Archives for category: Massachusetts

The Worcester Telegram commended parents who choose to opt out of state testing and reminded parents that they–not the federal government, not the GatesFoundation–are the ultimate controllers of their children’s education. The paper laments the fact that Massachusetts dropped its successful state standards to chase federal dollars.

After reviewing the genesis of Common Core,the newspaper concluded:

“Thus, the purity of the motives at play, and the content of Common Core and PARCC, are important issues, but not the first ones that must be addressed.

“That first issue is the unprecedented and illegal wresting of the core of public education from the hands of local players. Parents, teachers, and local school boards alike must first understand that what is happening is authorized by no law, and has no basis in the Constitution.

“Just as importantly, they must understand that they have the power to wrest it back. We urge them to start by rejecting Common Core and PARCC. Massachusetts should return to its own proud and successful traditions — the civil disobedience embodied by Henry David Thoreau, and the independence in public education pioneered by Horace Mann. In so doing, we can set an example for every state.”

The School Committee of Worcester gave parents the right to opt out of PARCC pilot testing, but Mayor Joe Petty is pressuring the School Committee to reverse its vote. Politicians who deny parents their right to say “no” should be voted out of office. If they don’t listen to parents, who will? I mean YOU, Mayor Petty.

A reader sends the following sad story of a phony “turnaround”:

“In Boston, the Gavin Middle School was “transformed” into the in-district charter school Unlocking Potential (UP Academy) beginning SY 2011-2012. It was part of a package deal in which several schools were closed and morphed into something else. The school department’s first presentation on the takeover included these statements:

•. All students guaranteed a seat at UP; they may also choose from available seats at other schools
• All Gavin students in special education and SEI (Sheltered English Immersion) programs will receive high-quality, appropriate services at UP Academy
• [UP will] Offer individualized consultation for families of students with disabilities

The Gavin had for many years been home to a program for multi-handicapped students, some of our most medically fragile and compromised kids. They were not going to ace state MCAS tests or any other standardized exams.

When the deal had been made and UP’s CEO came to visit, it turned out that any enrolled student who wanted to remain at their school would have to fill out an application, which is not a normal procedure in BPS. Next, it turned out that UP had made recruitment phone calls to select students across the city who were already enrolled in Gifted and Talented classes. The only entity that had access to that contact information would have been the School Department. And finally, UP balked at accepting the multi-handicapped kids.

Our inimitable EduShyster tells the tale:

Now a former employee of UP Academy has contacted EduShyster to express concern about the number of students that the school lost during the past year. The writer estimates that 25% of the students who began the year at UP Academy, which took over the former Gavin Middle School, were gone by the end of the year.

“If almost a quarter of your students are leaving within the year, I think that’s a pretty serious problem. It certainly doesn’t bode well for long-term student retention. FYI: The administration claims that the vast majority of students who left at the beginning of the school year left because of “transportation issues.” If the school really did lose that many students–and the “worst” ones at that–then any plan to open a second school in Boston should include a section on how the administration plans to stop that from happening the second time around.”

And there’s more (you can’t make this stuff up, folks!):
http://edushyster.com/?p=1159
http://edushyster.com/?p=1727

And the MH program? Well, the kids got to physically stay at the Gavin building, but they are not considered UP students – their scores are attached to another, traditional, BPS school.

How has UP been judged? They’ve just been given another elementary school, the Holland, to “turnaround”.”

One of those brilliant PR spinmeisters invented the term “turnaround” to disguise the brutality and ugliness of firing the entire staff of a school with low scores and pretending that mass firing is a method of “reform.”

 

“Turnaround” sounds like a game or a dance, something delightful.

 

The reality is that everyone who works in the school is fired–or in lesser forms of the punishment, the principal and half the staff is fired–as though they caused the low scores of children who have difficult lives.

 

This reader describes the false “reforms” imposed on English High School in Boston, which has been turned around so often that whoever remains in the building must be spinning constantly.

 

Why don’t these false reformers recognize that turmoil is not reform? That “disruption” is unhealthy for children and learning? That children and schools need steadiness of purpose?

 

The reader writes:

 

Here in Boston, The English High School, the oldest high school in the United States, was taken over by the state as a turnaround school three years ago, on the cutting edge of NCLB. That the school was not “highly successful” is indisputable – but it should be noted that the school department had programmed English High with huge numbers of ELL students, including many who were refugees from Somalia and had never attended school. Nearly all students met the federal definition of poverty; many were parenting while attending school.

 

The school had been moved from a badly designed building (students were supposed to move from class to class on escalators!) to a “repurposed” building across the city which had once housed offices for a gas utility. The rotation of Headmasters was a rogues’ gallery of people who might be associated with disfunctional leaders of third world nations – idiosyncratic, capricious, dictatorial. Many staff who could escape to better teaching positions did so, but there remained a core of excellent teachers struggling against long odds. Meeting AYP under NCLB was impossible.

 

The Boston Globe, generally supportive of any Broadish reform, published the following story, in 2012, critiquing the school department’s “turn-around” – pretty much they took any and all trendy solutions and threw them at the staff and kids.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2012/06/24/troubled_english_high_school_showing_little_improvement_after_three_tumultuous_years_under_untested_headmaster_sito_narcisse/?page=full

 

“At 33, Narcisse became headmaster of one of Boston’s 11 state-designated underperforming schools, giving him far broader authority than a typical principal. He was freed from strict union rules in hiring and firing and had the power to experiment boldly. Though he was supposed to consult with teachers and parents, both groups complained that, in practice, Narcisse launched major initiatives without involving them.”

 

After the disaster of the district “turnaround” the state took over English High. Under state receivership, not much has improved. So, the logical conclusion is that the state – which has not be able to “turnaround” English High – can remake New Bedford High school (see:http://edushyster.com/?p=4067) as well as the Dever and the Holland into schools of excellence by doing what has already failed – turn them over to inexperienced “operators” instead of career teachers with proper supports.

 

Though Massachusetts may lead the nation in scores, schools in the cities suffer from the same deforms as other systems serving poor, non-English speaking kids and the “remedies” are just as deleterious.

 

It is hard to be sure who first had the idea that the way to improve schools was to fire the staff and start all over again.

When No Child Left Behind was written, it set an impossible goal of 100% proficiency, then set out a series of escalating sanctions for schools that were unable to do the impossible. The ultimate sanction–based on no research, experience, or wisdom–was to close the school. Fire everybody and close the school. Throw in the towel.

Then along came Arne Duncan, who gave the throw-up-your-hands routine a nice euphemistic name. He called it a “turnaround.” Sounds sweet and fun, not brutal. So now we have companies that specialize in turnarounds, and consultants who will show you how to do it.

In this post, EduShyster tells the stirring tale of two Boston schools that are being turned around for the second time! But this time, the state officials won’t make the same mistake. They won’t just bring in a whole new staff. No, indeed, they will hire “proven providers.” You can guess what that means. I bet it is a corporation that will make a whole lot of money and has a slender track record.

And so goes “reform.”

EduShyster tells a sad story of the utter irresponsibility and–oh, I can’t think of a better word than “idiocy”–of Massachsetts officials.

Local and state officials are “turning around” Néw Bedford High School by firing half the teachers.

“Ahoy, matey! That great looming specter in the distance is not a mighty white whale but New Bedford High School being turned upside down and shaken till 50% of its teachers fall out. School turnaround time has come to this scenic, hard-scrabble seaport and our trusty state education captains have launched a full sail operation to convince New Bedford residents that throwing half of the high school’s teachers overboard is the only way to reach the distant shores of Excellence. But are the captains on a fool’s errand that could end up capsizing the ship of public education in the Whaling City?”

What they do not admit is that such actions have failed everywhere else. What they do not admit is that the most successful turnaround was Brockton High School, where no one was fired but the school instead collaborated on literacy across all subjects.

So what gives?

Faddishness. Bad policy. Slavish devotion to Race to the Top’s failed remedies. Maybe some consultants making a bundle to “turnaround” the school by firing everyone, whether it makes sense or not.

When will we see an end to this nonsensical charade?

David Berliner has designed a provocative thought experiment.

He offers you State A and State B.

He describes salient differences between them.

Can you predict which state has high-performing schools and which state has low-performing schools?

The Roots of Academic Achievement
David C. Berliner
Regents’ Professor Emeritus
Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College
Arizona State University

Let’s do a thought experiment. I will slowly parcel out data about two different states. Eventually, when you are nearly 100% certain of your choice, I want you to choose between them by identifying the state in which an average child is likely to be achieving better in school. But you have to be nearly 100% certain that you can make that choice.

To check the accuracy of your choice I will use the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as the measure of school achievement. It is considered by experts to be the best indicator we have to determine how children in our nation are doing in reading and mathematics, and both states take this test.

Let’s start. In State A the percent of three and four year old children attending a state associated prekindergarten is 8.8% while in State B the percent is 1.7%. With these data think about where students might be doing better in 4th and 8th grade, the grades NAEP evaluates student progress in all our states. I imagine that most people will hold onto this information about preschool for a while and not yet want to choose one state over the other. A cautious person might rightly say it is too soon to make such a prediction based on a difference of this size, on a variable that has modest, though real effects on later school success.

So let me add more information to consider. In State A the percent of children living in poverty is 14% while in State B the percent is 24%. Got a prediction yet? See a trend? How about this related statistic: In State A the percent of households with food insecurity is 11.4% while in State B the percent is 14.9%. I also can inform you also that in State A the percent of people without health insurance is 3.8% while in State B the percent is 17.7%. Are you getting the picture? Are you ready to pick one state over another in terms of the likelihood that one state has its average student scoring higher on the NAEP achievement tests than the other?

​If you still say that this is not enough data to make yourself almost 100% sure of your pick, let me add more to help you. In State A the per capita personal income is $54,687 while in state B the per capita personal income is $35,979. Since per capita personal income in the country is now at about $42,693, we see that state A is considerably above the national average and State B is considerably below the national average. Still not ready to choose a state where kids might be doing better in school?

Alright, if you are still cautious in expressing your opinions, here is some more to think about. In State A the per capita spending on education is $2,764 while in State B the per capita spending on education is $2,095, about 25% less. Enough? Ready to choose now?
Maybe you should also examine some statistics related to the expenditure data, namely, that the pupil/teacher ratio (not the class sizes) in State A is 14.5 to one, while in State B it is 19.8 to one.

As you might now suspect, class size differences also occur in the two states. At the elementary and the secondary level, respectively, the class sizes for State A average 18.7 and 20.6. For State B those class sizes at elementary and secondary are 23.5 and 25.6, respectively. State B, therefore, averages at least 20% higher in the number of students per classroom. Ready now to pick the higher achieving state with near 100% certainty? If not, maybe a little more data will make you as sure as I am of my prediction.

​In State A the percent of those who are 25 years of age or older with bachelors degrees is 38.7% while in State B that percent is 26.4%. Furthermore, the two states have just about the same size population. But State A has 370 public libraries and State B has 89.
Let me try to tip the data scales for what I imagine are only a few people who are reluctant to make a prediction. The percent of teachers with Master degrees is 62% in State A and 41.6% in State B. And, the average public school teacher salary in the time period 2010-2012 was $72,000 in State A and $46,358 in State B. Moreover, during the time period from the academic year 1999-2000 to the academic year 2011-2012 the percent change in average teacher salaries in the public schools was +15% in State A. Over that same time period, in State B public school teacher salaries dropped -1.8%.

I will assume by now we almost all have reached the opinion that children in state A are far more likely to perform better on the NAEP tests than will children in State B. Everything we know about the ways we structure the societies we live in, and how those structures affect school achievement, suggests that State A will have higher achieving students. In addition, I will further assume that if you don’t think that State A is more likely to have higher performing students than State B you are a really difficult and very peculiar person. You should seek help!

So, for the majority of us, it should come as no surprise that in the 2013 data set on the 4th grade NAEP mathematics test State A was the highest performing state in the nation (tied with two others). And it had 16 percent of its children scoring at the Advanced level—the highest level of mathematics achievement. State B’s score was behind 32 other states, and it had only 7% of its students scoring at the Advanced level. The two states were even further apart on the 8th grade mathematics test, with State A the highest scoring state in the nation, by far, and with State B lagging behind 35 other states.

Similarly, it now should come as no surprise that State A was number 1 in the nation in the 4th grade reading test, although tied with 2 others. State A also had 14% of its students scoring at the advanced level, the highest rate in the nation. Students in State B scored behind 44 other states and only 5% of its students scored at the Advanced level. The 8th grade reading data was the same: State A walloped State B!

States A and B really exist. State B is my home state of Arizona, which obviously cares not to have its children achieve as well as do those in state A. It’s poor achievement is by design. Proof of that is not hard to find. We just learned that 6000 phone calls reporting child abuse to the state were uninvestigated. Ignored and buried! Such callous disregard for the safety of our children can only occur in an environment that fosters, and then condones a lack of concern for the children of the Arizona, perhaps because they are often poor and often minorities. Arizona, given the data we have, apparently does not choose to take care of its children. The agency with the express directive of insuring the welfare of children may need 350 more investigators of child abuse. But the governor and the majority of our legislature is currently against increased funding for that agency.

State A, where kids do a lot better, is Massachusetts. It is generally a progressive state in politics. To me, Massachusetts, with all its warts, resembles Northern European countries like Sweden, Finland, and Denmark more than it does states like Alabama, Mississippi or Arizona. According to UNESCO data and epidemiological studies it is the progressive societies like those in Northern Europe and Massachusetts that care much better for their children. On average, in comparisons with other wealthy nations, the U. S. turns out not to take good care of its children. With few exceptions, our politicians appear less likely to kiss our babies and more likely to hang out with individuals and corporations that won’t pay the taxes needed to care for our children, thereby insuring that our schools will not function well.

But enough political commentary: Here is the most important part of this thought experiment for those who care about education. Everyone of you who predicted that Massachusetts would out perform Arizona did so without knowing anything about the unions’ roles in the two states, the curriculum used by the schools, the quality of the instruction, the quality of the leadership of the schools, and so forth. You made your prediction about achievement without recourse to any of the variables the anti-public school forces love to shout about –incompetent teachers, a dumbed down curriculum, coddling of students, not enough discipline, not enough homework, and so forth. From a few variables about life in two different states you were able to predict differences in student achievement test scores quite accurately.

I believe it is time for the President, the Secretary of Education, and many in the press to get off the backs of educators and focus their anger on those who will not support societies in which families and children can flourish. Massachusetts still has many problems to face and overcome—but they are nowhere as severe as those in my home state and a dozen other states that will not support programs for neighborhoods, families, and children to thrive.

This little thought experiment also suggests also that a caution for Massachusetts is in order. It seems to me that despite all their bragging about their fine performance on international tests and NAEP tests, it’s not likely that Massachusetts’ teachers, or their curriculum, or their assessments are the basis of their outstanding achievements in reading and mathematics. It is much more likely that Massachusetts is a high performing state because it has chosen to take better care of its citizens than do those of us living in other states. The roots of high achievement on standardized tests is less likely to be found in the classrooms of Massachusetts and more likely to be discovered in its neighborhoods and families, a refection of the prevailing economic health of the community served by the schools of that state.

EduShyster commends President Obama and Secretary Duncan for their new initiative to lower the practice of suspending students, especially minority students, from school. But she wonders whether the new policy will apply to the “no excuses” charter schools that have sky-high suspension rates and win commendations from the Obama administration for having high expectations.

In New Orleans, two celebrated charter schools have high suspension rates:

“According to Louisiana state data a full 69 percent of Carver Collegiate’s student body was sent home at least once during the 2012-2013 school year. Carver Prep suspended 61 percent of its student body, while Sci Academy sent home 58 percent, a 9-point increase from the year before. That’s a lot of college readiness.”

Massachusetts also has charters that teach self-discipline by suspending students:

“It isn’t just New Orleans where there seems to be something of an, ahem, double standard when it comes to suspending minority students. In Massachusetts, for example, charter schools out-suspend their public counterparts at staggering rates. Tops on the list: Roxbury Preparatory Charter, a college prep academy for 5th-8th graders that is part of the Uncommon Schools network and sent home an Uncommonly high 56% of its students in 2012. In Boston, by contrast, which has overhauled its discipline policies to allow *restorative justice* in place of out-of-school suspensions, the suspension rate has dropped to just 4%.”

Why do charters get away with it?

“You see, there’s something else unique about urban charter schools in addition to their unique view that suspending students prepares them for college. They are also incredibly segregated. In other words, they can’t be said to be disproportionately punishing minority students because only minority students attend them. Segregation, like out-of-school suspensions, is just fine when its done in the name of college prep.”

The teachers in Lee, Massachusetts, received merit pay for higher scores, funded by the Gates Foundation.

In a letter to the Berkshire Eagle, they explained why they rejected the money.

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/news/ci_24675094/letter-no-merit-pay-lee-p-teachers

Letter: No merit pay for Lee A.P. teachers

To the editor of THE EAGLE:

While we appreciate the article “Investing in students’ futures” (Eagle, Dec. 3), we would like to make some clarifications.

The $8,700 that the Lee Middle and High School A.P. teachers gave to the school is not from “grant pay,” but rather “merit pay,” earned as a result of high student scores on last spring’s A.P. exams. Unfortunately, the acceptance of “merit pay” was a non-negotiable requirement imposed by MMSI as part of the grant. We accepted these terms only for the additional benefit that a strong and varied A.P. program would provide for our students — “merit pay” was not an incentive to us. By refusing to accept this money and instead returning it to the school, we found a way to make it more palatable.

As a union, we strongly oppose “merit pay” on both philosophical and ethical grounds. First, the notion of “merit pay” suggests that high achieving students are more worthy of a teacher’s time and effort than average achieving students or those who struggle. Refusing to accept the “merit pay” has allowed us to put the money back into our departments to enhance the learning of all our students. We will buy much-needed items, such as supplies, textbooks, and technology, and also fund field trips and SAT preparation classes for students lacking the means to pay for them themselves.

Second, “merit pay” for certain teachers of certain students in certain classes is inequitable to professional educators. In our view, it is a way to undermine union efforts to ensure fair and equal pay for equal work, education, and experience. Before students arrive in an A.P. class in 11th or 12th grade, they have already been in school for at least 10 years. It is faulty logic to assume that the efforts of one A.P. teacher were the only cause of high scores. Earlier teachers, parents, and community members all help contribute to the success of our students.

Merit pay is an insult to our professionalism and a divisive tool designed to incite dissension among us in hopes of weakening our union, which is not only a political organization, but also a professional one, intended to protect the interests of both educators and students.

The LEA was pleased to find a way to bring high-quality, college-level curriculum to our students while holding on to non-negotiables of our own.

JANE MCEVOY

Lee

Jane McEvoy is A.P. Language and Composition, English Department Chair and LEA Vice President.

The letter was also signed by Robert Hungate, A.P. Biology, Science Department Chair, Mary Verdi, A.P. Literature and Composition, Thomas McCormack, A.P. Statistics, and Pamela Briggs, A.P. Calculus.

Massachusetts released teacher ratings, and lo and behold, all the best teachers seem to be in the most affluent districts.

In Boston, the lowest ratings went to old and minority teachers. The highest ratings went to central office administrators.

EduShyster did not use the phrase “makes no sense,” which is the headline of this post.

Actually, the teacher evaluations do make sense. They are doing what they were designed to do. They are bogus. This is the regime imposed on the state by Jonah Edelman and Stand for Children. Firing old and minority teachers is the civil rights issue of our day? When wil there be accountability for the people who push these demoralizing ideas? Other countries support and develop teachers, helping them improve. We rand and rate and humiliate them to force out those whose kids don’t get high scores and to make room for young college graduates who want to try their hand at teaching for a while until something better comes along.

I received the following comment this morning. I don’t have the answer to everything, and I am not sure what I would do in her place, but this is my advice. Organize the other parents of kindergarten children. Go as a group to the superintendent and tell him this is wrong. Get parents of children in first grade and second grade to join you. Others may as well. Speak on behalf of your child and other children at the school board meetings. Ask to meet your local legislators: the mayor, the member of the Assembly, the State Senate. Do not be afraid or intimidated. You are parents. You vote. Build a strong and united parent group and don’t let the powers that be shut you up. If you don’t advocate for your child, no one else will. Moving won’t solve your problem. You will encounter the same things in other states. Organize, inform yourself. Defend your child’s precious childhood.

She writes:

Dear Diane,

Until September of this year, I only had a fleeting knowledge of what the Common Core was all about because I didn’t have a school aged child. This year we eagerly put our oldest son in kindergarten in our upstate, rural New York district. The uneasy feeling in my stomach started on the first day when the parents were ushered into the auditorium and the principal started preparing us that we would find stressed out teachers. Parents with older children began asking questions about why the kindergartners needed to participate in the dreaded testing. Upon returning to my son’s classroom, I did indeed find a stressed out teacher, saying things like, “we are all going to have to work together if we are going to get through this curriculum.” This is when I first encountered the word “module” as well, as I looked at my five year old’s schedule and noticed that he would be doing ELA from 10:45-12:25 every day. He is in full day kindergarten, and the day is packed with Fundations, Writing, ELA, ELA modules, and Math modules. To say alarm bells went off would be an understatement, but we continued thinking, “how bad can kindergarten get?”

Back to school night was a presentation by all five kindergarten teachers, which quickly turned into, “we know this sounds awful, but we promise are going to remember that your children are little.” Within a month of school starting, we were told that they needed to do away with the children’s rest period because there simply wasn’t enough time for it with the curriculum. The more I heard these comments from school, the deeper I dug into the EngageNY modules and started following your blog.

I’m sure you get letters like this every day. I listened to your Town Hall phone call the other night (thank you for not interrupting the questions like Commissioner King in Poughkeepsie) and heard lots of sound advice about what parents and teachers can do to fight back against these ridiculous standards. My question is more basic: Do I send my son to this school tomorrow?

I read educated assessments of the EngageNY curriculum that find it “developmentally inappropriate.” Why should I subject my 5 year old to this when kindergarten isn’t even mandatory? I have the unique situation of living in New York state on the Massachusetts and Connecticut border. As renters, we have options, and I have already decided that my son will not attend 1st grade in the state of New York. But what do I do about today and tomorrow? I fear that he will fall behind in this intense academic environment, but I also fear sticking with it. What do parents do right now?

Sincerely,
Rosemary XXXX
Copake, NY