Archives for category: International

Nicholas Kristof wrote an article defending Bridge International Academies’ for-profit schools in Africa. I disagreed with him here. He responded on Twitter by saying, if you want to judge, go visit a government school. His article asserted that when government doesn’t do its job, private enterprise should step in.

A reader calling him/herself “NYC Public School Parent” distilled Kristof’s arguments and shows why his solution is no solution. Please feel free to send this commentary to Kristof on Twitter:

“Shorter Nicholas Kristof:

“The government has failed to carry out its mission to teach all students. So I am going to promote a private corporation offering to teach the richest students who can afford the fees and ignore how many students drop out and then marvel at the “studies” that show amazing success.

“Shorter Nicholas Kristof:

“I support Trumpcare replacing Obamacare which has failed to make every American healthy. I am truly astonished and in awe of those private insurers who are willing — for a fee– to insure any American who is healthy and I won’t notice that when they are no longer healthy they get sick. Because I get lots of freebies and invited to rich people’s parties for pretending that allowing a private corporation to pick off the cheapest to teach or cheapest to insure people is a marvelous success!

“Shorter Nicholas Kristof:

“When there is government corruption, it is better to allow the private corporations to get rich. That’s why I believe that Trump’s corruption of the federal government should demand a return to private corporations being allowed to run rampant with no regulations.

“According to Kristof’s ridiculous premise, the answer to Trump’s corruption is to allow private enterprise to run rampant. Because actually supporting the democratic regulations that would prevent such corruption is not something the rich people he likes to hang out with believe and he is happy to agree when it comes to education. He cannot even see how much his piece is what Trump himself believes. When the government is corrupt, the best “fix” is allow private corporations to do whatever they want, says Nicholas Kristof and the entire Republican party.”

Dutch journalist Maria Hengeveld reviewed the claims and business plans of Bridge International Academies and found much not to like. She is clearly irked that the Dutch Ministry of Affairs has invested in this plan.

Shannon May, a founder, says that BIA is all about “social justice.”

Hengeveld adds:

“And for profit. According to her husband, the “global education crisis” is worth about US$51 billion a year. In 2013, Kimmelman explained in a presentation how, for less than US$5 in tuition fees per pupil per month, Bridge could grow “into a billion-dollar company” and “radically change the world.” Earlier he and May promised that they could do this for US$4 per month per pupil.

“Big dreams and even bigger promises. However, my research and research done by others shows:

*that their quality claims have not been supported by any independent research;
*that the education provided turns out to be more expensive than promised;
*that underpaid teachers have to recruit additional pupils;
*that they have dismissed criticism from non-governmental organizations and trade unions;
*that critics are silenced;
*that a PR offensive has been launched in order to continue selling the education services provided.

“Furthermore, €1.4 million of Dutch taxpayers’ money has been poured into the company. Dutch support was provided because Lilianne Ploumen of the country’s Labor Party, currently caretaker Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation, believes that Bridge uses an “innovative and cost-effective education model, which is able to keep tuition costs per child down.”

“How do you improve education, make it cheaper and also make it profitable? May and Kimmelman have come up with an “innovative pedagogical approach.” The possibility of setting up a few thousand standardized schools within a few years is to be the first innovation. The profit made from each school may be low, but once half a million pupils are recruited — the number of enrollments that Bridge needs to break even — business really takes off. The plan is to reach two million pupils by 2018 and 10 million by 2025.

“This rapid growth would be made possible by using Bridge’s second innovative method, namely its very own approach to the role of teachers and their salary scale. May believes that “qualities such as kindness” are more important than diplomas and this allows for significant savings. In Kenya, where the starting salary for qualified teachers is around US$116 dollars a month, Bridge teachers usually earn less than US$100 a month. However, as Kimmelman explains in a presentation, teachers can earn bonuses by recruiting new students themselves. Marketing is a core task for both teachers and school principals.

“A third innovative aspect, explains May, is the smart use of technology. It works like this: a team of “master teachers” designs digital “master lessons” that are so detailed that all a teacher needs to do is read them from a special Bridge tablet (know as the Nook).”

She continues with a close review of BIA’s claims. It has been showered with awards, but it has run into considerable controversy. Some at the UN have even warned that it is a prelude to privatization of what should be universal public education. Maybe more than a prelude.

In this column, Nicholas Kristof defends the takeover of schooling in Africa by Bridge International Academies.

Kristof says that since the government failed to provide basic education, it is welcome news that BIA is doing it, for a fee. The investors include Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.

He writes that American liberals should get over their squeamishness about privatization and for-profit operation of what are supposed to be public schools.

I think Kristof is wrong because BIA is a short-term fix, not a solution. It cannot possibly educate the hundreds of millions of children whose parents can’t afford to pay. By providing this “fix,” the government are relieved of their obligation to establish a universal, free public school system with qualified teachers. If teachers are sleeping in their classrooms, who should take responsibility? Who should supervise them and make sure that every child has a decent education? That is the government’s job. Addressing the systemic problems of low-quality public education would accomplish far more than creating a for-profit corporation to offer scripted lessons to some. BIA is not a long-term solution, and surely Kristof knows this. Why is he willing to settle for such a bad deal for the children in impoverished nations? This is a lifeboat strategy: instead of righting the ship, throw life preservers to a few (at a price).

Kristof chastises progressives and union leaders for their hostility to BIA:

“I’ve followed Bridge for years, my wife and I wrote about it in our last book, and the concerns are misplaced. Bridge has always lost money, so no one is monetizing children. In fact, it’s a start-up that tackles a social problem in ways similar to a nonprofit, but with for-profit status that makes it more sustainable and scalable.

“More broadly, the world has failed children in poor countries. There have been global campaigns to get more children in school, but that isn’t enough. The crucial metric isn’t children attending school, but children learning in school.”

Did he read Peg Tyre’s article in the New York Times magazine about BIA?

Although Kristof presents BIA as a grand venture in philanthropy, it was billed by its founders as a start-up that had the potential to grow into a billion-dollar company.

Tyre wrote:

“Bridge operates 405 schools in Kenya, educating children from preschool through eighth grade, for a fee of between $54 and $126 per year, depending on the location of the school. It was founded in 2007 by May and her husband, Jay Kimmelman, along with a friend, Phil Frei. From early on, the founders’ plans for the world’s poor were audacious. ‘‘An aggressive start-up company that could figure out how to profitably deliver education at a high quality for less than $5 a month could radically disrupt the status quo in education for these 700 million children and ultimately create what could be a billion-dollar new global education company,’’ Kimmelman said in 2014. Just as titans in Silicon Valley were remaking communication and commerce, Bridge founders promised to revolutionize primary-school education. ‘‘It’s the Tesla of education companies,’’ says Whitney Tilson, a Bridge investor and hedge-fund manager in New York who helped found Teach for America and is a vocal supporter of charter schools.

“The Bridge concept — low-cost private schools for the world’s poorest children — has galvanized many of the Western investors and Silicon Valley moguls who learn about the project. Bill Gates, the Omidyar Network, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and the World Bank have all invested in the company; Pearson, the multinational textbook-and-assessment company, has done so through a venture-capital fund. Tilson talked about the company to Bill Ackman, the hedge-fund manager of Pershing Square, which ultimately invested $5.8 million through its foundation. By early 2015, Bridge had secured more than $100 million, according to The Wall Street Journal.

“The fact that Bridge was a for-profit company gave pause to some NGOs that work in developing countries. But others reasoned that in the last decade, for-profit companies backed by what are called social-impact investors — people and institutions that make money by doing good — had successfully brought about important innovations, like solar-power initiatives and low-cost health clinics, in poor countries. Bridge’s model relied on similar investors but was even more ambitious in its dreams of scale. ‘‘There is a great demand for this,’’ May said in an M.I.T. video from 2016. Some of the company’s backers, she said, were ‘‘not social-impact investors,’’ continuing that ‘‘it was straight commercial capital who saw, ‘Wow, there are a couple billion people who don’t have anyone selling them what they want.’ ’’ For a 2010 case study on the company, Kimmelman told the Harvard Business School that return on investment could be 20 percent annually.”

So, some investors were making philanthropic investments (what’s a few millions to Gates or Zuckerberg?), but the founders imagined a company returning 20 percent annually. BIA currently has schools operating in Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda and is opening in India. It planned to go public this year. “By 2016, they planned to enroll more than 750,000 students, at which point they would be breaking even. By 2022, they estimated that they would educate 4.1 million students and generate $470 million in revenue.”

Tyre shows that many families can’t afford BIA’s fees. If the parents don’t pay, the students are sent home.

Kristoff says, so what, as long as the children are learning. He cites a study commissioned and released by BIA.

BIA released a study called “The Bridge Effect,” which showed the success of its model. Kristoff cites it as evidence of success. Tyre took it to two independent experts, who found it inconclusive because 50% of the BIA students dropped out during the course of the study.

“I asked two experts in statistics — Nat Malkus, from the American Enterprise Institute, and Bryan Graham, from the University of California, Berkeley — to help me evaluate the findings. “This is good evidence of positive effects,” says Malkus. Both pointed out that the study’s results are complicated by Bridge’s high dropout rate: While a third of public-school students dropped out, nearly half of Bridge students left during the study and were unable to take the final assessment. ‘‘The high attrition rate should give one pause,’’ Malkus says, ‘‘when considering the full effect of the program.’’ Graham, co-editor of The Review of Economics and Statistics, says that ‘‘organizations are under a lot of pressure to do these studies and ‘prove’ their program works. Reasonable and informed people could look at the information in that report and come to widely different conclusions about the effect of Bridge on academic achievement as they measure it. It’s information, just not especially actionable information.”

“Another area of achievement that Bridge trumpets is the success of its students on the eighth-grade K.C.P.E. test. In 2015, according to Bridge, 63 percent of Bridge students who had been there for at least two years passed, compared with 49 percent of Kenyan students nationwide. But it’s unclear whether Bridge’s approach will be sustainable as the company grows. Former Bridge employees told me that in preparation for the 2015 exam, those on track to get a lower score were asked to repeat a year. The rest were taken to a residential cram school and prepped for the test by teachers who flew in from the United States.”

Tyre reports that BIA has had trouble hiring and retaining teachers. Turnover was high. Then BIA signed them to two-year contracts and warned that they would be docked the cost of training if they left before two years. That reduced churn. Teachers read their lessons from a script on a tablet called a Nook. The teachers are “managed” by text messages or robocalls.

“Some Bridge staff members described what they saw as a stark contrast between their hopes for Bridge and a grittier reality. One school administrator, an academy manager, described how the pressure to ensure that parents made their payments on time was disheartening. ‘‘I didn’t realize how hard it would be to talk to parents,’’ he said. ‘‘They’re ill, they’re out of work, they had a fire. No one is in the house who’s making any money. How can they pay when they have no money for food?’’ And working at Bridge, teachers said, can disrupt a career: Instructors are required to sign an employment agreement that includes a noncompete clause that prevents them from working at other nearby schools for a year after they leave.

“In the public and informal Kenyan schools I visited, school administrators welcomed my impromptu drop-ins warmly, showed me their classrooms and introduced me to their teachers, who spoke frankly about their challenges. Bridge teachers and managers say that sort of openness is not allowed. At some Bridge schools I visited unescorted, staff members said that they would need to contact superiors if I didn’t leave.”

The most peculiar part of Kristof’s article is his revenge to the situation of for-profit schools in the U.S., most of which are notoriously corrupt and thrive by using public funds for lavish marketing.

Kristof writes:

“But my travels have left me deeply skeptical that government schools in many countries can be easily cured of corruption, patronage and wretched governance, and in the meantime we fail a generation of children.

“In the United States, criticisms of for-profit schools are well grounded, for successive studies have found that vouchers for American for-profit schools hurt children at least initially (although the evidence also shows that in the U.S., well-run charters can help pupils).”

I don’t think Nick reads much about education, only what he sees in his own newspaper, although he clearly missed Peg Tyre’s article.

If he thinks governments are corrupt, he should take a look at the for-profit charter sector in the U.S. Furthermore his reference to voucher schools is wrong. The latest research shows that students who enroll in voucher schools (whether for-profit or not) lose ground academically, but if they persist for four years, they catch up to their peers in public schools. How is that helping children? If the same money were spent reducing class sizes in their public schools, all students would benefit.

Peg Tyre, veteran journalist, published a balanced and well-written article about Bridge International Academies in the New York Times Magazine. BIA operates numerous low-fee, for-profit schools in Africa and  its investors hope to spread its brand across the world.

Investors in Bridge include Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Pearson, and other familiar names.

The founders had no education experience but they had experience creating successful tech start-ups. They wanted to disrupt education in the manner of Uber and AirBNB, the leaders of the new tech-based economy. They raised $100 million. Their schools cost parents a few dollars a month. Teachers deliver scripted lessons, written in the U.S. and delivered daily to them on an iPad. BIA opens its schools in poor countries where the quality of public education is low. They hope to do good while doing well.

Critics, including me, see BIA as a way that these countries slough off their responsility to provide education by outsourcing it. Critics see it as neocolonialism. Huge numbers of families can’t afford to pay the low fees. Kids are kept out of school when their parents don’t pay.

BIA was supposed to generate huge revenues. However, it is losing $1 million a month.

That is the only metric that counts. If they don’t turn a profit, they will close shop and move on.

Education International, which represents teachers unions around the world, issued a bulletin about disturbing developments in Liberia, which threaten freedom of research about the performance of corporate outsourced schools.

EI wrote in a letter I received:

“As you would be aware, just over 12 months ago, in an unprecedented move, the Government of Liberia announced its intention to out-source its entire primary and pre-primary school system to Bridge International Academies in 5 tranches.

“As a result of considerable opposition to the announcement, the Government announced a one year pilot program called Partnership Schools Liberia (PSL) involving 8 actors operating 93 schools.

“At the time of the announcement, the Government gave a number of assurances, including that the pilot would be subject to a rigorous evaluation.

“Approximately 6 weeks ago, less than 6 months into the “trial”, the Minister announced that he was preparing to announce a scale-up of the PSL without waiting for the outcome of the evaluation.

“On 18 May, in a further disturbing move, the Minister blocked an independent research team from the University of Wisconsin from conducting qualitative research into the PSL by denying them access to schools.”

Here is the letter:

AN OPEN LETTER TO GEORGE WERNER, MINISTER OF EDUCATION, LIBERIA

We are writing to express deep concern about both your reluctance to permit independent research of the Partnership Schools for Liberia pilot programme and your rush to expand the pilot before evidence is available.

Education International, with support from ActionAid, commissioned an independent research team from the University of Wisconsin to conduct qualitative research which was designed to complement the Randomised Control Trial evaluation that is already underway in Liberia with the Center for Global Development (CGD) in partnership with Innovations for Poverty Action (IPA). We understand that, having indicated your support for this complementary research, you withdrew that support at the last moment (just as the researchers were due to fly to Liberia) and will not now permit the researchers to access the pilot schools.

The Partnership Schools for Liberia pilot has a very high profile internationally and warrants detailed study. We understand that a lot has been invested in the RCT evaluation, but no single evaluation, however well-designed, will ever provide a comprehensive picture of a pilot programme as complex as the one you have initiated. By blocking independent research you are depriving the academic and policy community important opportunities to fully understand this pilot.

It is our view that permitting and facilitating independent academic inquiry is a precondition for transparency and good governance, particularly when you are seeking to challenge established practices and norms.

You will be aware of the widespread concerns about how Bridge International Academies blocked independent research in Uganda and have failed to allow external evaluation of their schools whilst making bold claims for their success based on their own internal data. This is very poor practice and we would be very concerned if the Ministry of Education in Liberia played a role in extending such practices.

Our second major area of concern relates to your plans to scale up the initial pilot programme even before findings from the evaluation and research come through. You have previously gone on record stressing that any scaling up would be subject to the findings from the initial pilot programme (over three years) but from the latest reports it seems you are now planning a significant expansion from September 2017, without any of those findings being ready. This flies in the face of evidence-based policy making and suggests that you are only paying lip-service to the importance of research and evaluation. Such a move makes the pilot programme appear to be one driven largely by ideology. Indeed it undermines the RCT evaluation as well as the value of any complementary research.

We urge you to move away from this present damaging path, to reassert the importance of using evidence to inform your policy choices and to commit publically to supporting and facilitating independent research at the start of the new school year in September.

Yours sincerely

Alan Singer writes here about the global ambitions and activities of Pearson, the giant British corporation that seeks to dominate education.

He writes:

“Powerful forces are at work shaping global education in both the North Atlantic core capitalist nations and regions historically referred to as the Third World. Neoliberal business philosophies and practices promoted by corporations and their partner foundations, supported by international organizations, financiers, and bankers, and welcomed, or at least tolerated by compliant governments, are trying to transform education from a government responsibility and social right into investment opportunities. They defend their actions as reforms designed to increase educational equity and achieve higher standards; where possible they seek out local community support. But the underlying motivation behind corporate educational reform is extending the reach of free market globalization and business profits.

“An early twentieth century political cartoon from Puck magazine portrayed the Standard Oil Company as a giant octopus with tentacles encircling and corrupting national and state governments. The image can easily be applied to the British-based publishing company Pearson Education, a leader in the neo-liberal privatization movement. Pearson has tentacles all over the world shaping and corrupting education in efforts, not always successful, to enhance its profitability. Its corporate slogan is “Pearson: Always Learning,” however critics rewrite it as “Pearson: Always Earning.”

“Pearson’s business strategy is to turn education from a social good and essential public service into a marketable for-profit commodity.”

Frank Adamson of Stanford University wrote a marvelous article that lays out the issues with enormous clarity and insight. To read the references and links, open the article.

The United Nations has identified “free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education” by 2030 as a goal for sustainable development. This goal reaffirms the right to education guaranteed by countries in multiple U.N. declarations over the last half-century.[i] Although these treaties reflect a general consensus that everyone has a right to education, most countries do not actually deliver on this promise. To address the issue, different countries are organizing their education systems based on contrasting values. Some countries have placed the responsibility for choosing schools on families, while others have delivered the right to education at a system-level, with the latter approach correlating with better national outcomes.

Instead of countries delivering on their U.N. treaty commitments to the right to education, some have proposed that parental choice should drive the education “marketplace.” This approach varies across countries. In countries in the global south such as India and Uganda, families can “choose” to send their children to “low fee” private schools, or else their children will likely not receive an education. In countries in the global north like Sweden and the U.S., school “choice” usually happens when governments give parents the option to leave public schools. However, in both cases, governments place the responsibility on the family to figure out the best option for their child instead of fulfilling their child’s right to a free, equitable, high quality education.

Even more problematic is the reality that school “choice” does not guarantee a better education, for a variety of reasons. One issue is that, when a charter school or low-fee private school does provide a good education, everyone wants to go there and there are not enough spots for every student. And that’s the best-case scenario. The more common problem is that schools of choice do not provide higher quality education. In addition, they often exclude certain types of harder and/or more expensive-to-each students – those with disabilities, discipline histories, lower socio-economic status – as well as racial and ethnic minorities and second-language learners. These students may have lower scores on the tests used to judge schools or they may require extra attention from teachers, incentivizing these schools to choose their students, instead of students being able to choose their schools.[ii]

The results are not surprising because these schools compete with each other instead of providing education to everyone. School choice systems operate under a market-based rationale. In this marketplace, schools depend on competition to get students to enroll. This sounds like a great idea—the companies (schools) that produce the best product (education) have the most customers (students), while those that don’t will go out of business (closing the school). But market-based approaches require schools to seek a competitive advantage that leads to their exclusionary approaches. And when these schools exclude the more “expensive” students, these students end up in overcrowded and underperforming schools that lack basic services, or, even worse, without the opportunity for an education at all.

Countries seeking to provide a free, equitable, quality education aren’t trying to create competitive advantage within their systems. Instead, they fulfill their “education as a human right” imperative at the system level by investing in teachers and infrastructure. Their public investments produce some of the highest outcomes on international assessments, with smaller differences between students, meaning the systems function more equitably. These countries, including Finland, Singapore, Canada, Cuba, and others, have signed at least some of the U.N. treaties that declare the right to education, have opted for investing in their public education systems instead of pursuing market-based approaches that lead to inequity, and continually deliver high quality education to their citizens. Instead of forcing parents to choose schools, or even be chosen by schools, countries employing market-based approaches would do well to shift their focus towards ensuring the educational rights of their citizens on a proven pathway to better outcomes.

NAPLAN is Australia’s national system of tests. The acronym stands for “National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy,” a series of tests focused on basic skills administered annually to Australian students. It was introduced in 2008, in large part because of American influence and the pressure of international tests like PISA and TIMSS.

But since the adoption of NAPLAN, Australia has declined in the rankings.

One of the most persistent of NAPLAN critics is Phil Cullen, who has a blog called The Treehorn Express.

His latest post is “Maintaining Mediocrity”


MAINTAINING MEDIOCRITY

“It’s not the kind of education system that one envisages for the 21st Century. Schooling in Australia has lost its way.”

Clearly, Australia has reached the stage that its polically-controlled schooling system is satisfied with maintaining a level of schooling that is statistically [i.e. bits that can be measuered] mid-way. In preparing our future citizens for a world that no longer exists, we are not doing a very good job of it. It uses a testing system to see how well it is going; and pretends that the use of this one device will motivate pupils to try harder so that Australia will be amongst the top of the class in international tests such and PISA and TIMMSS {Maths}. We used to be up there amongst the first half-dozen in the PISA results but we are seriously moving back down on the list of the 72 countries that participate, well behind most Asian and European countries and a few obscure others as well. We started to slide down the rankings from 2000, as Managerialism established itself in government and schooling operations…… and seriously increased the rate of slide following the introduction of NAPLAN in 2008.

There must be….there is…. something wrong! Very wrong.

Both Managerialism and Naplanism are products of neo-liberal, big-corp., alt-right ideologies that have taken control of schooling, more dedicated to ‘control’ than to ‘schooling’. NAPLAN is its weapon of control and it impairs rather than improves schooling as such. How come?

Australia uses NAPLAN testing as a motivator and an evaluator. It controls the system. In failing as a motivator, it has provided clear evidence as to why the system is now “failing and getting worse” on PISA international rankings.

The most recent tests results have provided clear evidence as to the reasons for our failure. There are messages.

There is a root cause that is so obvious. By using the well-known stress-ridden naplan testing techniques that are well-documented, we are teaching Australian children to hate maths and science and reading and literature with a passion that previous pupils have never possessed. NAPLAN is a thoroughly nasty brute. Instead of trying to introduce children to these really beautiful and magic subjects with an enthusiasm that their normal learning talents desire, we simply turn up the pressure and make things worse. Of course it means that our nation’s progress on all industrial, intellectual and entrepreneurial fronts will be limited in the future; and we don’t seem to care. It’s all more of the same.

At this time of the year NAPLAN preparation dominates the schooling landscape. The wholesome, holistic curriculum is shelved, time-tables are adjusted, homework is test-based and unexciting, parents panic and each child’s mental compass gets screwed.

It’s not the kind of education system that we once envisaged for the 21st Century. Schooling in Australia has lost its way.

Some countries have got it right by thinking. THINKING! Our system is a simplistic, worn-out New York model, based on a Bronx mentality that believes that fear is the best learning motivator known to the island of Manhattan and its satellites. especially Australia. Schools are forced to maintain it. You’d have to wonder why, wouldn’t you?

And by the way, Scott. Costing millions and millions each year, it’s a bad debt…..a very bad debt.

We seem to be struck with it.

C’est la vie

This posting comes from Phil Cullen in Australia, whose blog is The Treehorn Express. You will see some familiar names, like Rupert Murdoch, who is a media baron in Australia, and Joel Klein, who was Murdoch’s favorite education expert. As Phil Cullen explains on his blog: Treehorn is the hero of an easy-to-read children’s book: “The Shrinking of Treehorn” by Florence Heidi Parry. It clearly illustrates the disregard that adults demonstrate towards children at school. Treehorn’s principal and his teacher, even his parents give him ‘short shrift’.

NAPLAN is Australia’s national assessment, inspired by American influence. The acronym stands for National Assessment Program–Literacy and Numeracy. It is offered in years 3, 5, 7, and 9.

Hey, Phil, Australian students are fortunate. American students are tested every year in EVERY grade from 3-8 and also once in high school. Be glad you didn’t get the full dose of NCLB-Race to the Top Standardized Testing Obsession.

IT’S NAPLAN TIME

Bring out the law book.

[An essay from a Manager’s diary]

On Tuesday, May 9 NAPLAN testing will hit all Australian Children’s Factories with a ferocity that cyclone Debbie could never match. The level of destruction to Australia’s learning capital will be vast and there is no way that anyone can compensate nor be compensated for the damage. Once the natural desire to learn has been decimated, reconstruction becomes a long-long-long term effort. It’s been happening for nine years now and all of Australia must know of the damage it is causing. If we don’t, we soon will.

The sooner we get rid of it, the better. From the start of this Menticide Epidemic in 2008, when powerful political creatures arranged for the systematic destruction of Australia’s school learning culture for the sake of their pals’ financial profit, we have endured a system of schooling that brings no credit to any one of us. Our testucation nerds have instituted a schooling program that guarantees paralysis of the intellect from the first day of school, where, in some states, kids are tested before they start. We have been abusing our children’s keenness to learn with merciless abandon. Only the love and compassion of the everyday classroom teacher maintains any semblance of progress these days, but their super-efforts can never compensate adequately for the nastiness of the testucating end of town. The present generation of school attenders may never recover and the ‘fat little men will simply sit there and grin’, as Alice predicted.

This year, some testucators will be searching for modest ways to make the tests easier, in the manner that many of us reformed-testing-freaks used to do to make tests harder. The public is supposed to believe that NAPLAN is good for its children and this can only be done if the scores get better. They were shocking in 2016. Manipulation can be part of the game. For instance, there used to be statistical data available that listed which tables were more difficult than others……9+7 is much more difficult to remember than 8+4, for instance. This ‘level of difficulty’ applies to all kinds of testable items, whether it be in Maths, Science or Grammar. Teachers know this. Some are easier to handle than others for some reason. In that earlier era of testucation, we test freaks had to eat crow eventually; and reform our attitude to schooling.

If there is anything more dangerous to a country’s future than testucators, it’s an elite politician who has ‘fallen for ‘ a special kind of testucator. Julia has confessed to describing Joel Klein as her ‘pin-up boy’. You let him fool-ya, Julia, didn’tya?. Despite the appearance of her office wall on behalf of her corporatocracy who paid for Joel’s trip down under and whose photos probably adorned the rest of her wall, she envisaged a system of millions of classrooms where little Aussie darlings would sit still each day working assiduously at tables and spelling and sums and grammar and practice tests and related bumfuzzle with zest and ‘heils’ for their ultimate success at PISA. Her cuckservative fopdoodlers, those compliant conservatives whom she had cuckolded and paddocked in the bozone layer of confusion early in the piece, then attached their own fictile associations to her apron strings to strengthen their political anti-child animus. The Australian Primary Principals Association was easily moulded into one of hers; and the whole schadenfreude business was in place to her great satisfaction; and to Kevin’s, who had told her to do it; and to BSU; and to NYCity’s finances; and to Rupert; and to Amplify and co-test-manufacturers and tablet-program producers who continue to ridicule the young and sneer at their declining mental distress.

As Sir Wally said : “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive.

In Orwellian terms, cynics now comment that NAPLAN is a kind of political prolefeed that keeps the proles [proletariat] in their place in case they became too knowledgeable; which is what it is doing. However, this was not her ladyship’s intention. She is of Labor background…just doing as she was told by the big end of town….a disposition maintained by present day Labor.

POLITICS

Treehorn has conducted a crusade for kids for some years now. It has been a daily effort and the longer it has gone, the more it is clear that the NAPLAN tragedy can be regarded as an exercise in politics rather than a reform in education. Clearly UBS, the world’s largest banking enterprise controls schooling in Australia and has done so from the outset. Its control over political behaviour is monstrous. In political terms, its history of school CONTROL is pretty clear., but largely overlooked or ignored.

1. Circa 2008, UBS instructed Kevin Rudd that it wanted something done about schooling.

2. Panicky Kevin instructed his Minister for Education to do something.

3. Minister Julia Gillard headed straight for the USA [not Finland, Singapore, New Zealand or other countries that had progressive, high achievement schooling ‘going for them’ at the time], where, after reporting to Rupert Murdoch before attending a Carnegie Foundation party, she met the controversial boss of a large New York school district, who sweet-talked her into a belief in his scheme; which was based heavily on fear….[fear of failure and disgrace for kids, fear of loss of job for teachers, fear of closure of school for parents]…and she was enthralled. It was a pure and simple FEAR-based scheme.; nothing to do with real achievement-oriented, progressive learning as in Finland and places that developed kids’ love for learning. It meant POWER. She fell for his charm. He became her ‘pin-up’ boy and, following Julia’s liaison with UBS, he and wife Nicole received a free trip down under at UBS expense where he spoke only with UBS connections. [He later called them ‘education officials’.] His Immenseness spoke of ‘enacting tranformational change’ to the UBS audience in Melbourne; of ‘reporting and grading systems’ to the chosen audience at the Press Club in Canberra and about ‘relationships between businesses and schools’ at a UBS dinner in Sydney before concluding that Australia had “…a lot of understandable concern about putting together an accountability system and transparency.”

4. So….Julia and Joel and the UBS installed his scheme. This meant that state system initiatives had to be taken over and controlled, but that was a piece of cake for our future P.M. We now have Kleinism as our national schooling system well controlled by UBS and its New York connections, who, incidentally, are making billions in the U.S. and anticipate making more in Australia following the surge in the use of tablets in Aussie schools. Their testing programs, curriculum program, learning games are ripe for the using, and the whole project is now turning to gold.

5. Psychometrics only were appointed to conduct a rigorous testing program through an organisation called ACARA. The ‘C’ stands for Curriculum, even though teaching experts were banned from appointment at the test centre.. UBS was on its way to total command.

6. In her public acknowledgment of the power of kleinism and its mightiness, which she spruiked at the special UBS dinner for Joel Klein in November 2008, Julia Gillard sought approval from her political superordinates for her scheme, quoted Rupert Murdoch who said that “thousands of children are being betrayed ” and, he added, there is “a gap between those who are getting an education and those who are not.” Strange words.

7. She thanked the large companies like Freehills and Corrs Chambers Westgarth for their support “…to the development of the program and their pro-bono contributions.” and encouraged others to consult their boards to contribute to the “partnership of leading employers.” She was in with Flynn having persuaded all the big boys that this scheme meant educational improvement. All her scheme [party?] needed was more money.

8. The Labor Party, Liberal Party and Greens all took note and decided never to examine the context of NAPLAN, its effects on schooling nor on the mental health of children [which became quite startling by 2011], nor the connection to ‘the establishment’. The Libs conducted a couple of fizzer Senate inquiries which used-up time and paper and delayed any serious examination of NAPLAN as an educational device. Not one political party has shown any interest in the plight of kids at school during the past decade nor bothered to question what is going on. They seem to be too afraid. NAPLAN has yet to be used as an election issue, which is what it should be. If any party uses it, it’s bound to be a boomer…and its banning of Naplan a clear winner….but the forces of evil…

9. The Australian Education Union voted unanimously at its January, 2010 Conference to ban NAPLAN, then suddenly changed its mind….no reason given…..and the barber kept on shaving.

10, The government took over the control of the once-doggedly-determined professional society, the Australian Primary Principals’ Association and some like organisations in case they remembered their duty of care to kids and returned to their ethical principals.

11. The Murdoch and Fairfax Press, believing that discretion is the better part of valour, have never conducted any serious ‘investigative surveys’ of the NAPLAN EFFECT ON SCHOOLING. They’d need to be brave, wouldn’t they? Even the ABC has been super-cautious as have respected journos who were once open and forthright. Things are very tight and totally controlled.

This unified pro-NAPLAN force is much too formidable for any care-for-kids campaign. Australia is stuck with a mediocre system trailing other countries by a country mile. The cock-up with its present operations does not provide parents with any promise for a reasonable future. You will know so many of them being regularly actioned…..

LAWS OF MANAGEMENT

In management terms, NAPLAN has had an obvious Cobra Effect or Rat Effect [aka Rule of Perverse Intentions] on Australia’s schooling system “…which occurs when an attempted solution to a problem makes the problem worse as a type of unintended consequence. The term is used to illustrate the causes of incorrect stimulation in economy and politics.”

Principals associations, usually seen as the protectors of Child Rights, school standards and professional ethics were the first to fold and to illustrate, by their reactions to the reality behind known, unwarranted laws of management as applied to educational administration. These laws [see below] became unwarranted and unnnecessary replacements for the basic administration of schools that enhance the conditions of freedom and dignity for children.

Campbell’s Law clearly applies to the NAPLAN disaster and has been noticeably ignored since the outset….

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.

[Use of tutoring shops, extra homework, post-school classes are instances of cheating the system and corrupting the results.]

as was the Settlage Definition of a test score also ignored……’

“A mark or score on a blanket test represents an inadequate judgement

by a biased, inexperienced and variable non-schooling judge,

of the extent to which an undefined level of mastery of unknown proportions

of an inadequate amount of material has been completed

under tense conditions that render the outcomes useless.

[Indeed! How can distant testing ever replace shared evaluation at the point of learning?]

That’s NAPLAN testing. It’s the wonder of the age that it has lasted as long as it has. The efforts of the mythmakers and their low-level, coercive, politico-totalitarian forms of control seem to have convinced a gullible public that its diagnostic credentials magically turn NAPLAN into a learning motivator and, at a cost of millions of dollars annually, kids will get smarter, quicker It is a downright furphy. Such measures of control get what they deserve: low levels of response that are just formal, bordering on rejection. The low level of teacher enthusiasm and pupil dislike for the subjects combine to produce the weak results that the hyper-political scheme deserves. Insecurity and uncertainty ensure the exposure of established credos of management…

1. Eichmann’s Plea. We do as we are told without regard to humane requirements.

2. McGregor’s Theory. Theory X is better than Theory Y. Fear, mistrust, deceit and a punitive atmosphere motivates operators better than does humanity and trust and normal ethical behaviour.

3. Stockholm Syndrome. An irrational psychological alliance [e.g. A.G.P.P.A] between captor and captured, leads to total capitulation of ethical principles by the captured.

4. Hawthorne Effect. Behaviour and mental attitudes alter, depending on the level of personal interest taken.

5. Goodharts Law. When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a measure.

6. Streisand Effect. Attempting to hide important information, like parents’ right to say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to testing, sometimes has unintended consequences by increasing the number who will say ‘No’.

6. The New Stupid. A condition that occurs when excessive data, expensively gathered, is misused to draw conclusions that entice powerful politicians to make erroneous decisions.

7. The Boondoogle Effect. Doing useless, wasteful or trivial work as a consequence of The New Stupid; like wasting time on excessive practice, teaching to tests, neglecting a wholesome, holistic curriculum.

Observers of the NAPLAN debacle have noted many instances of each of these laws and their effects in action during the past few years.
The busy presence of these laws and the dark history of Australian schooling over the past decade, surely indicate that NAPLAN has nothing to do with schooling or the learning business. It is a gross, ugly political gimmick and the forces that support it are much too powerful for sad little children….like Treehorn.

This is a fascinating article about the French presidential election, which will be held tomorrow.

LePen is a Trump-like nationalist, anti-immigrant, pledged to withdraw France from the EU. She inherited her party from her father, who was often characterized as a fascist. She has close relations with Putin and endorsed Trump. Her father was a Holocaust denier and a defender of France’s role in Algeria.

Macron is a financier and centrist who acknowledges France’s role in the Holocaust and has denounced French actions in Algeria as “crimes against humanity.” Macron’s campaign has been hacked and attacked by leaks, as well as smears (like saying he is gay and that he has secret bank accounts). The hacks appear to have Kremlin fingerprints on them, as well as those of pro-Trump hackers in the U.S. Macron is married to his high school drama teacher, who is 25 years older than he.

I recall Jean-Marie LePen, the father, as an anti-Semite. The apple didn’t fall far from the tree.