Archives for category: Hoax

Angie Sullivan, kindergarten teacher in Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada, works in a school that is eligible for “turnaround.” All the teachers were called for interviews. Here is her report on what happened:

 

 

The CCSD turnaround school selection process is a nonsensical destructive monster. They claim school turnaround is based on data – and this is a lie. This CCSD “empire” needs to be reviewed and reconsidered.

 

At a time when 30,000 CCSD students do not have a licensed teacher – the highly qualified fully licensed teachers at my school were “interviewed” yesterday. The main product of the turnaround interview: scaring real teachers who have been under threat of interview since December 15th.

 

There are plenty of schools in the district to “turnaround” since many places have only long term substitutes as staff. Opportunties for “take-over” are plentiful.

 

There is no good reason to threaten to implode a fully staffed CCSD school by interviewing us all day.

 

I was interviewed last year and this year. The strange turnaround interview questions are all about assessment and data driven instruction. I understand from the questioning – someone powerful thinks data is learning.

 

I will state here – it is not. Kids are more than a score. If the focus is only data – a full education is not obtained. Period. Many, many things are learned by students in my classroom everyday which will never be measured but are essential. Data is a tool – one tool. That is all. And computer data is only one snap-shot in time and measure what computer data can measure. That is all. Data will only measure a small piece of learning.

 

For those of you who do not know what turnaround is . . .

 

The district takes a school with low standardized scores and removes the principal and interviews the staff. Some staff are allowed to stay but many teachers have to find a new place to work. It implodes the school. Then “turns the school around” by over-testing and micro-managing the staff and students. It is not proven to be effective. If you study results of turnaround schools across the United States – it has not been a success. It is proven to be scary and disruptive – removing teachers and dispacing them. It is primarily used to re-organize schools with students and parents who cannot effectively advocate for themselves. Children of color re-organized into robotic scary testing scripted education environments. At a time when the teachers were fighting for pay and insurance, “turnaround” CCSD administrators were at the school board asking for another test for African American students. The turnaround focus is not on finding and retaining geat teachers or caring about students – the focus is improving testing scores.

 

Having gone through the turnaround interview process twice now – I am convinced it is most effective at targeting veteran teachers and harrassing them.

 

Why do I say this?

 

My school has not been able to use standardized tests for two years. We were a pilot school for SBAC in 2014 and it didn’t run. Then last year 2015 when SBAC was implemented for all Nevada – SBAC failed across the state. Our last valid standardized testing was three years ago 2013 because that was when the computers could run the test.

 

My school has no current standardized data.

 

Turnaround is based on standardized testing – but the testing hasn’t happened.

 

I was interviewed because of testing my school did three years ago in 2013? Mysterious data qualified my school for turnaround.

 

Some of the other assessments that could have been used are questionable as far as accuracy – I mentioned this openly to the interviewers. My direct langauage was: They are crap because they are.

 

There is an current environment in which we are not encouraged to openly question the validity of the tests we are mandated to use – but we should. Just because someone spent a lot of money doesn’t meanwhile it is a worthwhile test.

 

My school keeps having to interview because my school computers did not run the test in 2014 and 2015?

 

I kept asking at the interview which data was being used because we haven’t been able to test our kids for two years. We have a lot of data from other types of tests. Which mystery data was driving the turnaround selection process? No one could tell me why my school was selected or which data my school “failed” to be selected for turnaround.

 

Selection of my school to interview this year was random.

 

Admin used the words data to justify harrassing my school staff and no one was supposed to question. I am very angry. Being randomly interviewed based on events in 2013 is harrassment. And this was the answer I was given when I asked.

 

The turnaround interview team who was sent did not know why they were there. I asked them.

 

The turnaround interview team asks sterile weird questions about data and assessment and evalution. I told them many important things that would be helpful if people cared – but the computerized form did not allow for them to record this input. If it did not fit into the computerized interview slot – it was rejected and not needed. This was not an interview where I could particpate.

 

Some of the questions were encouraging staff to disparage each other. I don’t appreciate interviews that ask me to talk badly about the people I work with. Schools are a community and teachers should help each other.

 

Some of the questions were asking me to disparage my administrator. I felt like asking if I needed to invoke Weingarten Rights and get a union representative to help me. My adminstrator is excellent because kids come first.

 

Some of the questions were encouraging staff to evaluate each other by wandering around other classrooms. Teachers should not be encouraged to “spy” on each other – it destroys a schools environment when this happens. We learn best from each other but not if staff are encourage to report so teachers will be punished.

 

Some of the questions were degrading and insulting. Yes or No questions with no win-win answers. Totally frustrating because teaching is not black and white.

 

What are the components of an effective lesson? This old teacher would frankly state there are many effective ways to instruct – which one do you want? What subject are you teaching? What is the goal of the lesson? Again – no one right answer.

 

I consider the whole turnaround interview process harrassment. It felt like an attack on my due process and like I was set up to fail. The interview people were nice enough but sent to fill in the blanks not to help my school. The scare tactic of interviewing teaching staff with decades of experience is not nice. It is bullying and union-busting. Period.

 

I think the decision has already been made somewhere far away from my classroom – but they were instructed to torture us anyhow to prove some point or meet a random goal.

 

None of the questions asked about kids. I offered but it didn’t fit in the blank.

 

This interview was not about caring or authentic instruction which is essential to real learning. This interview could not provide any real information to anyone about what actually goes on in my classroom.

 

It was an investigation about my peers, my principal, and my data.

 

I feel like my union representation should have been there.

 

___________________

In summary:

 

Turnaround being data driven is a lie. It is random and scary. Any school could be selected at anytime and my school proves this. Current CCSD turnaround interviews are terrible data too – since the computer only allows certain answers to be recorded.

 

The district has many, many places which are ripe to “turnaround” because they are decimated already. Threatening to destroy my school so someone powerful can check off a box somewhere for money is ridiculous.

 

The computers not working at my school – this is a problem that is not solved by interviewing my staff. My school does not have the tools to give anyone reliable data.

 

Everyone needs to be asking frank questions about the turnaround selection process and this empire as a whole. CCSD turnaround grabbing a school like mine to interview makes absolutely zero sense unless something outside of valid data is actually the basis for being considered.

 

The CCSD turnaround monster is gobbling up real teachers and students. Is it making progress according to its own teribble strict data collection?

 

Someone needs to be asking questions. Big ones.

 

And I will state the obvious – we are short licensed highly qualified teachers.

 

Even on my worst day, I’m better than a long term sub who doesn’t have a college degree. You get rid of people like me and replace me with whom?

 

What are we doing?

 

Crazytown. Stressful. Waste of time and money.

The Tampa Bay Times published an editorial expressing their disgust with the wheeling and dealing of charter school operators. This suggests an awakening. Enough is enough. Thanks to Jeb Bush, Florida is one of the charter-friendliest states in the nation. It has more than 600 charters. They open and close like day-lilies.

 

The editorial board writes:

 

Florida has invested heavily in privately run charter schools for years, and the payoff for taxpayers has been uneven at best. While some successful charter schools fill particular needs in local communities, too many have failed and research shows they have not outperformed traditional public schools in the state. Taxpayers also have lost millions in construction costs and other capital investments when charter schools have closed, and state lawmakers should revisit the oversight and funding for these schools.

 
The state has lost as much as $70 million in money for construction, rent and other costs when charter schools have closed over the last 15 years, a recent Associated Press analysis found. In Broward County, 19 now-closed charter schools received $16.5 million. In Hillsborough County, 17 now-closed charter schools received more than $5.4 million. In Pasco County, three now-closed charter schools received more than $900,000, and in Pinellas County three received almost $550,000. In Miami-Dade County, the Liberty City Charter that Jeb Bush helped establish before he ran for governor in 1998 received more than $1 million in capital money from the state before it closed with financial problems. Why should taxpayers be shouldering such financial risk and eating these losses for privately run schools?

 

 

It would be one thing if traditional public schools were flush with cash with no need for new construction or maintenance. In fact, the state’s 67 school districts received no new construction money for three years before finally dividing a modest $50 million last year (a handful of rural counties got another $59.7 million). Those facilities are used by more than 2.7 million students, yet far fewer charter schools that served about 230,000 students split $75 million. This year traditional schools and charter schools each received $50 million, and Gov. Rick Scott recommends public schools and charter schools each get $75 million for construction and maintenance for 2016-17. But a 50-50 split of the money is hardly fair. Pinellas County schools alone have more than $400 million in construction and capital needs over the next five years, yet the district has received just $8.1 million in construction and maintenance money from the state over the last five years.

 

 

A major new report from the progressive One Wisconsin Institute finds that the right-wing Bradley Foundation spent more than $108 million, working with 130 partner groups, to privatize public schools in Wisconsin between 2005 and 2014. During the same period, the state’s public schools experienced dramatic budget cuts.

 

Key findings of the updated “P Is For Payoff” report include:

 

 

Bradley Foundation head Michael Grebe, a political insider who chaired Gov. Walker’s presidential and gubernatorial campaigns, continues to orchestrate a massive propaganda campaign to advance the privatization of public education;

 
An analysis of IRS Form 990 records and Bradley Foundation reports reveals over 130 organizations supportive of their education privatization agenda and working to advance their cause have received over $108 million from 2005 through 2014;

 
Bradley’s tactics have continued to evolve, now featuring litigation to advance their privatization agenda and intimidate opponents. Leading the effort is the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty which since its inception in 2011 has been larded with over $2 million from Bradley;

 
According to the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, the voucher program will cost Wisconsin taxpayers over $1.1 billion from 2011 through the end of the 2015–17 budget cycle. Meanwhile, a new report found that Wisconsin schools have suffered the 4th biggest cuts in in the nation through 2014.

 

The Bradley Foundation is one of the nation’s most active reform organizations. It hopes to reform public education out of existence. Watch how skillfully the Bradley Foundation followed the usual reformer script:

 

Original research by One Wisconsin Institute in 2013 first exposed the Bradley Foundation as a leading player in the campaign to gut public education and promote the unaccountable, radical privatization of K-12 education. The Milwaukee-based group spent millions to support organizations, think tanks, journalists and right-wing academics. They engaged in a campaign that manufactured a crisis, singled out their enemies, generated a cure, justified their scheme with pseudo-science, broadcast their message through the media, helped elect politicians to advance their agenda and kept them in line with high-powered lobbyists and well-funded pressure campaigns. [Emphasis added by me.]

 

Ross concluded, “Wisconsin families and public schools are left paying the price as billions of dollars that could have been used for public education are siphoned off for the Bradley Foundation’s ideologically driven experiment. Until a majority of policy makers are willing to stand up to the Bradley Foundation’s millions, Wisconsin’s tradition of great public schools will remain under assault.”

Nevada’s new voucher program is the most radical in the nation. Of course, it is not called a “voucher” program, but “education savings accounts.” A rose by any other name. A stinkweed by any other name. You can call a stinkweed a rose, but it is still a stinkweed. The ESA will accomplish the same purpose as vouchers, by transferring public funds to private and religious schools.

 

Since the Republicans took control of the Legislature, school choice has been their top priority in education. This is their answer to the financial woes of Nevada’s underfunded public schools.

 

Says the article, “Nevada’s public schools are in the toilet. The Silver State consistently ranks near the bottom when it comes to education spending. Things got so dreary in the mid-2000’s that the state even amended its constitution with “Nevada Fund Education First,” a measure to ensure the education budget is determined before all other items. Even worse, Education Week ranked Nevada dead last in 2014 in a “Chance for Success” analysis that combined data on student achievement, state spending, and standards and accountability.” 

 

But why fund the schools when you can pass a school choice measure instead? The bonus is that you can call yourself a reformer as you are drawing even more money away from the schools that the majority of the state’s children attend.

 

Funny, the Nevada state constitution bars the use of public money for religious schools. Two-thirds of the private schools in Nevada are religious schools.

 

The Nevada Constitution states that, “No public funds of any kind or character whatever, State, County or Municipal, shall be used for sectarian purpose.” Anything ambiguous about that?

 

Nevada law also states in NRS 387.045 that, “No portion of the public school funds shall in any way be segregated, divided or set apart for the use or benefit of any sectarian or secular society or association.” Anything ambiguous about that?

 

Remember when conservatives used to be “strict constructionists” of state and federal Constitutions?

 

But that was then. Now, conservatives, led by ALEC, have set their sights on privatizing public education.

 

Don’t expect vouchers to reduce the achievement gaps between rich and poor: “It doesn’t promote better schooling for low-income [kids],” said Martin Carnoy, a professor at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Education. “It’s going to benefit new private-school providers and current private-school providers…It’s welfare for the rich.”

Robert Pondiscio raises an issue that casts doubt on the “higher-than-ever” graduation rate. How much of the increase is due to fraudulent “credit recovery” courses?

Credit recovery is undefined, but it generally means any course that enables students to gain credit for a course they failed or never completed.

Some phony courses enable students to gain credit for a semester or a full year by taking classes for a few weeks and then submitting a paper that they may or may not have written.

Some phony courses are offered online. Such courses may be dumbed down. I have heard of tests with true-false questions and tests where students could retake them until they got a passing score.

Not long ago, the the NCAA withdrew accreditation from a score of K12, Inc. high schools because their tests were so simple. An official told me that in some online courses, the students skipped the instruction and went right to the tests, which required only the skill of test-taking.

Raising the graduation rate in such ways cheats students. It should be monitored and banned.

The Florida Education Association is suing to block the implementation of a program that gives $10,000 bonuses to teachers with high SAT or ACT scores (taken in high school), but denies the bonuses to regular teachers unless they can not only produce their high school scores (20 years ago? 30 years ago?) but are rated “highly effective.” At the time the bill was passed, even some Republican legislators called it “the worst bill of the year.” It never had a hearing in the Senate. Its author wrote the bill after he read Amanda Ripley’s “The Smartest Kids in the World.”

 
December 21, 2015 Contact: Mark Pudlow 850.201.3223 or 850.508.9756

 
FEA files discrimination charges against
Best and Brightest teacher bonus program

 
The Florida Education Association (FEA) filed age and race discrimination charges today against the Florida Department of Education and the state’s school districts over implementation of the controversial Best and Brightest bonus program that was slipped into the state budget at the close of June’s special session of the Florida Legislature. FEA filed the charges with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Florida Commission on Human Relations.

 

“Too many high-quality teachers in Florida were denied access to this bonus program because of the unfair and discriminatory rules and short timeline set up by lawmakers,” said FEA President Joanne McCall. “This bonus plan wasn’t thought out very well and wasn’t properly vetted in the Legislature and that has resulted in many good teachers unfairly denied access to this bonus.”

 

In the complaint, FEA notes that the Legislature appropriated more than $44 million for salary bonuses of a maximum of $10,000 each to teachers who received an evaluation of “highly effective” and who scored in the 80th percentile or above on their college admission test, either the SAT (Scholastic Assessment Test) or the ACT (American College Testing). The law exempts all first-year teachers from the “highly effective” requirement.

 

The complaint says this bonus program discriminates against teachers who are older than 40 and minority teachers, providing these reasons:

 

· Because no percentile data is available from ACT or SAT for teachers who took these tests before 1972, such teachers are disqualified from receiving the bonus.

· The October 1 deadline for submitting applications for the bonus further discriminates against teachers older than 40 years old, because a disproportionate number of them took the ACT and SAT many years ago and were unable to get access to their scores from the testing programs before the deadline.

 

· The exemption of first-year teachers from the requirement that they provide evidence of being rated “highly effective” under the respondent employers’ performance evaluation system further discriminates against and has a disparate impact on teachers older than 40 years old. First-year teachers are overwhelmingly younger than 40 years of age.

 

· The bonus program also discriminates against African-American and Hispanic teachers by using the SAT and ACT as qualifiers. It has been well-established in the courts and peer-reviewed scholarship that the SAT and ACT are a racially and culturally biased tests that disparately impact test-takers on the basis of African-American and Hispanic race.

The complaint also notes that the SAT and ACT were not designed for measuring teacher performance, for use in granting salary bonuses, or for any other aspect of the Best and Brightest bonus program.

 

FEA is seeking to make sure all qualified teachers are able to get access to the bonus money if they are qualified.

 

The Florida Education Association is the state’s largest association of professional employees, with more than 140,000 members. FEA represents pre K-12 teachers, higher education faculty, educational staff professionals, students at our colleges and universities preparing to become teachers and retired education employees.

Stephen Dyer, a policy analyst for Innovation Ohio, wonders why Governor Kasich wants to replace the low-performing public schools of Youngstown, Ohio, with charter schools, since the existing charter schools in that city have worse performance than the public schools of that city, in every subject and in every grade.

 

Wait, there was one exception where charter schools in Youngstown had higher performance than public schools:

 

Youngstown outperforms the average charter school in Mahoning County in 19 out of 20 proficiency assessments that measure English, math, science and social studies. On average, the district did better than local charters by nearly 14 percent. The only category that charters performed better was in 8th grade Math, and that differential was only two-tenths of one percent.

 

Why invest millions of dollars expanding a sector that gets worse results? Why not work with parents and communities to improve the public school system?

 

Innovation Ohio compared the two sectors here:

 

COLUMBUS – A comparison of the new state proficiency test data shows that Youngstown-area charter schools based in Mahoning County perform far worse than the Youngstown City School District, which was designated by the state as academically distressed. The new data, released by the Ohio Department of Education, shows preliminary statewide results for the new PARCC tests.

“These findings should be a wake up call to policymakers that diverting more Youngstown money and more Youngstown students into failing charter schools is not the answer,” said Innovation Ohio Education Policy Fellow Stephen Dyer. “It’s clear that the path to turning around Youngtown schools must be more nuanced than simply creating more privately run charter schools.”

Youngstown outperforms the average charter school in Mahoning County in 19 out of 20 proficiency assessments that measure English, math, science and social studies. On average, the district did better than local charters by nearly 14 percent. The only category that charters performed better was in 8th grade Math, and that differential was only two-tenths of one percent.

In June 2015, the Ohio General Assembly passed a controversial plan to eliminate the publicly elected school board in Youngstown and replace them with an appointed commission and CEO whose powers would include the ability to close schools, change contracts and nearly everything in between.

One concerning outcome of this plan is that Youngstown public education system could be turned over to more publicly funded, privately run charter schools. According to news reports and the state’s grant application, Ohio officials planned on using a substantial portion of the controversial $71 million federal grant it received to increase the number of charter schools in Youngstown. The most logical place to start this expansion would be upscaling the charters already in Mahoning County.

“The comparison of this data lays bare the idea that more privatized schools are the answer in Youngstown,” said Dyer. “If we want to improve educational outcomes in Youngstown, we have to have meaningful community and parent input on common-sense approaches that will serve the children of Youngstown with the best possible educations. Pouring millions into the pockets of the current crop of Mahoning County charters would only serve to reward their performance failures.”