Archives for category: Education Reform

A new study in Michigan finds that the proliferation of charter schools has undermined the fiscal viability of traditional public schools.

David Arsen, a professor at the College of Education at Michigan State University, discovered that school choice and especially charters were diverting resources from public school districts, leaving them in perilous condition.

“Which Districts Get Into Financial Trouble and Why: Michigan’s Story” asserts that “80 percent of the explained variation in district fiscal stress is due to changes in districts’ state funding, to enrollment changes including those associated with school choice policies, and to the enrollment of high-cost special education students.”

In other words, the fiscal failings of DPS that we just addressed had less to do with poor spending on the part of district — though we’re sure there was some of that — and more to do with statewide policies, such as those that promote competition, that put the traditional district at a disadvantage.

“Overwhelmingly, the biggest financial impact on school districts was the result of declining enrollment and revenue loss, especially where school choice and charters are most prevalent,” Arsen explained to education blogger Jennifer Berkshire (author of the website EduShyster) in a recent interview.

To read Jennifer Berkshire’s illuminating interview of David Arsen, open this link to her website.

Here is a portion of her interview:

David Arsen: The question we looked at was how much of this pattern of increasing financial distress among school districts in Michigan was due to things that local districts have control over as opposed to state-level policies that are out of the local districts’ control: teacher salaries, health benefits, class size, administrative spending. We also looked at an item that the conservative think tanks are big on: contracting out and privatization. We found that, overwhelmingly, the biggest financial impact on school districts was the result of declining enrollment and revenue loss, especially where school choice and charters are most prevalent. We looked at every school district in Michigan with at least 100 students and we followed them for nearly 20 years. The statistics are causal; we’re not just looking at correlation.

EduShyster: There’s a table in your paper which actually made me gasp aloud—which I’m pretty sure is a first. I’m talking, of course, about the chart where you show what happened to Michigan’s *central cities,* including Detroit, as charter schools really started to expand.

Arsen: We have districts getting into extreme fiscal distress because they’re losing revenue so fast. That table in our paper looked at the central cities statewide and their foundation revenue, which is both a function of per-pupil funding and enrollment. They had lost about 22% of their funding over a decade. If you put that in inflation adjusted terms, it means that they lost 46% of their revenue in a span ten years. With numbers like that, it doesn’t really matter if you can get the very best business managers—you can get a team of the very best business managers—and you’re going to have a hard time handling that kind of revenue loss. The emergency managers, incidentally, couldn’t do it. They had all the authority and they cut programs and salaries, but they couldn’t balance the budgets in Detroit and elsewhere, because it wasn’t about local decision making, it was about state policy. And when they made those cuts, more kids left and took their state funding with them.

EduShyster: As you followed the trajectory of these school districts, was there a *point of no return* that you could identify? A tipping point in lost enrollment and funding from which they just couldn’t recover?

Arsen: When we looked at the impact of charter schools we found that overall their effect on the finances of districts statewide was modest. Then we looked to see if there were nonlinear, or disproportionate, impacts in those districts where charters enrolled very high and sustained shares of resident students. And then the results got huge. We saw very significant and large impacts of charter penetration on district fund balances for different thresholds, whether there were 15, 20 or 25% of the students going to charter schools. That was really striking. At every one of those thresholds, the higher the charter penetration, the higher the adverse impact on district finances. They’re big jumps, and they’re all very significant statistically. What’s clear is that when the percentage gets up to the neighborhood of 20% or so, these are sizeable adverse impacts on district finances.

Arthur Goldstein, veteran high school teacher in New York City, reacts here to Donald Trump Jr.’s comments about public schools and teachers.

Who should we blame for the crumbling conditions in Detroit’s schools? Teachers? Or the people in charge of the state of Michigan?

He checks the claims in Jr.’s speech and concludes:

What planet is this kid living on? I live in New York, supposedly a bastion of liberalism, we have a Democrat Governor who pushed an evaluation system specifically designed to fire more teachers. When that system didn’t work as designed, he called it “baloney,” and proceeded to push a new system, which hopefully will fire even more teachers. That’s what Democrat Andrew Cuomo considers a victory.

Every teacher I know is acutely aware of this. That’s why we’re all so fidgety. We don’t mind doing our jobs. Let me tell you something–this guy is stereotyping teachers just like Daddy stereotypes Muslims. In fact it’s not teachers who are stalling the progress of the middle class. This started with Saint Ronald Reagan, and now Republicans are all about cutting taxes for the wealthy.

Who picks up the slack? We do. We teachers pay what people like Trump and Baby Trump used to pay. Our children pay what they used to. If Baby Trump gave a golly gosh darn about folks like us he’d have been out on the streets working for Bernie Sanders instead of driving his Lamborghini to gala luncheons.

It’s absurd and obscene that we who devote our lives to helping children are vilified by the same people who make it impossible to fund their schools. It’s even worse that their remedy for public schools is making it easier for zillionaires to profit from them.

Tom Nichols is a professor in Rhode Island.

He wrote this post for The New York Times.

NOTEBOOK
Never-Trump Confidential
By TOM NICHOLS
6:00 AM
My brother heard I’d been saying bad things about Donald Trump.

A retired police officer with a cop’s bone-dry sense of humor, he still lives in our hometown, a small New England city hammered by deindustrialization and visibly altered over the past few decades by an influx of Spanish-speaking immigrants. Trump has a lot of supporters there, and my big brother is one of them. When a local radio host mentioned a recent column I’d written criticizing Trump, he called and asked me about it.

I laughed. “Yeah, I wrote it. Does this mean I shouldn’t come home to visit?”

“I wouldn’t advise it,” he deadpanned.

Brothers can share that kind of joke, but for many people now in Trump’s camp, criticizing their leader is a serious offense, and I’ve been hearing from plenty of them. I am a Never-Trump Republican, as we’ve come to be known, part of the alliance of conservatives implacably opposed to the idea of Donald J. Trump becoming president of the United States. It’s a position that has estranged me from a plurality of my own party and put me at odd with friends, family, colleagues and a political movement that increasingly has taken on the character of an angry cult.

Trump has encouraged a with-us-or-against-us mentality among his voters, and it is an especially sharp division between Trump’s base and the Republican apostates who oppose him. “You are probably a Democrat and a socialist with literally half a brain,” one recent email from an angry Trump admirer began. “You are most likely wealthy, with no true commitment to God, but of the devil.” Another correspondent, in a common refrain, told me I was unfit to call myself an American. Yet another wished me a pleasant stay in Guantánamo in the near future. On Twitter, I’ve been barraged with words like “traitor” and “treason” along with a fair number of less printable terms.

During the primaries, it was easier to find common ground among Republicans and Republican-leaning voters. At the outset of this election season, I knew very few people who were behind Trump; more often, I found myself in arguments about whether Marco Rubio was too young, whether Ted Cruz was too annoying, whether Jeb Bush was too … well, too Jeb Bush. Even in those more amicable days, however, when I voiced my categorical opposition to Trump, I would see a head shake slowly or eyes look away for a moment. The same phrases would pop up: “We’re tired of political correctness.” “He says it like it is.” “He’ll shake things up.”

And always: “You don’t understand.”

This last charge, with its implication of detached elitism, always rankles. Although today I am a professor at a graduate institution and a practicing national security expert, I grew up in a Massachusetts factory town, in a modest home not far from the mills and the railroad tracks. Both of my parents were high-school dropouts from impoverished backgrounds, and they worked hard to make a life after a series of tough breaks and more than a few terrible personal choices. I worked my way through my education, sometimes two and three jobs at a time. As a young man, I cut my teeth in local and state politics, and so I was fully and painfully aware of how badly our area was hurt by the collapse of industry and the exodus of manufacturing jobs from the Northeast.

So I understand perfectly well how Trump is appealing to those voters. He’s promising to turn back time, to restore factories that were demolished years ago and to deport the Hispanic arrivals who turned the local barbershop into a storefront church. Trump is offering my friends and my family a buffet of economic impossibilities served up with sides of bitter racism and fantasies of revenge. And because I will not join them in their absolute belief in Trump, many of them now see me as an outsider. I’m no longer one of us. I’m now one of them.

I am not a natural choice for the part of Republican rebel. I spent a lifetime in the party, despite a short separation in 2012 when I quit it after Newt Gingrich and his plan to build Moon Base Alpha won South Carolina. For some time, I’d been concerned that the party was heading into a dead end of largely symbolic extremism, and Gingrich’s surge in a pack that included unelectable eccentrics like Herman Cain and Ron Paul, for me, clinched it. But I remained a conservative, and I never felt comfortable about leaving America’s conservative party.

Trump claims that he has expanded the ranks of the Republican Party. He’s right, at least in my case: I registered Republican once again this year specifically to vote against him. That might be quixotic — one of my fellow conservatives told me he admired my “John McClane in Nakatomi Plaza mentality” — but I came back because I felt that Trump’s capture of the Republican nomination was an existential threat to the future of American conservatism itself. Trump’s victory, if unchallenged from the right, would force conservatives to replace their own principles with his rancid stew of racism and sexism, along with his slew of various crackpot theories on politics and economics. If he wins, conservatism could be dead for a generation, if not longer.

Still, I had no intention at first of publicly planting a flag over Trump, in part because I never expected him to get this far. I lived through the unsuccessful 1992 nativist insurrection within the Republican Party led by Pat Buchanan and the third-party challenges mounted by Ross Perot in 1992 and 1996. I assumed that Trump was just another populist virus that would pass after the American people got some rest and drank plenty of water.

And I admit that like many conservatives, I had at least a small reservoir of empathy for Trump voters at the start, especially in their nearly universal complaint about political correctness. Many of us had an almost-involuntary admiration for a candidate who vowed to brush away what many conservatives (and even some liberals) saw as the heavy hand of the language police on open and honest debate.

What soon became apparent, of course, was that Trump was not just politically incorrect: He was an uncontrollable fire hose of offensive lunacy. There was the endless sexual innuendo — during news coverage about Trump, I’ve taken to turning off the television when my young daughter is in the room — and his ghastly jibes at John McCain, a war hero tortured so badly that to this day his injuries prevent him from tying his own shoes or combing his hair. I assumed that every new straw would be the last one.

I was wrong. The hits kept coming. From his flirtation with 9/11 conspiracy theories to his promises to order the American military to commit war crimes, nothing seemed to matter to voters who believed in him and who would support him, as Trump himself said, even if he shot someone dead in broad daylight.

Soon, Trump started rolling up enough delegates to become an actual threat to win the nomination, and I had to make a decision: What would I do if actually faced with a choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton? The facile dodge would be to say “neither,” since I live in a reliably Democratic northeastern state where my vote would never be the deciding ballot. Instead, I decided to be honest about it, and to confront the full implications of opposing the Republican nominee.

I formally came out as a Never Trump Republican in February, when I wrote a column for the conservative online publication The Federalist titled “I’ll Take Hillary Clinton Over Donald Trump.” I made the case that Republicans could tough out four years of Clinton, but that neither the party nor the American conservative movement could survive even a single year of Trump. There is no editorial line on Trump or anything else at The Federalist, and my article was paired with one by a talented young writer named Nicole Russell who wrote in favor of him. Nicole and I made a friendly bet on whose argument would be more persuasive, and we left it at that.

I assumed I’d get some hate mail, because anyone who’s ever written an op-ed about anything gets hate mail. Sure enough, streams of rage poured into my email inbox and across my Twitter feed. I was sent everything from pornographic images featuring Hillary Clinton to neo-Nazi propaganda. Young white supremacists (who adore Trump despite his weird orange hue) told me I was a race traitor. Others, especially older people, thundered at me that Hillary murdered Vince Foster and then left our men to die in Benghazi, and that I was an accomplice to murder myself if I did anything that helped Clinton win.

Conspiracy theories were rampant in these complaints: I was secretly on the Republican payroll; I was secretly on the Democratic payroll; I was slated for a job in the Clinton, Cruz, Rubio or Bush administrations. The cynicism of the angry Trump supporters was so deep that my criticism of all these people in print was either dismissed or taken as evidence of an elaborate effort to conceal my true agenda, whatever it was.

There is also a triumphalist streak among the Trump supporters, who never tire of crowing about how old-school Republicans like me have “lost,” that the party has changed hands and that my kind needs to get in line or get out. Friendlier critics may not tell me I have to leave the party, but instead plead with me to understand how Trump’s primary victories were an important step toward getting even with the “elites” whom they believe control their lives. That term — the “elites” — slips from the mouths of not just casual acquaintances but also from friends and family. Even if they’re not trying to offend, the meaning is clear: They’re referring to people like me.

It’s not an entirely new line, of course. One of my uncles was a retired factory worker who for most of his life resented almost anyone who didn’t work with their hands. At dinner one evening many years ago, he issued the blanket declaration that everyone who works in Washington is corrupt. When I pointed out that I — someone he’s known for my entire life — was working in Washington as a Senate aide at the time, he blurted out: “I don’t care! Then you’re corrupt too!”

What he meant, of course, is that he saw me as part of system that was rigged against him. He saw the government as the servant primarily of rich corporations on one side and of unemployed minorities on the other. Like many of today’s Trump voters, he saw no middle ground, no connection between his own life and the many government programs like Social Security and Medicaid of which he was a beneficiary. For him, the government was just a group of bureaucrats stealing his money and then giving it away again — after taking their cut.

Today, I don’t even have to work in Washington to be accused of being corrupt. I just have to be someone who doesn’t love Donald Trump.

If Never-Trump Republicans are targets of rage to strangers and sources of disappointment to some of our friends and family, we are also objects of curiosity, especially among Democrats. Many people to my left see my opposition to Trump in the Oval Office as so obviously correct that it is ludicrous even to call attention to it, as though I have just bravely declared that I object to driving while blindfolded or to further wars with Britain. They treat me, somewhat condescendingly, as though I have finally come to my senses after years of misguided fraternization with the Republican enemy. For many liberals, of course, Trump is merely the natural endpoint of Republican evolution since the late 1960s. They might regret that it took the extremism of Donald Trump to make me finally see it, but better late than never.

Except that I don’t see it that way at all. To me, Trump is an alien presence in the Republican Party, an opportunist who could just as easily have hijacked white working-class voters among the Democrats or as part of a third-party bid. Nonetheless, strangers on social media and friends in my daily life mistakenly assume that my opposition to Trump equates to some sort of new sympathy for liberalism in general or for Hillary Clinton in particular. Some of them actually send me Clinton-friendly talking points, as though I might find them useful.

The reality is that in any other year, I would be arguing that Clinton not only should be disqualified from elected office but driven from our public life along with the rest of her insufferable family.

But not this year.

The Republicans and unaffiliated conservatives who have remained outside of the party’s civil war this year are less hostile to the Never Trump coalition than the Trump loyalists, but they are still conflicted about us. Whatever their feelings about the party’s nominee, they cannot endure the idea of Hillary Clinton in the White House (again). While many of them have vowed either to abstain or to vote for a third party, they still probe those of us who are determined to resist the Donald at all costs.

This can make conversation with fellow conservatives even more frustrating than with liberals or Trump supporters. They ask why we suddenly love Clinton. They wonder how we could possibly forget or forgive her manifest political sins. They demand to know if we understand the danger of allowing her to control the next nominations to the Supreme Court, as if this had never occurred to us.

Repeatedly, we’re asked if we’re serious about never voting for Trump. This is when a Never-Trump Republican winces, because only we can hear the silent scream inside our heads. I have lost count of the tweets and emails asking me, over and over, what I mean by “never” Trump. Do I mean “never,” as in “not during the primaries?” “Never” unless Clinton had been indicted? What if Clinton pulls off her skin and reveals herself to be an alien cyborg or one of our lizard overlords? Could I vote for Trump then?

My answer is always the same. Never means never. Even now, conservatives continue to ask me if I’m serious — mostly, I suspect, because they’re wrestling with their own consciences.

Soon after I made my stand as a Never-Trump Republican, however, I found that I was not alone. When my piece in The Federalist appeared, I had several media inquiries, including from talk-radio programs. At first, I assumed the worst. Talk radio is the natural habitat of many Trump supporters, and surely the hosts would want me to show up covered in barbecue sauce just to save time. Some of them were indeed gunning for an argument, but many actually agreed with me. “Maybe my audience will listen to you,” one host told me before the show, “because they’re sure as hell not listening to me.”

Going public against Trump was also heartening because it allowed me to see how many Republicans are in fact Never Trump themselves. In this sense, at least, to be a Republican in the Age of Trump is exhilarating, if also enervating. To oppose Trump from within the party means a real fight on the terrain of principles and ideas, which is what drew us to the party in the first place.

To me, it feels like the 1980s, which for many of us of a certain age was our introduction to a Republican Party that was about ideas. Supply-siders and evangelicals and Cold Warriors had competing priorities in those years, but there was an underlying consensus that were we all, in some larger and more important sense, on the same side. After the chaos of the 1960s and the stagnation of the 1970s, conservatives finally had a shot at governing, and nothing was off-limits for honest debate among us.

That feeling is in the air once again, especially now that the Republican convention’s Rules Committee has voted to shut down any formal challenge to Trump in Cleveland. This effectively ends fruitless parliamentary maneuvers. Instead, Republicans must now stand in the open and argue, right through to November, over the virtue of the party’s nominee (such as it is) and the quality of his ideas (such as they are).

In the end, to be a Never-Trump Republican is to feel a sense of relief, even of liberation, after the surreal craziness of the primary season. Donald Trump’s hijacking of the party is now no longer a threat but a fact, and to oppose him is to feel normal again by embracing clarity and principle against opportunism and crass huckstering.

Bracing as it is, this is not always a comfortable place to be. Not long ago, an old friend came to visit. We grew up together, and he’s now a working man who made a life in our hometown, eventually owning a home and raising children there. He understood how I felt about Trump, he told me, but “things had to change.” I asked him what, exactly, he would change. This is a question I’ve posed to many of my friends who are Trump supporters, because they’ve done well in postindustrial America and yet still see themselves as disadvantaged.

He admitted that his life had worked out, despite a few bumps along the way. But things are different now, he said. Worse than ever. A crisis, even. Pressed for details, he only shook his head. You could see what he was thinking: that I would never understand, that I’d become one of them, the educated and distant elites whom the common people must teach a lesson by electing Donald Trump, a billionaire scam artist from New York City, as the President of the United States.

I shook my head too. We embraced when he left. He might never know it, but I’ve always been on his side. I still am.
Tom Nichols is a professor and writer who lives in Rhode Island.

John Thompson thinks that reformers should definitely read Paul Tough’s new book, Helping Children Succeed.

They went gaga for his previous book, How Children Succeed. It introduced the concept of grit, and suddenly reformers thought they had the key to success.

Fortunately Paul Tough did not cling to his discredited dogma. He realizes now that grit can’t be taught, and it doesn’t matter nearly as much as attachment and decent nurturing.

John Thompson writes here:

Paul Tough begins Helping Children Succeed by noting that a central aim of school reform has been reducing the disparities between poor and affluent children, but that the achievement gap has not decreased and often it has grown. Governmental and philanthropic efforts have produced some individual successes but “they have led to little or no improvement in the performance of low-income children as a whole.” Moreover, Tough has witnessed another type of collateral damage. Although he doesn’t explicitly attribute it to accountability-driven school reform, Tough has spoken with hundreds of teachers in recent years who “feel burned out by, even desperate over, the frustrations of their work.”

http://www.paultough.com/helping/pdf/Helping-Children-Succeed-Paul-Tough.pdf?pdf=hcs-pdf-landing

Tough later becomes more explicit in concluding that current accountability measures “may be skewing teacher behavior in a way that is on the whole disadvantageous to students.” I wish Tough had connected some dots, linking reforms pushed by the federal government and philanthropic institutions, and that focused on high-poverty schools, to the ways that those schools operate under the “principles of behaviorism rather than self-determination.” However, readers who are not invested in defending output-driven reform are likely to grasp Tough’s point when he concludes that these high-poverty schools:

Are often the schools where administrators feel the most pressure to show positive results on high-stakes standardized tests and where teachers feel the least confident in their (often unruly and underperforming) students’ ability to deal responsibly with more autonomy. And so in these schools, where students are most in need of help internalizing extrinsic motivations, classroom environments often push them in the opposite direction: toward more external control, fewer feelings of competence, and less positive connection with teachers.

Tough doesn’t explicitly name the names of corporate reformers who imposed so much pressure to raise test scores, but it’s hard to read his analysis without questioning whether it ever made sense for technocratic reformers to use the stress of testing to overcome the education legacies of the stress of poverty and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). He cites a 2007 study by Joseph Allen and Robert Pianta which found that middle-class-and-above students:

Were about equally likely to find themselves in a classroom with engaged and interesting instruction (47 percent of students) as in one with basic, repetitive instruction (53 percent of students). But students in schools serving mostly low-income children were almost all (91 percent) in classrooms marked by basic, uninteresting teaching.

Neither did Tough explicitly connect the dots between pervasive basic skills instruction in high-poverty schools and competition-driven reformers who used the stress of competition and the stress of bubble-in test accountability, which increased socio-economic segregation, as a cure for the legacies of racial segregation.

As in his previous work, Tough emphasizes the role of “chronic early stress — what many researchers now call toxic stress,” of trauma and Adverse Childhood Experiences, as well as how early education and aligned and coordinated socio-emotional supports are necessary but not sufficient. Poor children of color need the same engaging, holistic, creative, and respectful pedagogy as affluent kids. Tough cites Edward Deci and Richard Ryan about “three basic human needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.” However, he doesn’t mention a cornerstone of the contemporary school reform, “earned autonomy,” or the theory that autonomy should be bestowed only on principals and (perhaps) educators and students in schools that have proved themselves worthy by posting high test scores. Neither does he stress the cognitive science which explains how market-driven reform undermines relationship-building.

Tough gently chides accountability-driven reform with the words, “Because we tend to talk about school performance using the language of skills, we often default to the skill-development paradigm when considering these qualities.” I can understand why Tough didn’t go there, but I still wish he had reminded readers that virtually everything he writes about the disadvantages that children bring to school would have previously been condemned by data-driven reformers as the “benign bigotry” of low expectations, and excuse-making.

Tough then urged a “different paradigm, admittedly imprecise” that would offer “a more accurate representation of what is happening in effective classrooms.” First, we need to change our policies and institutionalize teamwork in order to address “the developmental journey of children, and particularly children growing up in circumstances of adversity, as a continuum— a single unbroken story from birth through the end of high school.” Tough would “change our way of thinking.” He would educate parents and teachers in better, more positive ways to communicate with children.

Tough stresses Allen’s and Pianta’s research showing how professional development improves outcomes, even when – or especially when – there is no punitive dimensions to the process. Moreover, he stresses intrinsic motivation for learning, not extrinsic rewards and punishments. In fact, this hints at the message that corporate school reformers should take from Tough in terms of accountability regimes. There are times when extrinsic measures and accountability measures are necessary. But, it’s time to reject the reformers’ seemingly unquestioned belief that disincentives must be central components of education policy.

I would be thrilled if reformers would read Tough, repudiate their dogma of test, sort, reward, and punish, and join teachers in making schooling a team effort which stresses the positive. In his discussions with edu-philanthropists, Tough must have gained a sense that this is possible. Perhaps he is borrowing a page from the researchers he cites and limiting himself to a positive tone of voice when communicating with reformers. I hope he’s right, but my sense is that the accountability-driven, output-driven, test-driven, data-driven, competition-driven, punishment-driven components of the contemporary school reform are so deeply engrained in their ideology that we will have to wait until they are defeated before Tough’s approach can be scaled up. But, I believe that day will come and Tough’s analysis will inform the next, more humane generation of reform.

Mike Petrilli, the CEO of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, is a dyed-in-the-wool conservative. He worked in the George W. Bush administration. On school issues, he is a supporter of school choice; the TBF Institute sponsors charter schools in Ohio.

Yet Mike cannot vote for Donald Trump. He doesn’t like Hillary. Not one bit. But he is a #NeverTrump guy to the end.

He writes:

First, I would worry about the immediate impact of such an outcome on America’s growing non-White population, especially our Latino and Muslim fellow citizens.

While plenty of evidence indicates that not all Trump voters share his racist, Islamophobic views, that will be cold comfort to the communities he’s skewered on the campaign trail.

A Trump victory would make many feel attacked and rejected by their countrymen. Already his statements are making some racists feel comfortable spewing hatred in public.

Other Republicans, he knows, will hold their noses, vote for Trump, and hope for the best. Mike won’t take that chance.

Trump is a clear and present danger to our society.

Should a First Lady go sleeveless? Should she show bare arms in public? These questions were raised in 2009 because First Lady Michelle Obama audaciously exposed her arms.

 

The conservative media went berserk!

 

Shocking! Inappropriate! How dare she! Utterly classless!

 

What does the conservative media say about Melania Trump? She bares her arms and her legs. Sometimes she packs heat, which should please the NRA.

 

Actually they don’t say anything at all.

 

Double standard, anyone?

This is funny. Peter Dreier teaches at Occidental College in California.  

Anthony Cody reports here on California’s new school evaluation rubric, using multiple measures.

He writes:

The new system being proposed for California schools was designed by technicians at West Ed, and it creates a matrix of color-coded squares that indicate both the absolute status and the direction of change for ten different categories of data. Thus we get a system with ten categories of information, and seventeen color coded boxes. The categories are:

ELA assessment (K-8) (scores on Common Core aligned SBAC tests)

Math assessment (K-8) (scores on Common Core aligned SBAC tests)

English learner proficiency (scores on CELDT tests)

Graduation rate (9-12)

Chronic absenteeism (K-8)

Suspension Rate & Local Climate Survey

College & Career Readiness (scores on 11th grade Common Core aligned SBAC tests, plus other indicators)

Basics (Teachers, Instructional Materials, Facilities)

Implementation of Academic Standards

Parent Engagement

Cody adds:

In thinking about this proposal, it is important to recall what it is going to replace, which was a single number that was assigned to each school, derived entirely from standardized test scores. We have long argued that education is far more complex, and here we have a system that attempts to grapple with some of that complexity. There are indicators for local climate – derived in part from surveys which measure student engagement – this should be a major focus for every school.

The category “Basics” is the one thing on the list that might be considered an input. How well resourced is the school? What is the level of education and experience of the faculty? These are critically important variables. If the new funding formula is effective at redirecting resources towards schools with the highest needs, we should see improvements in some aspects of this.

I wonder what we might want to include that is not here. What about an indicator of school stability? What is the level of staff and administrator turnover from year to year? Student success correlates positively with stability, so this would be a useful indicator.

I want to back up a bit though, and reflect about what was so problematic about the prior system we had in place. First of all it was only based on test scores, and performance on those scores was largely determined by the income and parental education level of the students that attended the school. Thus the API score was more an indicator of affluence than of school quality. In this proposed system, this will remain true for all the indicators associated with test scores.

He suggests that the new measures are not immune from Campbell’s Law, which holds:

The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.

In other words, educators will be likely to game the system if their rating depends on the system.

Cody asks, do these measures promote the conditions that encourage student growth and love of learning?

I ask, why are we obsessed with measuring schools and giving them grades, whether one number, one letter, or many numbers and letters?

I know of no evidence that these rating systems improve schools, unless they are self-evaluation tools that help teachers and administrators review their strengths and weaknesses. But why rate and rank schools, other than to promote school choice?

The Koch brothers hate Donald Trump, but they love Mike Pence. The Koch brothers had supported Scott Walker in the Republican primaries. When he sank like a stone, they made clear their distaste for Trump. But now Trump has chosen a politician they admire: a religious and economic conservative.

The billionaire brothers, who run a network of donors to their vast infrastructure of Republican-allied political operations, so loathe Trump that Charles Koch described the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump as voting for either “cancer or a heart attack.” David H. Koch, meanwhile, is reported by Politico to have withdrawn his $1 million donation to the Republican National Convention because of the party’s new standard-bearer.

Having built no ground operation of his own, Trump desperately needs the ready-made, plug-and-play infrastructure built by the Kochs, the mightiest entity of which is Americans for Prosperity, whose president just loves, loves him some Mike Pence. And why wouldn’t he? Phillips’ boss, David Koch, has given some $300,000 to Pence’s campaigns, according to the website Follow the Money.

Pence is the hard-line Evangelical conservative who signed legislation legalizing discrimination against gay people in Indiana, making it okay to refuse service if your religion opposes homosexuality.

Pence built his reputation opposing LGBT rights and abortion rights.

Pence fought to defend the state’s right-to-work laws (initiated by his predecessor Mitch Daniels) and opposes raising the minimum wage.

Pence, of course, is a vocal supporter of charter schools and vouchers, anything but public schools. Trump too loves charter schools, so at least we know they agree on that issue. They both want to privatize American education and abolish teachers unions.

Trump is indeed a card. Maybe the joker. He has been married three times and has had countless girl friends. He owned casinos. He has gay friends and enjoys the friendship of Elton John and Caitlyn Jenner. His daughter is married to an Orthodox Jew.

And his running mate is a hard-right social conservative who opposes all the things that Trump practices in his own life.

Go figure.

The National Basketball Association is taking its all-star game from Charlotte, North Carolina, to protest that state’s anti-LGBT
legislation.

 

Jgm

Take that, Tea Party!lollollll