Archives for category: Technology, Computers

David Sirota, an author and talk-show host, here analyzes the election results and says they exposed the Big Lie of the corporate reform movement.

The public is not hankering to privatize their public schools.

The corporate leaders and rightwing establishment dropped millions of dollars to push their agenda of privatization, teacher-bashing and anti-unionism. They lost some major contests.

I will be posting more about some important local races they lost.

We have to do two things to beat them: get the word out to the public about who they are and what they want (read Sirota).

Two: never lose hope.

Those who fight to defend the commons against corporate raiders are on the right side of history.

Nothing they demand is right for children, nor does it improve education.

Florida law requires schools to offer online courses to children in every grade, even as young as kindergarten.

There is no evidence or research to support this mandate.

None.

Wonder if this has anything to do with the political power of Jeb Bush, now the nation’s leading enthusiast for online learning? Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that his Foundation for Excellence in Education is heavily funded by technology corporations?

Remember how he and his lobbyist facilitated the introduction of virtual schooling into Maine? If you forgot, please read the link. It was a heckuva job.

Voters in Idaho gave Mitt Romney a landslide  but simultaneously voted overwhelmingly to repeal the “Luna Laws,” the brainchild of state superintendent Tom Luna.

This stunning victory for public education demonstrates that not even red-state Republicans are prepared to privatize public education and dismantle the teaching profession.

The Luna Laws imposed a mandate for online courses for high school graduates (a favorite of candidates funded by technology companies), made test scores the measure of teacher quality, provided bonuses for teachers whose students got higher scores, removed all teacher rights, eliminated anything resembling tenure or seniority, turned teachers into at-will employees, and squashed the teachers’ unions.

The campaign to support the Luna laws was heavily funded by technology entrepreneurs and out-of-state supporters of high-stakes testing and restrictions on the teaching profession, including New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The voters in this reddest of red states overturned all three of the Luna laws (which he called “Students Come First”; anything in which children or students or kids come “first” is a clear tip-off to the divisive intent of the program).

As the story in the Idaho Statesman reported:

In a stunning rebuke to Gov. Butch Otter and Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Luna, Idahoans on Tuesday repealed the laws that dominated the pair’s agenda the past two years.

Idahoans agreed with teachers unions — which spent more than $3 million to defeat Propositions 1, 2 and 3 — that the reforms Luna called “Students Come First” and detractors called “The Luna Laws” went too far.

As GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney won a 65 percent Idaho landslide, Otter and Luna — both touted as possible Cabinet secretaries in a Romney administration — lost their signature issue by large margins.

With 99 percent of all Idaho precincts reporting:

— 57 percent opposed to restrictions on teachers unions in Prop 1.

— 58 percent voted no on Prop 2, which paid teacher bonuses based on student test scores and other measures.

— 67 percent rejected a mandate for laptops and online credits for every Idaho high school student.

The scale of the defeat reached across Idaho.

Voters in 37 of 44 counties rejected all three measures. The seven outliers — Adams, Boise, Fremont, Jefferson, Lemhi, Madison and Owyhee — are largely rural. Not one of Idaho’s most populous counties voted for even one of the laws.

A group called Education Voters of Idaho refused to disclose its donors until required to do so by a court order.

The biggest donor is a businessman who is an investor in K12, the online charter corporation ($250,000); the second biggest donor is Mayor Michael Bloomberg ($200,000).

EVI promotes the anti-union, anti-teacher, privatizing policies of state superintendent Tom Luna. Supporters of public education are seeking to repeal the Luna laws, which are deceptively called “Students Come First.” The phrase echoes Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst and Joel Klein’s Children’s First.

Luna has received heavy funding from technology corporations, and his laws mandate the purchase of a laptop computer for every student, and every student must take two online courses for graduation. They eliminate tenure and seniority. They require that student test scores count for 50% of every educator’s evaluation, including district superintendents, principals and teachers. All educators will have a one or two year contract. They initiate bonus pay based on test scores for all educators. Teachers will not get a written explanation if the principal decides to fire them.

A sample of one of the laws:

School districts no longer have to prove a financial emergency before reducing teacher numbers. School boards can reduce teacher numbers at their discretion but cannot consider seniority when deciding who to eliminate.

Experienced journalist Tom Toch visited a Rocketship charter school in San Jose, California, and came away impressed.

What impressed him most, however, was not the ubiquitous computer instruction, but the intensity of the human interactions.

He took away a lesson about the importance of parent involvement and support, as well as the intense engagement of teachers.

Conservative commentators see the Rocketship model as a way to reduce the number of teachers and to break the hold of teachers’ unions.

Toch is not so sure.

Rocketship charters are now expanding rapidly into other markets outside California.

What do you think?

If we had a race for the worst state superintendent in the nation, there would be many contenders. One thinks immediately, for example, of Tony Bennett in Indiana or John White in Louisiana.

By worst, I mean someone who has done his best to destroy public education–which is a sacred trust in the hands of the chief state school officer–and to demoralize the teachers who do the daily work of teaching the kids.

One of the top contenders for that odious distinction is Tom Luna of Idaho. Idaho is a small state and it doesn’t usually get a lot of national attention, but Luna has thrust it into the forefront of the national movement to privatize public education.

He was elected with the help of contributions from technology companies. A brilliant investigative report in the Idaho-Stateman last year documented how he raised campaign contributions from the education technology industry and became their darling.

Not being an original thinker, he called his program “Students Come First,” like Joel Klein’s “Children First” and Michelle Rhee’s “Students First.”

Despite a shrinking budget, he bought a laptop for every student and mandated that every student had to take two online courses in order to graduate. A token of appreciation to all those corporations that helped pay for Mr. Luna’s election.

He led a campaign to eliminate collective bargaining and often refers to union members as “thugs.” His reforms, known as the Luna laws, impose merit pay, which has never worked anywhere. He does whatever he can think of to demoralize the teachers of Idaho.

Is he the worst in the nation? There are many other contenders. It’s a close call.

His proposals are up for a vote this year. We will see if the people of Idaho are ready to outsource their children and public schools to for-profit corporations.

[CORRECTION: LUNA IS NOT UP FOR RE-ELECTION UNTIL 2014; HIS PROPOSALS–KNOWN AS THE “STUDENTS COME FIRST” LAWS or PROPS 1, 2, 3–ARE ON THE BALLOT NOVEMBER 6].

A reader in Idaho sent the following information:

An interesting development in Idaho politics is that not a single Democrat supports the “Students Come First” bills, or Props 1,2,3 as they are now commonly referred to, but nearly every Republican does support them, even though many Republican voters don’t. A recent poll was taken that shows props 1,2,3 losing support among voters, the real question is whether that will lead to more Democratic legislators (85/105 Idaho legislators are Republicans). Another interesting development is that the “Vote yes” folks only raised less than half of what the “Vote no” folks did ($500,000 vs $1.3 million), and I’m not really sure why. I think part of it might be that the state is trying to pay very little for the laptops (I think we’re looking for laptops and maintenance for $309/unit) and no company has taken that, and I also think the state is trying to pay half the normal rate for online courses, so for-profit education has held off on contributions.

We previously read an article claiming that for-profit entrepreneurs are necessary to reform American schools. The article began, in its original version, with a vulgar and gratuitous insult directed at Anthony Cody.

Here are two great responses. The first is by Anthony Cody.

The other is by Audrey Watters.

Edushyster has done it again.

Here, Edushyster defends Joel Klein against the outrageous claim that Rupert Murdoch is trying to make a profit by selling lots of stuff to the schools. It’s all about collaboration. It’s all about replacing teachers with technology to help with budgetary issues. It’s all about reform.

Mike Petrilli of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute summarizes “What’s Next” for reformers (some prefer to call them privatizers).

Race to the Top was a great coup for the privatizers/reformers.

Now they plan to follow up with a direct assault on schools of education, abetted by NCTQ’s forthcoming rankings, to be published by US News. NCTQ was created by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation a dozen years ago, and saved at the outset by a $5 million grant from Secretary of Education Rod Paige. In 2005, it got caught up in a federal investigation for taking money from the Department to speak well of NCLB. Read here to learn more about NCTQ.

The privatizers intend to move on principal evaluation, to make it more like teacher evaluation (test scores matter).

Pension reform will be high on their agenda.

Privatizers will promote digital learning by removing seat time requirements and following the guidance of former Governor Jeb Bush on this subject. No mention is made of the negative evaluations of cyber charters, both by Stanford’s CREDO and the National Education Policy Center, or of exposes that appeared in the New York Times and the Washington Post about the awful performance of cyber charters.

Gird your loins, folks, the privatizers are flush with victories in Wisconsin, Louisiana, Ohio, Michigan, Maine, Florida, and other states, and they are coming back to do some more reforming.

Mike Fair, a Republican legislator in South Carolina, worries about the cost and complexity of the new standards and tests.

When you read about the heavy spending that lies ahead, in a time when school budgets are being slashed and teachers laid off, you can see why the Common Core national standards/national tests movement is warmly endorsed by the technology industry.

This is an excerpt:

School districts will need enough computers to allow almost every student to take multiple annual exams. These computers must be suitable for the “innovative” test items and must be maintained and upgraded. Add to this the cost of increased IT staffing, and you begin to realize the problems of buying a Porsche test on a Ford budget.

A recent study projects that states will collectively spend $2.8 billion and $6.9 billion over seven years on technology alone for Common Core. And the authors cautioned that they were accepting the consortiums’ cost estimates at face value; analyst Ze’ev Wurman has predicted that South Carolina’s annual testing costs may skyrocket to $100 per student, compared with $12 per student today.

School districts that can’t afford substantial new technology will have to rotate students through the computer labs; Smarter Balanced recommends a 12-week testing window. But that creates significant security problems — how to keep the earlier-tested students from talking to the later-tested ones? — as well as inequity in results. The students tested late in the window will have almost three more months of instruction than those first out of the gate. Might this give an unfair advantage? And might teachers, whose evaluations depend on these test scores, resent having their students put at the front of the testing window?

These problems will have to be worked out, assuming the whole concept of nationalized standards, tests and curricula doesn’t collapse under its own weight. When that collapse or implosion happens, I hope it is before too much damage is done to our budgets, our schools and our children.