Archives for category: Tennessee

[Testing expert Fred Smith points out that Questar is owned by ETS. Much ado about nothing.]

Tennessee Governor Haslam says the state may drop Questar, its exam vendor, because of three straight years of problems with the state tests.

The contract may go to ETS, he said.

One positive note in the testing failure is that data won’t be available to assign low-scoring schools to the failed and ineffectual “Achievement School District.”

Tennessee likes to boast about how it moved from the cellar on NAEP to the middle, but the article cited here was written before the release of NAEP 2017, where scores in the state mostly declined compared to 2015.

 

Legislators in Tennessee are rightfully upset by the failure of online testing and have said that the results of the tests won’t be used against any student, teacher, or school. Democrats, in the minority, called for the resignation of Candace McQueen, the state commissioner of education, who doggedly defends online testing.

“The Tennessee General Assembly struck a deal Thursday that will ensure this year’s TNReady test won’t be held against students, teachers and public school districts.

“The measure agreed upon by both chambers says test results this school year will count only if it benefits students, educators and districts. Districts can’t base employment or compensation decisions based on the data, the legislation says.

“It came about after an extraordinary 11th-hour deal by the House to address ongoing test issues that continued sporadically on Thursday across the state.

“All across the state we have heard from superintendents, testing coordinators about some issues logging in, recording the tests as the kids took them, sometimes not being able to log in,” said House Republican Caucus Chair Ryan Williams, R-Cookeville.

“I think what happened was the House felt like we needed to do something to protect teachers and our students and our institutions from further erosion of the trust as it relates to these tests. I think what you saw today is an effort to do that.”

”Trust” in online testing? That’s a reach.

 

A Rocketship Charter in Nashville was slated to be part of the state’s failed Achievement School District  but it closed a few months after opening.

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/education/2018/02/01/nashville-achievement-school-district-rocketship-nashville-partners-community-prep/1087161001/

The school expected  to enroll 190 students but only 50 signed up. Demand isn’t there for a school once hailed as a national model.

To add to the woes of Rocketship charters in Nashville, the IRS filed a lien against their property because of unpaid taxes of about $19,000.. Rocketship officials said it was a clerical error.

 

Gary Rubinstein has chronicled the creation, the hype, the premature claims of success, and the utter collapse of the Tennessee Achievement School District.

It was created with Race to the Top funding. It promised to take the schools ranked in the bottom 5% of the state and “catapult” them to the top 25%. This would take only five years. It would be done by turning them into charter schools.

But, five years later, Rubinstein finds, 5 of the six original schools are still in the bottom 5%, and the sixth is in the bottom 9%.

Tennessee ‘Cusp List’ 2017: 5 of 6 Of Original ASD Schools Still In Bottom 5%

This outcome could be fairly characterized as abject failure.

Unfortunately, reformers are never deterred by failure. Several other states, including Nevada, Georgia, and North Carolina have started a similar program, modeled on the Tennessee ASD.

Worse, the ASD concept is embedded in the federal Every Student Succeeds act, which directs states to develop a plan to intervene in the schools in the lowest performing 5%.

This is great news! Parents in Tennessee stopped the voucher bill again, as one of its key sponsors announced that he would not introduce the bill in the coming session due to parent opposition.

“Sen. Brian Kelsey said Monday that he won’t ask a Senate committee to take up his bill — which would pilot a program in Memphis — when the legislature reconvenes its two-year session in January.

““I listen to my community. Right now, there’s not enough parental support,” the Germantown Republican lawmaker told Chalkbeat after sharing the news with Shelby County’s legislative delegation…

“Kelsey’s retreat calls into question the future of the voucher legislation in Tennessee, home to a perennial tug-of-war over whether to allow parents to use public money to pay for private school tuition. It also comes as U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has focused national attention on the policy…

“This week’s development signals that the momentum for vouchers may be shifting for now.

“Nationally, recent studies show that achievement dropped, at least initially, for students using vouchers in Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio and Washington, D.C. And in Tennessee, one group that has lobbied annually for vouchers is taking a step back from the issue, according to its executive director.

“I can tell you that Campaign for School Equity will not be pursuing or supporting any voucher legislation this year. It’s a shift in focus for us …,” Mendell Grinter said, adding that the Memphis-based black advocacy group is switching emphasis to student discipline and other issues of more concern to its supporters.

“Even so, DeVos urged Tennessee lawmakers to pass vouchers during her first visit to the state last month. “Too many students today … are stuck in schools that are not working for them,” she told reporters. (The U.S. Department of Education cannot mandate voucher programs, but could offer incentives to states to pass them.)

“Vouchers have passed three times in Tennessee’s Senate, only to stall each time in the House. Proponents had thought that limiting vouchers to Memphis would garner the legislative support needed this year, but the Kelsey-Brooks bill didn’t sit well in the city that would be most impacted. Opposition swelled among county commissioners, local legislators, and numerous school boards across Greater Memphis…

“During discussions Monday with Shelby County lawmakers, Bartlett Superintendent David Stephens said vouchers would be a blow to districts already unsteady from years of reform efforts.

“Any time we take dollars out of public schools, we’re hurting public schools,” Stephens told Chalkbeat later. “We don’t need to do anything to hurt or cut funding there. When we talk in Shelby County about school choice, we have the municipal districts, charter schools, the county school system. That’s choice.”

Thank you, Tennessee Mama Bears and everyone else in Tennessee, for protecting your public schools.

A Tennessee court might rule on whether a student has a right to a teacher, and whether computers count as teachers. The district wants the case dismissed.

Do the rights of Tennessee students to a public education extend into the right to have a teacher, and if so, does a computer program count?

Those questions were posed to a state appeals court Tuesday during oral arguments in a case involving a Nashville student, Toni Jones, that could set a statewide framework defining school districts’ obligations to their students.

Jones was a freshman at Pearl-Cohn High School who was pulled out of an algebra class before an end-of-course test and placed into a computer-based credit recovery program, Jones’ lawyer, Gary Blackburn, said. He said the student was struggling in the algebra class but had a passing grade.

The appeal stems from a lawsuit Blackburn filed in 2015, alleging the district was padding test scores by moving Jones and others to the other program. Several teachers who spoke out about the testing practices are suing the district in a separate case, saying they were inappropriately reprimanded by the district.

He said precedent set in Tennessee court cases entitled Jones to a teacher, and that due process protections were violated when she was moved into the other class without notice to Jones or her family.

“The slippery slope so to speak is that if a teacher is not essential, then a school system can be offered entirely by computers,” he said. “Students can be placed in a gymnasium and put a computer on a desk, and say, here is your teacher. And we’re going to have a hall monitor to keep you from acting up. That is basically what happened to Toni Jones. That’s not teaching.”

Does a computer count as a teacher? Is a corporation a person? What do you think?

Johanna Garcia, a New York City public school parent and president of her district’s Community Education Council, has lodged a formal complaint to the U.S. Department of Education about the city Department of Education’s policy of turning over student records to charter schools for their marketing and recruitment campaigns.

Here is the press release.

Question: we have heard for years about charter school waiting lists, about their need for more seats. Why do they need to spend so much effort and money on recruitment and marketing if these wait lists actually exist? Why do they need to extract students names and addresses (and more) from the public schools if they have wait lists?

Leonie Haimson writes about Johanna Garcia’s complaint here:

“In her complaint, Johanna questions whether charter operators are receiving students’ test scores, grades, English learner and/or disability status from DOE in addition to their contact information, based on her personal experience with the selective charter recruitment of her three children. More evidence for this possibility is also implied by an email that I received from the DOE Chief Privacy Officer Joe Baranello, in response to my inquiry about the legal status of these disclosures.

“DOE has voluntarily supplied the contact information for students and families without parental consent to Success Academy and other charter schools since at least 2006 and perhaps before, as revealed in emails FOILed by reporter Juan Gonzalez in 2010 and cited below.

“As Eva Moskowitz wrote Klein in December 2007, she needed this information to “mail 10-12 times to elementary and preK families” so that she could grow her “market share.” Attention has been paid recently to Moskowitz’ current goal of expanding to 100 charter schools, and her aggressive expansion plans will be facilitated by SUNY’s recent agreement to change their regulations, exempting her from teacher certification rules and allowing her to hire teachers with just a few weeks of training to staff her schools.

“Just as critical to her plans for rapid expansion is her ability to send multiple mailings to families for recruiting purposes. In 2010, it was estimated that Success Academy spent $1.6 million in the 2009-2010 school year alone on recruitment and promotion costs, including mailings and ads, amounting to $1300 for each new enrolled student. The need to do a massive amount of outreach to fill seats is intensified by the fact that only half of the students who win Success Academy admissions lotteries actually enroll in her schools, according to a new study.

“In stark contrast to DOE’s voluntary and continuing practice of helping charter schools recruit students by providing them with the personal information of NYC public school students, the Nashville school board has recently refused to provide their students’ contact information to charter schools, prompting a lawsuit filed against them by the State Education Commissioner. The Commissioner cites a Tennessee law passed by the Legislature in August that she claims requires the district to share student contact information with charters.

“In response, Nashville attorneys argue that the release of information to charter operators for the purpose of marketing their schools to families is forbidden by FERPA, as this would be a commercial use of the data. Last spring, a Nashville charter school agreed to pay parents $2.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit against them for spamming them with text messages urging them to enroll their children in the school.”

Open the post to read it in full and to follow the links.

North Carolina decided to copy Tennessee’s failed “Achievement School District” by creating a special district to take over low-scoring schools, giving them to charter operators, and claiming victory. Despite the abysmal failure in Tennessee, North Carolina created an “Innovative School District” and identified 48 Low-scoring prospects. One by one, they got off the state takeover list, after protests by parents and local boards. Finally, only one was left, and its school Board decided to close the school rather than let it go into the takeover District.

“Without a school to take over, ISD Superintendent Eric Hall says the district may have to pick up additional schools when they take up the matter next year. Leaders were expected to choose two schools this year and another two next fall, but this month’s developments are likely to shift that timetable.”

A letter to the editor following the article:

“Learn as they proceed….”??? Really?? The ISD Superintendent will make more than the governor of NC to oversee only ONE school?? A school that would actually be run by a for-profit charter company?? And he says they only chose one this year to learn as they go?? If they don’t ALREADY know what they are doing, how do they expect to turn around a “failing school”?? What a bunch of goobers… #WAKEUPNC!! #PUBLICservants??!!
“Hall described the program’s slow roll-out as an opportunity for North Carolina officials to learn as they proceed with the new district.”

Another big victory for reform.

North Carolina is undeterred by the abject failure of Tennessee’s “Achievement School District,” which turned control of low-performing schools to charter operators. North Carolina will try exactly the same strategy but will call it the “Opportunity School District.”

School board members are miffed that it is taking so long to select five schools for their experiment. Many likely takeover schools have fought back and resisted, with community support.

The state board is adopting a strategy that has no evidence that it works. It removes local control and gives public money to charter operators. Board member Olivia Holmes Oxendine is certain that what failed in Tennessee will succeed in North Carolina, even though Tennessee had many additional millions in Race to the Top funding.

Since when did conservatives become enemies of local control?

Can’t they come up with a better idea than to copy the plan that failed in Tennessee?

Angie Sullivan teaches young children in the public schools of Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada. Her school is a Title I School. She often excoriates the legislature for ignoring the needs of the state’s neediest children. In this post, which she sent to legislators and journalists, she reminds them that Nevada’s charter schools are among the lowest performing schools in the state, and that their so-called Achievement School District, modeled on the ASD that failed in Tennessee, is also a massive failure.

The Nevada ASD

The Achievement School District is the biggest reform failure in the state of Nevada.

Built on the flawed premise that charters are a remedy for failing public schools, the ASD forces 6 failing public schools into charters. Unfortunately, the worst academic performers in Nevada are charters. Charters are not a remedy. There are zero excellent charters in Nevada. And certainly zero excellent charters in places needing remedy in Nevada.

This is a description of Nevada ASD.

http://www.doe.nv.gov/News__Media/Press_Releases/2016a/Nevada_Achievement_School_District_Eligibility_List_Submitted_to_State_Board_of_Education/

When implemented, no one wanted the ASD job. Certainly no one in the Nevada community wanted the task.

Eventually a young woman Jana Wilcox Lavin with a background in public relations and marketing was imported from the failed Tennessee ASD model to form the new Nevada ASD.

Jana immediately announced she did not want to “takeover” an older school facility. Her primary concern was plumbing. Seems that her “takeover” in Tennessee had issues with pipes she did not want to deal with again. Also charter vendors are not attracted to rural communities. And charter takeover of a failing charter was not an option. Proving ASD charters were not a remedy for student achievement but a business function since they do not go where a remedy for student achievement is needed the most.

Jana has moved on and is now at Opportunity 180. That organization had $10 million (including funds from Eli Broad) under former Nevada State School Board Member Allison Serafin to bring non-profit charters to Nevada. Opportunity 180 also failed.

Due to low per pupil funding, ASD and Opportunity 180 did not attract any quality charter vendors. It certainly did not attract quality vendors with education experience dealing with high poverty and high language learning populations.

Some scary vendors were chosen – later to be excluded.

As mentioned before, the selection process for the ASD was unfair with schools being “chosen” in urban Vegas because the facilities were new. I believe the ASD thought minority parents would be easily swayed to become a charter. They were wrong.

The underperforming list was very telling. Half the list were rural schools and charters. Many listed were immediately disqualified because they were already charters. Outside charter vendors had zero appetite for rural school takeover. No one had an appetite for rural school takeover. Again proving the ASD is not a function of doing what is best for all Nevada students.

The ASD moved to force the six charter vendors on minority communities in Vegas.

Low Performing Vegas schools were the victims. While a very small handful of parents welcomed becoming a charter, overwhelmingly the community came out by the thousands rejecting “takeover”. The community is tired of failed experimentation on communities of color by outsiders. Decades of invasion has taught our parents to be highly skeptical and critical of crazy ideas imposed by top-down policy makers who do not know or care about our kids.

The ASD ended up taking in the Agassi Charters and a very tiny four teacher Futuro started by Allison Serafin’s TFA friends. Some schools ended up with a “compact” since there was no one willing to take them over.

During the last legislative session, correction of this failed reform was attempted. Unfortunately the revised legislation may have been worse than the current version with teacher voice squelched and parent trigger like language. The correction was about forcing charters with even stronger language. Hard to explain the poison pills the NVDOE wanted to place in the revision but they were nasty. While some pieces of the new legislation were better; other pieces were worse. Unfortunate maneuvering by the NVDOE and the ASD. Taught me a lot about the individuals at the NVDOE and how little they know about my community.

We needed to change the ASD legislation but the poison was too hard to swallow.

We are stuck with a system which parents already rejected.

This years underperforming list looks to be similar to last years list. The lowest of the low performers are obviously charter schools and rural schools once again.

https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/362048046/Nevada-s-2017-Rising-Stars-Schools?skip_app_promo=true

Elementary Schools

CCSD Bottom 5% – 12 Schools (5%)
CCSD Low Performing – 14 Schools (6%)
CCSD has 216 elementary schools. (11%)

Washoe Bottom 5% – 3 Schools (5%)
Washoe Low Performing – 5 Schools (8%)
WCSD has 60 elementary schools (13%)

Rural Bottom 5% – 3 Schools
Rural Low Performing- 8 Schools
** 100% of schools in most places are failing – since often only a singular choice is offered**

Charter Bottom 5% – 1 Schools (4%)
Charter Low Performing – 4 Schools (17%)
24 charters – (21%)

Middle Schools

CCSD Bottom 5% – 2 schools (3%)
CCSD Low Performing – 6 schools (10%)
CCSD has 59 middle schools. (13%)

Washoe Low Performing – 2 schools (13%)
WCSD has 15 middle schools (13%)

Rural Bottom 5% – 5 schools
Rural Low Performing – 4 schools
** 100% of schools in most places are failing – since often only a singular choice is offered**

High Schools

CCSD – 4 schools
CCSD has 49 high schools. (8%)

Rural – 5 schools
** 100% of schools in most places are failing – since often only a singular choice is offered**

Charters – 8 schools (67%)
24 charters – 12 having high schools

Nevada has 24 charters. 11 are on the list. 46% of charters are performing lowest of the low. Mater (Academica) , NV Connections, Nevada Virtual, Quest, Delta Academy, Innovations, Odyssey, Beacon, Encompass, Silver State, and I Can Do Anything.

Elko County has nine schools. 7 are on the list. 78% of its schools.

Places like McDermitt which serves primarily Native Americans – 100% of its schools are on the list for elementary and high school.

Unfortunately the list still includes schools which are obviously credit retrieval and alternative programs. This should be fixed instead of continuing to list obvious programs already identified as specialized.

Alternative Schools
CCSD Burk
CCSD Desert Rose
Nye Pathways

In summary:

If ASD is really about improving student achievement and not a Vegas school grab – it will look at the data.

Reform rural schools first since there is zero other school choice in those locations. Some places have the most obvious and overwhelming need. Start in Elko and McDermitt. ASD should focus on places with 100% of schools failing – which are most of the rural schools listed and a third of the list.

In addition, all schools listed should be allowed to make a compact instead of charter takeover if targeted. This was allowed last year and set a precedent.

If CCSD schools are the only schools targeted again for takeover – it will be obvious to everyone this is unfair according to the data. Also, Vegas offers choice by magnet, zone variance, and location. Parents can move students because we have 351 schools not a singular choice.

Charters under scrutiny by the State Public Charter Authority, in receivership, or under investigation should not be allowed to “escape” by opting in to the ASD. That would include all of them on the low performing lists. Nevada Charters have avoided accountability for too long. They need to be closed if they are failing.

Personal note: Also listed are many schools with ZOOM, Victory, SB178 money. This shows that money is obviously required and the Vegas schools labeled Low Performing are filled with students experiencing high poverty and language learners. Since this funding was recently legislated, especially the weighted funding, those places should be left alone to see if those funds can work.

I will be watching ASD closely to make sure it makes it choices based on student achievement . . . and not nice real estate or extra money.

Forcing a charter on minority communities is not school choice.

And that is why Nevada ASD is a huge policy failure.

Angie.