporations suck the wealth out of their communities and stuff them into offshore accounts.

“Working Americans can’t afford decent, quality child care for their children. They can’t send their kids to college, and they have nothing in the bank as they head into retirement. In many parts of the country they can’t find affordable housing, and they find the cost of health insurance much too high. Too many families exist in despair as drugs, alcohol and suicide cut life short for a growing number of people.

“President-elect Trump is right: The American people want change. But what kind of change will he be offering them? Will he have the courage to stand up to the most powerful people in this country who are responsible for the economic pain that so many working families feel, or will he turn the anger of the majority against minorities, immigrants, the poor and the helpless?

“Will he have the courage to stand up to Wall Street, work to break up the “too big to fail” financial institutions and demand that big banks invest in small businesses and create jobs in rural America and inner cities? Or, will he appoint another Wall Street banker to run the Treasury Department and continue business as usual? Will he, as he promised during the campaign, really take on the pharmaceutical industry and lower the price of prescription drugs?

“I am deeply distressed to hear stories of Americans being intimidated and harassed in the wake of Mr. Trump’s victory, and I hear the cries of families who are living in fear of being torn apart. We have come too far as a country in combating discrimination. We are not going back. Rest assured, there is no compromise on racism, bigotry, xenophobia and sexism. We will fight it in all its forms, whenever and wherever it re-emerges.

“I will keep an open mind to see what ideas Mr. Trump offers and when and how we can work together. Having lost the nationwide popular vote, however, he would do well to heed the views of progressives. If the president-elect is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families, I’m going to present some very real opportunities for him to earn my support.

“Let’s rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create millions of well-paying jobs. Let’s raise the minimum wage to a living wage, help students afford to go to college, provide paid family and medical leave and expand Social Security. Let’s reform an economic system that enables billionaires like Mr. Trump not to pay a nickel in federal income taxes. And most important, let’s end the ability of wealthy campaign contributors to buy elections.

“In the coming days, I will also provide a series of reforms to reinvigorate the Democratic Party. I believe strongly that the party must break loose from its corporate establishment ties and, once again, become a grass-roots party of working people, the elderly and the poor. We must open the doors of the party to welcome in the idealism and energy of young people and all Americans who are fighting for economic, social, racial and environmental justice. We must have the courage to take on the greed and power of Wall Street, the drug companies, the insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry.

“When my presidential campaign came to an end, I pledged to my supporters that the political revolution would continue. And now, more than ever, that must happen. We are the wealthiest nation in the history of the world. When we stand together and don’t let demagogues divide us up by race, gender or national origin, there is nothing we cannot accomplish. We must go forward, not backward.”

Writing in the Business section of the New York Times, Paul Sullivan describes Trump’s tax plan as a path to “dynastic levels of wealth.”

He begins:

“If Donald J. Trump follows through on his campaign promises, a host of taxes that affect only the very richest Americans may be eliminated, along with almost all tax incentives to be philanthropic. As a result, wealthy families may find it much easier to amass dynastic levels of wealth.
At the top of the list is the estate tax. Currently, the rules are straightforward: A married couple is exempt for the first $10.9 million in their estate, and they pay a 40 percent tax on the amount above that.

“Mr. Trump’s campaign proposal seems straightforward: Repeal the estate tax — the death tax, in his words.

“Back in 2012, most tax experts had considered the estate tax issue resolved when, on New Year’s Eve, the Republican-majority Congress and President Obama reached a so-called grand bargain on taxes. As part of that deal, the current estate tax exemption was set, with annual increases indexed to inflation.

“With that agreement, more than 99 percent of Americans were exempted from the estate tax.
Last year, for example, the Internal Revenue Service processed just 4,918 federal estate tax returns (though it collected about $17 billion in taxes).

“Working on a policy to appease such a small number of people could be seen in two ways: a waste of political capital or an end to a tax that Republicans have historically decried as unfair and Democrats have held up as a guard against generational wealth.

“But Mr. Trump’s proposal is not as straightforward as simple repeal. His plan also said, “Capital gains held until death and valued over $10 million will be subject to tax to exempt small businesses and family farms.” In other words, the tax on capital gains above $10 million would have to paid only when, or if, the assets were sold.

“For some accountants, the proposal brought back memories of 2010, when the estate tax briefly expired and assets in a wealthy person’s estate were subject to capital gains tax on the appreciated value. This proved to be a headache. Few people keep sufficiently detailed records to find the original purchase price on stocks or to account for improvements to properties over decades.

“Yet the Trump plan, as some attorneys and accountants have read it, would allow the wealthiest heirs to never pay capital gains taxes if they did not sell what they inherited. This would be difficult for those with a modest inheritance because they generally sell and spend what they get. But it might not be for people with a large inheritance, like Mr. Trump’s children, who would receive a portfolio of income-producing real estate and golf courses, which they could borrow against and never sell.
“Most people who have substantial wealth have that wealth in capital assets that tend to grow in value,” said Marc J. Bloostein, partner in the private client group at Ropes & Gray. “It comes down to whether you’re going to sell those assets. Someone who inherits the family compound, that’s great. Someone who inherits a business on the auction block, you have to pay the taxes.”

Rachel Klein, the education editor of Huffington Post, reports on a recent study by Mathematica Policy Research that found that teachers and low-income and in upper-income schools are no different in effectiveness.

This study is very important because a central tenet of the corporate reform movement is that “bad teachers” cause low test scores, and that low-scoring schools are overrun by “bad teachers.” We have heard this claim from the mouths of Bill Gates, Arne Duncan, Michelle Rhee, Joel Klein, and every other corporate reformer. This is why Race to the Top required every state applying for a share of $4.35 billion in federal funds had to agree to evaluate teachers based in large part on the test scores of their students. Think tanks, states, and the U.S. Department of Education have poured time and energy into the pursuit of the best way to find and fire those “bad teachers.” Another of Arne Duncan’s bad ideas was the “turnaround” model, which involved firing half, or most, or all of the school staff, since in his mind the staff caused low scores.

The study used the “reformers'” favorite methodology–value-added measurement–to look for differences in teacher effectiveness.

Klein writes:

Teachers shouldn’t be held responsible for the big gap in the achievement levels of rich and poor students, new data suggests.

By looking at the effectiveness ratings of teachers who work with students from varying socioeconomic classes, Mathematica Policy Research determined that rich and poor children generally have access to equally impressive educators. The research, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, stands in the face of arguments that a more equitable distribution of teachers could substantially move metrics of educational attainment.

Affluent students outperform their low-income peers on meaningful educational benchmarks. They have higher high school graduation rates and higher standardized test scores. Policymakers have said in the past that teachers might influence this gap. Indeed, previous data shows that low-income students tend to have less access to experienced teachers.

“We know from past research that there is a very large gap in achievement between high- and low-income kids, and we also know some teachers are quite a bit more effective than others,” said Eric Isenberg, senior researcher for Mathematica. “So we were interested in exploring whether there’s a link between those two things ― if achievement gaps could be explained by low-income kids having less effective teacher than high income kids.” .

The study looked at effectiveness ratings for English language arts and math teachers in 26 districts over the course of five years. These teachers worked with students in the fourth through eighth grades.

Researchers used a value-added model to measure the effectiveness of a teacher. This statistical model is controversial in the education world ― Isenberg called it an “imperfect measure,” but he said it’s the best available option. This statistical technique is used to isolate how students’ test scores change from year to year, and how much a teacher is contributing to these changes.

Although researchers did not work with a nationally representative sample of school districts, “the study districts were chosen to be geographically diverse, with at least three districts from each of the four U.S. Census regions,” the report says. About 63 percent of the students in the studied districts qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, and the districts’ achievement gaps tend to reflect those at the national level.

Overall, researchers only found small differences in the average effectiveness ratings given to teachers working with low-income and affluent students. The average teacher of a low-income student rates around the 50th percentile, while the average teacher of a more wealthy student rates around the 51st percentile.

As Linda Darling-Hammond once wrote: “You can’t fire your way to Finland.”

In Finland, teaching is a highly prestigious profession. Entry into teachers’ colleges is very competitive. Teachers must have five years of education before they can teach. Once they are professionals, they have broad autonomy, and they collaborate with their peers to make school wide decisions. There is no standardized testing until the end of high school. There is an emphasis on the arts, play, technology, and collaborate learning. Children have a recess after every class. Teachers are professionals. They are not judged by test scores because there are no test scores.

The policies of the Bush-Obama era have failed and failed and failed. It is time to think anew.

How many stories did you read or hear that came from fake websites?

 

Did ‘fake news’ on Facebook send Trump to the White House?

 

Did it affect your vote?

 

Whom can we trust?