I accidentally put the wrong date on a post that is supposed to run tomorrow at 9 am.
It tells the story of my meeting last night with Hillary.
I took it down and will repost tomorrow.
Archives for category: Education Reform
Mercedes Schneider does one of her trademark investigations of the finances of Students Matter, the organization that tried to declare teacher tenure unconstitutional.
It turns out that the organization is funded by the usual billionaires, has spent millions on legal fees, and is deep in debt. It exists to litigate. It wants to ruin teachers’ lives, assuming that’s the best way to help children of color.
Who is on the board?
“Board members include:
former StudentsMatter policy director and former Parent Revolution exec director Ben Austin;
former Chief of School Family and Parent/Community Services for Los Angeles Unified School District Maria Casillas;
former LAUSD superintendent John Deasy;
former California state senator Becky Morgan;
former chief of staff to VP Joe Biden and former chief domestic policy advisor to former Pres Bill Clinton, Bruce Reed;
investment banker and venture capitalist Arthur Rock, and
former chairman of the National Venture Capital Association and founding CEO of Fortify, a pioneer in the software security market, Ted Schlein.
StudentsMatter lists a single staffer, David Stanley:
David Stanley leads major gifts fundraising at Students Matter. He enlists philanthropists to serve as key partners to Students Matter and helps sustain the organization’s high-performing Board.
Prior to joining Students Matter in January 2014, David was Executive Director of Teach For America….”
What a close-knit little world the “reformers” inhabit! Bruce Reed is also CEO of the Broad Foundation that funds Students Matter. Arthur Rock is a major donor to TFA (he personally funds all the TFA interns who work on Capitol Hill and protect TFA).
EduShyster interviewed author Megan Tompkins-Stange about her new book “Policy Patrons,” which reports on the five years she spent working inside the big foundations that fund corporate-style reform: Gates and Broad, who pursue top-down reforms, and Ford and Kellogg, which are likelier to be “field-oriented.”
EduShyster says at the outset that the book shows the foundations to be “heavy with hubris,” certain that they have all the right answers. The Gates Foundation was giddy with joy to see how closely their goals meshed with those of the Obama administration.
EduShyster says, “We overhear the Broad folks reveling in their success in New Orleans and the failure of the opt out movement, and Team Gates crowing over, well, everything. But both have ended up getting some comeuppance of late—Gates over the Common Core and Broad over Eli Broad’s charter expansion plan in Los Angeles.
Tompkins-Stange responds:
I think what we’re seeing, with Gates and Broad in particular, is that they started from the point of view that *If you apply capital to X problem then Y solution will happen.* For example, if you make a vaccine available, disease will be eradicated. But that worldview hasn’t translated well to education, and the challenge for them now is how do they change their culture and their values in order to better operate within this context? Because what they’ve done up to this point is based on a very strategic, very technical way of looking at the world. You’re starting to see a real normative concern emerging in the field about not including people in public education reform, and not having the voices of these underrepresented groups that are going to be affected. Maybe now that we’re having this national conversation about power, race and oppression, that’s coming to the fore more as a topic of discussion within foundations.
One point that comes through loud and clear is that Gates and Broad find democracy to be a “hindrance,” an obstacle to the strategic plans that they have concocted with minimal interaction with those who will be affected.
Massachusetts will vote in November on Question 2, which would expand the number of privately managed charter schools, a dozen a year forever. The promoters of charters claim to be “saving” poor minority children. But the NAACP for New England sees through the propaganda.
The Chairman of the Education Committee of the New England Area Conference of the NAACP weighed in at the Boston Globe:
AUGUST 27, 2016
“IT IS precisely because of our grave concerns about the devastating impact on black and brown children that the NAACP is part of a broad-based statewide coalition to defeat Question 2, which would lead to unfettered charter school growth, taking billions of dollars in state aid away from local district public schools (“Charter question divides Democrats,” Metro, Aug. 16).
“The battle over this ballot question is not between teachers unions and low-income and minority families. On one side are those who believe that we must stop defunding the public schools that educate 96 percent of our students. On the other are those who support the diversion of billions of dollars of education resources to publicly funded, privately managed, selective, separate, and unequal charter schools.”
John L. Reed
Chairman
Education Committee
NAACP — New England Area Conference
West Roxbury
A reader informed me that there is an interesting program on charters in Douglas County, Colorado, on TV today, running on the MIND TV channel on Comcast. You might be able to find it in your area.
Might be airing at 1:30 pm but might different from region to region.
You might also want to contact Brian Malone to see his award-winning documentary Education Inc.
A Florida judge supported parents who fought for alternatives to the mandatory state reading test. Some districts permitted alternatives, others insisted that children would be retained in third grade if they didn’t take and pass the third grade test.
“A Leon County circuit court judge has come down in favor of families challenging Florida’s third-grade retention practices, ruling that school districts ignored the children’s right to alternative forms of promotion and the state Department of Education allowed that to happen.
“In her order, Judge Karen Gievers highly criticized the Hernando County school district for its “illegal refusal” to allow students to have a portfolio option to demonstrate their reading abilities, as permitted in statute. Notably, she also included report cards “based on classroom work throughout the course of the school year” as an acceptable option.
“Gievers took a further step in undercutting Florida’s long-time reliance on testing by validating the Opt Out Network’s use of “minimal participation.”
“The statute does not define participation,” Gievers wrote in her order. “The children were present on time, broke the seal on the materials and wrote their names, thus meeting their obligation to participate.”
The article calls this a “mixed” ruling, but I think it looks like a home run for parents who didn’t want their child’s future to be tied to one standardized test.
No surprise: Most students in Rhode Island “failed” the Common Core PARCC tests. As I have explained many times, the tests were designed to fail most students. They are aligned with NAEP Proficient, which most students have never reached, with the sole exception of those in Massachusetts, where slightly more than half have reached that standard.
What is the point of giving a test that is too hard for most students?
Mike Petrilli of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute wrote to say that the tests were designed to show college readiness, and only 40% (or less) are college ready. But 70% enroll in college. Thus, he writes, a remediation crisis in college.
But really, why should schools test third graders for college readiness?
Colleges set their own admission standards, they can accept or reject whoever they want.
I wonder if Michael Phelps or Simone Boles would have tested “proficient” on PARCC?
I posed these questions to him:
Making the passing mark so high that most kids fail is insane. Does that make them smarter? Will they be denied a high school diploma? Will they be retained in grade? Will the schools become giant holding pens where most kids never get past third grade?
Mike is never at a loss for words so I expect he will answer.
The Boston Globe used to be a liberal newspaper. But that was long ago. Now it opposes the teachers’ unions and it supports privatization of public education.
Massachusetts is the highest performing state in the nation, as judged by test scores; you would never know that if the Globe was your only source of information. Corporate reformers were audacious in choosing Massachusetts as their next big battleground to save poor kids from failing schools. Their ambition–to break public education–is outrageous in the nation’s top-performing state. Their promises ring hollow.
Our reader Christine Langhoff gives us an update on the escalation of hostilities as the air war for public opinion heats up.
She writes:
The Question 2 campaign continues to, as we say, “evolve”.
On Sunday, The Boston Globe published an advertorial scolding the Boston Teachers Union that it had better settle contract negotiations pretty quickly because “such changes are necessary to boost the quality of teaching and learning so the school system can compete more aggressively with independently run charter schools, a sector of public education that could grow dramatically in the coming years.”
The “research” comes from the Boston Municipal Research Bureau, whose President Sam Tyler, of course lives in the suburbs. Among the recommendations:
“Supporting and improving teacher quality and adding more time for learning in the BPS should be the mutual objectives of the City and BTU in these negotiations. To that end, the final three-year contract should include the following provisions:
*Teacher Compensation – Adopt a new fiscally responsible teacher compensation system that rewards teachers for performance and additional responsibilities rather than for academic credits and longevity.
* Mutual consent – Reinforce early hiring and mutual consent for teachers and extend mutual consent as the process for hiring paraprofessionals.
* SPC Teachers – Improve procedures for the assignment and evaluation of teachers in suitable professional capacity (SPC) positions in order to improve teacher quality and reduce the number of SPC teachers not hired after a year or who do not apply for positions.
* Teacher Evaluation – Improve the teacher evaluation process based on the BPS’ experience over the last three years.
* Excessing Procedures – Include language for excessing teachers that is consistent with retaining top quality teachers irrespective of seniority.
* Extended Time – Provide more time on learning for students in traditional Boston schools in a fiscally responsible and sustainable manner.”
In other words, credentialed, certified teachers, many with decades of classroom experience, ought to accept the kinds of working conditions that their uncertified, inexperienced colleagues find in charters.
The attack on compensation for academic credentials is particularly outrageous.
Massachusetts law, since the 1993 ed reform act (which also enabled charters), requires teachers to obtain a Master’s within the first five years of their careers if they wish to obtain professional status. There’s no re-imbursement of this expense, and the cost of an MA is Massachusetts is pretty pricey.
Here’s the six page attack (er, report) on unionized teachers in what’s been called the best urban school system:
Click to access SR16-6BPScontract.pdf
Then John Oliver presented his views on the Charter School industry.
In response, Chris Farone of the Boston Institute for Nonprofit Journalism’s DigBoston, a local alternative news organization, put the Globe and the Boston Municipal Research Bureau under its spotlight, noting that BMRB reps for businesses:
“…it wouldn’t take the Globe’s award-winning Spotlight team to see that BMRB’s board of directors boasts members from such companies as State Street Corporation, Suffolk Construction, Fidelity Investments, Liberty Mutual Insurance, Citizens Bank, Boston Properties, and John Hancock, among others in the corporate class whose money drives the pro- side of the charter war.”
The article is titled: “THE BOSTON GLOBE AND JOHN OLIVER: WHICH ONE IS FULL OF CRAP ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS?”
THE BOSTON GLOBE AND JOHN OLIVER: WHICH ONE IS FULL OF CRAP ABOUT CHARTER SCHOOLS?
On Tuesday, the 23rd Globe published an article reviewing the Dobbie, Fryer research which shows that charters don’t do much in the way of improving test scores and may have a negative impact on earnings. (The question of whether those ought to be considered appropriate goals of education is not discussed.)
Here’s the study:
Click to access charters_7.15.16.pdf
and the Globe article:
Also on Tuesday, Boston’s other newspaper, the Boston Herald, posted the following column by Carol Doherty, member of the Taunton School Committee, questioning the flow of dark money and Wall Street connections for this ballot question:
And the Twitter exchange has been fierce, with Jeanne Allen and Dmitiri Melhorne accusing two Boston parents (one of whom writes a blog called Public School Mama) who have organized protests against the underfunding of BPS for the past year with such finely considered arguments as “Your grandchildren will be embarrassed by you 60 years from now” and “Oh, wait! Urban voters would choose to lift caps! It’s OUTSIDERS from suburbs who are blocking choice for Boston parents!” Sheesh!
Wednesday, it was reported that Massachusetts students had the highest ACT scores in the nation, undermining once again the rationale for increasing the number of charters, when we’re doing just fine without them, thanks.
http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/best_in_the_nation_massachuset.html
The Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., has published a major paper that describes a new vision for American education.
Instead of focusing on goals like raising test scores, which narrows the curriculum and produces perverse results (like cheating, excessive test prep, and gaming the system), educators should be encouraged to emphasize the development of the whole child. This is not a new idea; its roots go back to the early twentieth century. But it is a research-based idea that promises to change the direction of education and to align teaching and learning with what is in the best interests of students and society.
The report was written by Elaine Weiss and Emma Garcia of EPI.
Here is the introduction.
Traits and skills such as critical thinking, creativity, problem solving, persistence, and self-control—which are often collectively called noncognitive skills, or social and emotional skills—are vitally important to children’s full development. They are linked to academic achievement, productivity and collegiality at work, positive health indicators, and civic participation, and are nurtured through life and school experiences. Developing these skills should thus be an explicit goal of public education. This can be achieved through research and policy initiatives involving better defining and measuring these skills; designing broader curricula to promote these skills; ensuring that teachers’ preparation and professional support are geared toward developing these skills in their students; revisiting school disciplinary policies, which are often at odds with the nurturing of these skills; and broadening assessment and accountability practices to make the development of the whole child central to education policy.
Introduction and key points
The importance of so-called noncognitive skills—which include abilities and traits such as critical thinking skills, problem solving skills, social skills, persistence, creativity, and self-control—manifests itself in multiple ways throughout our lives. For example, having greater focus as a student improves the acquisition of skills, and creativity is widely associated with artistic abilities. Persistence and communication skills are critical to success at work, and respect and tolerance contribute to strong social and civic relationships.
But support for noncognitive skills—also commonly referred to as social and emotional skills—extends far beyond this casual recognition of their impact. Empirical research finds clear connections between various noncognitive skills and positive life outcomes. Indeed, researchers have focused on assessing which skills matter and why, how they are measured, and how and when these skills are developed, including the mutually reinforcing development of noncognitive and cognitive abilities during students’ years in school.1
At the same time, there are clear challenges inherent in this work, including those associated with data availability (in terms of measurement, validity, and reliability), the difficulty of establishing causality, and the need to bridge gaps across various areas of research. This points to the need to exercise caution when designing education policies and practices that aim to nurture noncognitive skills. Nonetheless, given the crucial role that noncognitive skills play in supporting the development of cognitive skills—as well as the importance of noncognitive skills in their own right—this is an issue of great importance for policymakers.
Moreover, there is increased recognition, both domestically and internationally, that noncognitive skills are integral to a wider conceptualization of what it means to be an educated person. Indeed, UNESCO’s Incheon Declaration for Education 2030, which sets forth an international consensus on the new vision for education for the next 15 years, states, “Relevant learning outcomes must be well defined in cognitive and non-cognitive domains, and continually assessed as an integral part of the teaching and learning process. Quality education includes the development of those skills, values, attitudes and knowledge that enable citizens to lead healthy and fulfilled lives, make informed decisions and respond to local and global challenges.”2
This policy brief, which focuses on a set of skills that can and should be taught in schools, is based on a body of scholarly literature that tends to use the term “noncognitive skills” over others. James Heckman, a prominent, Nobel Prize–winning economist, has dubbed these skills “dark matter” in recognition of their varied nature and the challenge of accurately labeling them. Various fields and experts call them social and emotional skills, behavioral skills, inter- and intra-personal skills, and life skills, among other terms, but this brief does not aim to settle this issue. We therefore use noncognitive throughout in many places, as well as social and emotional skills and other terms.
This brief explains why it is so important that we incorporate these skills into the goals and components of public education, and lays out the steps necessary to make that happen.
This is a report that will gladden the hearts of most educators. It calls for a paradigm shift at a time when policymakers are realizing that the past fifteen years of testing, carrots and sticks, and other efforts to raise test scores, has produced negative consequences. It is time to take another look at our goals and our vision. This is indeed a worthy project.
Only hours after losing its lawsuit to block teacher tenure in California, the Silicon Valley-funded “Students Matter”filed a lawsuit in Connecticut, claiming that the state’s restrictions on magnet schools and charter schools discriminated against inner-city children.
Curious. Why isn’t this group suing the state for not giving the neediest schools the funds to reduce class sizes and provide social and medical services to the children?
“California-based educational-advocacy group has filed a federal lawsuit charging that Connecticut’s restrictions on magnet and charter schools harm city children and violate the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.
“Students Matter, a group best known for bringing an unsuccessful lawsuit seeking to eliminate teacher tenure in California, filed a 71-page complaint Tuesday charging that “inexcusable educational inequity” in Connecticut was primarily the result of state laws “that prevent inner-city students from accessing even minimally acceptable public-school options.”
“The group is taking aim at laws that have put a moratorium on new magnet schools, limit the expansion of charter schools, and set per-student funding levels for districts participating in the Open Choice program in which city students attend suburban schools.
“A statement from Students Matter said, “Year after year, these parents have tried to avoid sending their children to failing public schools by trying to enroll them in magnet schools, charter public schools or other adequate public school alternatives.”
“However, the group contends that children have been “forced to remain in failing schools” because laws prevent magnets and charters from “scaling and meeting the need for high-quality schools demanded by Connecticut’s population.”
Hmmm. If students have a constitutional right to attend charter schools, do charter schools have the right to refuse admission?
I wonder if TIME Magazine will give the story a cover, as it did for Vergara, claiming that Silicon Valley knows how to fix failing schools. Or the cover it gave to Michelle Rhee, holding a broom, saying that she knew how to fix the public schools of D.C.
I have an idea: since David Welch, the Silicon Valley entrepreneur behind Students Matter, knows how to fix low-scoring schools, why doesn’t he offer to take over a district in California and show us how to do it?
