Archives for category: Texas

This is a fascinating article from the Texas Observer that explores the myth of the hero superintendent, the popular delusion that one transformational leader can “save” a school district. The idea was shaped by the Rhee story, the TIME cover implying that she held the secret to “fixing America’s schools,” a myth that persists despite the absence of any objective evidence.

The focus of the article is the first year of Dallas superintendent Mike Miles, who arrived as a superstar and barely survived an effort to fire him a year later.

The good news in the story is that belief in the hero superintendent idea–the man or woman who rides in as a miracle-worker on a white horse–is fading. Common sense is slowly returning. Maybe.

Improving schools requires teamwork, collaboration, professionalism, and a steady course. Stars come and go. The builders are steady, reliable, consistent, persistent, dedicated to ideals greater than themselves.

Jason Stanford, an independent political journalist in Texas, calls for an investigation of Pearson in Texas.

Stanford noticed that New York’s State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman extracted a settlement of $7.7 million from Pearson because of the co-mingled activities of its charitable foundation and its for-profit activities.

He believes that is similar problems would be found in Texas. Pearson has a five-year contract for $32 million in New York, but a $462 million contract for the same period in Texas.

He writes:

“This kind of hand-in-glove relationship between Pearson’s foundation and for-profit interests exists in Texas. In 2009 and in 2010, the Pearson Foundation gave two endowments totaling $400,000 to the University of Texas College of Education, home to the Pearson Center for Applied Psychometric Research where they do “cutting edge statistical and psychometric research and evaluation services to further educational improvements … and to inform educators, researchers, policymakers, and other stakeholders in the education process.” And since 2000, these policymakers have given Pearson contracts totaling $1.2 billion.

“There’s a “you get what you pay for” quality to academic research that dovetails with the corporate interests that fund it, creating the appearance of a conflict of interest. If the former had anything to do with the latter, the Pearson Foundation may have broken the law and is why the Texas Attorney General needs to take a close look at Pearson.

“According to local custom, Texas has elected leaders openly hostile to regulating polluters, assault weapons, and exploding fertilizer plants—in short, everything except a woman’s uterus. And there’s ample evidence that state officials have put the lazy in laissez faire when it comes to providing effective oversight of Pearson’s massive contract.”

Texas has given out charters to various non-educators. Being a celebrity is credential enough to get state authority to open a school.

There are charters run by a tennis star, a football star, a basketball star, and a horde of entrepreneurs with no educational experience. This is called “reform” for some reason.

The Texas Education Agency is currently investigating financial disorder and mismanagement at a charter school in Dallas founded by a former football star.

According to news reports from Dallas, the school fired its founder–for the second time.

Remind me why charter schools run by amateurs are supposed to be better than schools operated by credentialed professional educators.

In response to an earlier article by psychologists and social workers about abusive tactics in certain schools in Texas, this parent wrote the following comment:

 

Quote from the above article: ” During the same 30 years when A.D.H.D. diagnoses increased, American childhood drastically changed. Even at the grade-school level, kids now have more homework, less recess and a lot less unstructured free time to relax and play.”

In my children’s school, the principal thinks ADHD meds are “steroids for the brain” and has a standard recommendation for all parents whose children can’t sit still for 8 hours of drill each day. Last year, when my 7 year old son could not sit still in 2nd grade for two days of four hour STAAR test practice, it was recommended that I take him to the doctor and say that he could not “focus” on his schoolwork. All the doctor did was write out one sentence stating an ADHD diagnosis and a script for meds. The doctor seemed to be under the influence of the school? I decided it was not my son that needed changing, it was the school! I changed both my son and daughter to a private school this year, even though we cannot afford it. What is happening in elementary schools of Texas is abusive. I’m glad it is finally being called what it is:

Mental and Physical cruelty for children is psychological abuse!

Jason Stanford explains why it won’t be easy for Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to “walk back” his insulting remarks about “white suburban moms.”

When defenders of the testing industry in Texas tried the same tactic, they succeeded in strengthening the backlash against high-stakes testing.

It was not just “white suburban moms” who objected to the overemphasis on testing, but moms and dads of all races, living in not only suburbs, but cities and rural areas.

They organized, they pushed back, and they beat the testing industry, which had for many years successfully gotten hundreds of millions of dollars for more and more testing, even as school budgets were cut to the bone.

Stanford concludes:

As in Texas, Sec. Duncan’s attempt to blame mothers has caused a backlash. Sec. Duncan’s half-hearted apology for his “controversial-sounding soundbites” and “clumsy phrasing” has done nothing to quell the full-throated opposition. Critics have started a petition on WhiteHouse.gov to remove Duncan as Secretary of Education, and a Facebook group called Moms Against Duncan (MAD) had more than 3,500 members.

The apology is beside the point. Parents of public school students — myself included — are mad that our education system is still based on standardized tests that are developmentally inappropriate, unable to measure classroom learning, and over-emphasized to the point of corrupting the curriculum. Moms (and dads, for that matter) will not be happy until we put developing children and not raising test scores at the center of our education policy. We’re just waiting for Sec. Duncan to realize that he isn’t as brilliant as he thinks he is.

 

This superb article in the Texas Observer by Patrick Michels is one of the most astute and hopeful I have read in months.

It chronicles the idea of the school superintendent as super-hero: the man or woman who can reshape the schools and achieve astonishing goals solely by force of will and personality.

The story is about Mike Miles, the superintendent of Dallas, but it is really about the national scene, about the rise and fall of the myth of the Super-Superintendent, the super star who makes bold promises, sets lofty targets, disrupts the district, then moves on–either to more money or obscurity.

The working premise of the Hero Superintendent is that the system is broken and needs to be turned upside down, with  lots of firings and threats.

Michels writes:

The business world’s interest in remaking public education is nothing new—calling school leaders “superintendents” became popular a century ago, when factory efficiency experts took a first pass at redesigning public schools.

America is enjoying another such moment today. Popular business literature is suffused with the idea that strong leadership has the power to improve even the most massive bureaucracy, and the education world has fallen in line. The George W. Bush Institute, the think tank tied to the presidential library at Southern Methodist University, is home to an “Alliance to Reform Education Leadership.” The Broad Superintendents Academy in Los Angeles is one of the most polarizing institutions of the current school-reform movement, grooming “exceptional leaders and managers to help transform America’s education systems, raise student achievement and create a brighter future,” according to its website.

“I think there’s been something of an infatuation with business management in education,” says Young, the University of Virginia scholar. “Schools are not businesses. We don’t necessarily have the same moral obligations to the community and to kids that you have to stakeholders that are investing their money.”

“The reason it works in business is you do have a bottom line,” Brewer says. “In order to do that in education, they had to find one indicator of success. That’s not necessarily compatible with the complexity of education.”

New superintendents who focused on “quick wins” in the “first 90 days”—that’s all straight out of popular business literature. So is the focus on transformational change, the faith that we’re capable of rapid improvement in society if only we’ll shake off the old ways and dismantle the status quo. No business concept has been more contentious in schools than the tech-inspired enthusiasm for “disruption.”

As it happens, after a year of disruptions, firings, and departures, Miles was in deep trouble with his board. He barely survived, on a 5-3 vote.

The article ends with the prediction that the age of the Hero Superintendent is drawing to a close.

Michels writes:

You can’t improve a school district if you only last a couple of years. School chiefs who ride into town with a hero complex, alienate everybody and get dragged out like martyrs don’t get to build a legacy.

Joe Smith of TexasISD.com believes the hero trend is falling out of favor. “We’ve gotten to the peak of that movement, and I think we’ll see the pendulum come back,” Smith says. “If you’re looking at redefining your schools in your community, I would think that someone who knows the community would have a jump on anybody else.”

 

San Antonio has committed to a dramatic expansion of charters, the emerging growth industry of our time.

San Antonio has welcomed BASIS and Great Hearts Academy, which are known for their appeal to affluent white students. Rocketship will serve the low-income Hispanic students by keeping them in front of a computer a large part of the day.

Remember that Supreme Court decision in 1954–what was it?–oh, yes, the Brown decision. San Antonio says, Full speed away from that loser.

This reader points out that the leaders of New York State so not understand NAEP achievement levels. They are not grade levels. “Proficiency” on NAEP means superior academic performance. Please, someone, explain the levels to them :

“John King and Merryl Tisch continue to mislead the public or demonstrate a total lack of understanding for NAEP scores.

Today, Chancellor Merryl Tisch and Commissioner John King released a joint statement reiterating their belief that our public schools are faltering (http://www.oms.nysed.gov/press/naep-scores-2013.html). New York State Board of Regents Chancellor Merryl H. Tisch said. “I’m encouraged by the progress I’ve seen in classrooms around the state and the hard work educators are doing to help their students succeed. But the NAEP results for New York students confirm what we already know: our students are not where they should be… The NAEP results are consistent with the findings of several other measures of New York students, including the state’s measurement of college and career readiness (35 percent of students are college and career ready).

The problem is that the Chancellor and Commissioner’s definition of “proficient” is not synonymous with NAEP’s. NAEP defines proficient as solid academic performance and competence over challenging subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter. They define basic as partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at a given grade. NAEP’s basic is students achieving appropriate grade level performance. (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/achievement.aspx)

Therefore according to NAEP scores 70% of our 4th graders and 76% of our 8th graders are performing at grade level in reading. In math, 82% of our 4th graders and 72% of our 8th graders are performing at grade level. These numbers are much more encouraging than the approximately 35% proficiency levels claimed by the new Common Core State Assessments.

Looking at this data I can draw two conclusions. Either our education officials do not understand what the NAEP scores mean or they are determined to misinform the public. Neither scenario is what I expect of the individuals chosen to lead our public schools. It’s time to stand up, ask questions and let our concerns be heard.

The parents of Castle Bridge Elementary School said no to state testing. They refused to allow their little children in grades K-2 to take a standardized test. The test was canceled.

The parents drafted the following statement, which was sent to me by a parent leader, Dao Tran:

Statement of Castle Bridge School Parents on New State-Mandated K–2 Testing

October 28, 2013

When we first heard in September that the New York State Education Department was requiring some schools to give high-stakes, multiple-choice (bubble-in) tests for kindergarten through second-grade students, many of us were stunned. Tellingly, the tests are only given in English and we are a dual-language (Spanish/English) school.

We discovered (although we received no communication from our school district) these tests have nothing to do with identifying areas in which our children need help and support and everything to do with measuring their teachers’ supposed “value added,” in order to evaluate them.

However, we already have a “data system” that is far superior to anything a commercial bubble-test provider can offer.

Our children’s teachers provide us with rich, insightful narratives telling us how our children are responding to their thoughtfully designed curriculum, what progress they are making, and what challenges they are working to meet. They might include a story about how a child helped a classmate, overcame a fear, or showed a passion for an activity or experience. This gives us a much better sense of the value their teachers are adding than knowing which quartile a child falls into on a standardized test.

In a school such as ours, where the sounds of happy children engaged in hands-on projects, serious problem- solving, play, and singing is often heard, the threat of a multiple-choice test—bringing with it fear, stress, and the testing protocols that penalize collaboration—could not go unchallenged. Our children are not data points!

We knew even if a few individuals opted their individual children out, if teachers were forced to administer these tests, class instruction time would nevertheless be impacted. We prefer teachers use school time to encourage children to be curious and love learning—teaching to the child, not to the tests.

Opting our children out in large numbers was the only way to protect them while sending a strong message to policymakers that excessive testing is not in our children’s—or school’s—best interests.

As of this writing, families have opted out 93 of the 97 students who would have been subject to the tests and we know of none who want their child tested. Our principal Julie Zuckerman, having a supportive approach to parental input, heard our concerns and canceled the test.

Over the last decade, there has been a shift in public school instruction to support test preparation and erodes the quality of education. Using the scores from exams to determine the effectiveness of teachers elevates the importance of these exams—which give only a snapshot of a student’s ability to perform—to a level of absurdity.

The K–2 high-stakes tests take excessive testing to its extreme: testing children as young as four serves no meaningful educative purpose and is developmentally destructive.
Imagine if all the resources spent on test development, administration, and scoring were allocated to fund enrichment programs, school infrastructure, and staffing, we would be closer to meeting the actual needs of school communities. By refusing these tests, the message we sent was threefold:

1. To the city and state Departments of Education: testing K–2 children is not acceptable and developmentally inappropriate, excessive, and destructive.

2. To our children’s teachers and principal: we know that you can evaluate our students and help them learn and grow better than any test and we want no part of punitive evaluations of your work.

3. To other families of children in the NYC public school system: Your voice matters and you have the power to prevent your children from having to prepare for and take these unsound tests.

We hope that by saying no to these standardized, high-stakes tests we will embolden others to do the same and that together, we can reverse the tide of excessive testing in our public schools. Schools should not resemble machines that seek to track and sort children or to surveil and punish teachers.

Rather they should be caring communities of joy and learning where teachers, administrators, and parents work together to ensure a high- quality education for all children—who to us mean much more than a score.

Jason Stanford listened to Arne Duncan’s put down of the “armchair pundits” who oppose Duncan’s obviously brilliant plan to reform American education. How can we forget how Duncan saved the Chicago public schools? But I digress.

Stanford, a veteran journalist in Austin, describes himself as an “armchair dad” of children in the public schools of Texas.

He has news for Secretary Duncan. Texans are sick of testing. They do not share the Secretary’s enthusiasm for the super-duper tests that will make all children college-and-career ready and tell us the truth that all the previous tests failed to tell.

Stanford points out that the Texas legislature reduced the number of tests needed for graduation from 15 to 5, in response to massive protests by parents and local school boards. The people of Texas said “enough is enough.”

But that’s not all.

Astonishlngly, the legislators “even made it illegal for testing lobbyists to give them campaign contributions, a rare move in a state notably hostile to limits on lobbying, business or giving them money.”

But that’s not all.

Stanford writes:

“The only thing wrong with these limits on school testing, say Texans in a recent poll, is that they didn’t go far enough. The Texas Lyceum polled 1,000 adults and found only 14% said the legislature should have left the 15 tests in place, and slightly more (17%) liked the changes. The shock of the poll is that 56% of Texans wanted either to get rid of standardized tests entirely because they encourage “teaching to the test” or leave accountability standards up to local school boards.

“That’s a lot of armchair pundits.”

Arne Duncan’s love of high-stakes testing has had real world consequences. It has hurt children. It has labeled them as dumb and caused many to give up. It has caused many youngsters to be denied a high school diploma whose lives will be blighted because they couldn’t pass one of the five mandated tests.

Stanford writes why this matters:

“More than a third of Class of 2015—a group of Texans equal to the population of Abilene—currently won’t graduate because the students have failed at least one state test and two subsequent retests. In elementary school, a quarter of the state’s fifth graders will be held back because they failed the reading test. In the eighth grade, a third of all black and poor students have failed the state’s math test.

“Either those scores are signs that two decades of test-based accountability has utterly failed to improve education for underserved populations, or they are proof that test-based accountability is a faith-based ideology with less credibility than believing that marking your child’s height against a wall causes him to grow. You don’t need to sit in an armchair to think that a system that excludes a third of a state’s population from public education might be a sign that you need to re-examine the basic assumptions underlying education policy.”