Archives for category: U.S. Department of Education

There is a sacrosanct principle that has informed the actions of the U.S. Department of Education throughout its 33-year history: federalism. That is, a recognition that the federal government has limited authority, and that states and localities have the primary responsibility for education. George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind was a direct assault on federalism because it asserted the power of Congress and the Department of Education to tell states and localities how to measure “progress” and how to reform schools. Since no one in either Congress or the Department of Education knows how to reform schools, this was a bad but costly joke. And not funny.

Arne Duncan made the assault on federalism more intense by promulgating Race to the Top. RTTT offered a huge financial lure to states willing to abandon their authority and accept Duncan’s untried “remedies.” Most were hungry enough to do so, because in a time of financial crisis, money talks.

Duncan’s worst idea was evaluating teachers by test scores. Researchers have repeatedly demonstrated that the teachers in affluent districts get big gains and look effective while those who teach needy students do not get big gains and look like ineffective teachers. Duncan doesn’t care. He has his idee fixe and he is sticking to it, regardless of how many teachers-of-the-year get fired.

Now he has found a new way to undermine federalism. Frustrated by California’s stubborn refusal to join Duncan’s Race to Oblivion, he was able to find a group of superintendents (mostly trained by the unaccredited Broad Academy) who want federal money. So Duncan has bypassed the state, the entity that has legal jurisdiction over these districts, and has formed a direct relationship between the federal government and the coalition called CORE (California Office to Reform Education).

Read this post to learn more about this special “partnership” that cut the state out of the transaction. You will see familiar names, well known in corporate reform circles. They are eager to do what Duncan wants them to do, while ignoring the state of which they are part, which has wisely steered clear of Duncan’s mandates.

The saddest part of all this is that Duncan was a failure in Chicago, yet now he has brought his failed ideas to become national policy. After eight years of his “leadership,” what will be left of American public education? Who will want to teach?

The law specifically prohibits the U.S. Department of Education from interfering or directing curriculum or instruction.* There must be a hole in that law big enough to drive a truck through, and drive the Obama administration did.

As we all know, the Obama administration used the $5 billion in Race to the Top funding, and its power (contested) to issue waivers, to push, prod, and bribe states into “voluntarily” abandoning their own standards and adopting the untried Common Core standards. Some states dropped weak standards, some dropped better standards that had proved their worth.

Secretary Duncan says these standards will make everyone “college and career ready.” The nation’s major corporations agree. So do the nation’s two big teachers’ unions.

But how do they know what the effect of the Common Core standards will be?

We know that they cause a dramatic decline in test scores. Their boosters say that is great, great news, couldn’t be better. Making the tests harder, they say, will make everyone smarter, and soon everyone will be college and career ready. But how do they know? Where is the evidence?

What if they are wrong?

*SEC. 9527. PROHIBITIONS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.

(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s curriculum, program of instruction, or allocation of State or local resources, or mandate a State or any subdivision thereof to spend any funds or incur any costs not paid for under this Act.
(b) PROHIBITION ON ENDORSEMENT OF CURRICULUM- Notwithstanding any other prohibition of Federal law, no funds provided to the Department under this Act may be used by the Department to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in an elementary school or secondary school.
(c) PROHIBITION ON REQUIRING FEDERAL APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATION OF STANDARDS-
(1) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law, no State shall be required to have academic content or student academic achievement standards approved or certified by the Federal Government, in order to receive assistance under this Act.

Apparently in response to Daniel Denvir’s article accusing the state of Pennsylvania of dragging its feet on an investigation of cheating on state tests, the state released some information.

Just remember whenever you hear a governor or other politician boasting about test scores that they have no idea (and neither will you) whether the gains were produced by mindless test prep (where students learn how to guess the right answer), by teaching to the test (where teachers abandon their professional ethics), or by cheating (by teachers or principals or students or superintendents or the state education department).

In a high-stakes environment, the pressure to raise scores renders them meaningless. See “Campbell’s Law.”

This is an astonishing post by Julian Vasquez Heilig. He has a passion for equity, and he bridles when reformers lower the standards for becoming a teacher and claim they are doing it “for the kids.”

He asks, Would you rather fly with an experienced pilot or fly with one who had only five weeks’ training? Or how about one with 30 hours of training? If the answer seems obvious, and if you prefer that your children have teachers who are well prepared and highly qualified, wait until you see the chart in the middle of his post, showing the explosive growth in teachers with alternate certification.

Then consider that the U.S. Department of Education wants to STOP collecting this data. And that’s not all. In the Department’s single-minded commitment to something-or-other (not equity), this is what they propose to stop reporting:

“That brings us to the federal governments request to no longer keep track of this huge influx of teachers with a modicum of training to “pilot” our classrooms. The Department of Education is seeking public comments on the Civil Rights Data Collection process for 2013-2016. The feds have decided that it is no longer necessary to keep track of the FTE of teachers meeting all state licensing/certification requirements. The feds have also decided these data points are also no longer important for Civil Rights:

“Number of students awaiting special education evaluation (LEA)

“Whether students are ability grouped for English/Math

“Harassment and bullying policies (LEA)

“Number of students enrolled in AP foreign language(disaggregated by race, sex, disability, LEP)

“Number of students who took AP exams for all AP courses enrolled in (disaggregated by race, sex, disability, LEP)

“Number of students who passed AP exams for all AP courses enrolled in (disaggregated by race, sex, disability, LEP

“Total personnel salaries”

The commenter who calls himself or herself “Democracy” says the following about the Reauthorization of the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently known as NCLB):

“Bill Mathis correctly points out that education legislation pending in the Congress “would still ‘disaggregate’ test results by ethnic affiliation and income levels so as ‘to shine a light’ on the disparities and inequalities of educational opportunities and outcomes.” He adds this: “These inequalities have been well-documented for the last half-century.” And yet, they persist.

The problem is that proposed legislation does nothing to address the inequities. To provide substance would “require politicians and inside the beltway actors to actually press for funding equal to the mandates. It would require significant investments in job, community and comprehensive educational support systems.”

Over at the Center for Education Reform, resident crackpot Jeanne Allen dispenses some horrifically bad information and advice on education “reform.” Allen claims (incorrectly) that “65 percent of America’s K-12 student population that is failing and falling through the cracks” (she must not read anything about NAEP scores or disaggregated PISA scores).

Allen says that “the federal role should be one of assessment and data gathering,” and “there must be firm consequences for federal spending at state and local levels” because “local control is a hallow theme when it is school board groups and teachers unions doing the controlling.” Yet, when it comes to charter schools, Allen wants no accountability whatsoever.

Allen demands merit pay for regular public school teachers based on student test scores, even though there is no solid research to support it. As Mathis notes, “test-based evaluation systems have such a high error rate that their use in teacher evaluation is unstable.” This troubles Jeanne Allen not at all. But then, the Center for Education Reform gets its funding from conservative organizations like the Arnold, Bradley, Broad, Kern, Milken, and Walton Foundations, and from the Gates Foundation.

To cite but two examples, the Arnold Foundation is a right-wing organization founded by a hedge-funder who resists accountability and transparency in derivatives markets but calls for them in education. Its executive director, Denis Cabrese was former chief of staff to DIck Armey, the Texas conservative who now heads up FreedomWorks, the group that helps to pull the Tea Party strings and gets funding from the billionaire arch-conservative Koch brothers.

And the Walton Foundation focuses on “competition”, “charter school choice,” “private school choice,” and teacher effectiveness. It funds groups like Teach for America, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (whose board of directors includes Rick Hess and whose advisory board includes a KIPP founder, a Walton board member, and education blatherer Andrew Rotherham) and the Charter School Growth Fund (interestingly, Kevin Hall sits on the board of both this group AND the Charter School Authorizers and was previously the “Chief Operating Officer of The Broad Foundation” and “worked at…Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Teach For America.”).

The corporate-style “reformers” – and their Republican and Democratic allies – care not for addressing the real inequities in American public schooling.

And that truly is a shame.”

Arne Duncan announced that he plans to hold a national competition for a redesign of the high school. He wants to dangle $300 million (if Congress agrees) for those who come up with the best redesign of the American high school. He is thinking STEM, technology, and other such big ideas.

As I read of this idea, I couldn’t help but remember back to 1991 when the first President Bush assembled smart people like Lamar Alexander as secretary and David Kearns (CEO of Xerox) as deputy secretary. David Kearns created a national competition to design the school of the future. The prize was $50 million (raised in the private sector) for the best plan to create “Néw American Schools.”

A new non-governmental organization was created to oversee the competition. It was called the Néw American Schools Development Corporation. Ten or 12 teams won the money. Their ideas were all over the place. The money was duly awarded.

So far as I know, not a trace remains.

Corporate types love the idea of incentivizing bold innovations by holding out big money for the winners.

But it is not the way to change schools. Schools are embedded in their communities. They reflect their communities. Schools change and evolve as society and the economy change.

Someday our educational leaders will grow a sense of humility. We may someday have leaders who don’t try to treat schools like businesses. Schools are not part of the free market. They are community institutions, and their values, practices, and mores are not those of the market economy. They do not compete to win. They exist to nurture students and educate them, not to turn a profit.

There is a surprising overlap between the views of the Tea Party and those of some in the left towards the Common Core. In Indiana, Democrats and Tea Party activists combined to defeat far-right State Superintendent Tony Bennett and elect educator Glenda Ritz. Democrats opposed his support for privatization and his haughty treatment of teachers: Tea Party activists opposed him for his zealous support for the Common Core.

Anthony Cody here describes the issues that unite political opposites:

1. “Sharing of student and teacher data with third party developers of all sorts, with no guarantees of privacy. As noted in this post, there are plans in place in some states such as Illinois and New York, and others as well, to collect massive amounts of data, which will be housed in a cloud based databank maintained by inBloom, a non-profit created by the Gates Foundation for this purpose.” Parents of all persuasions are equally concerned about invasions of their children’s privacy.

2. Both sides are upset by the secretive proceeds in which the Common Core was developed and foisted on the schools across the nation.

3. The federal government is legally barred from interfering in curriculum yet the Department of Education has been deeply involved in promoting the Common Core.

But the two groups part company on other issues, such as allegations that Bill Ayers wrote the Common Core (he did not) or that Linda Darling-Hammond is part of some conspiracy (she is not).

On May 17, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that segregation of the races in public school was unconstitutional. At the time, segregation was the law in 17 states and many districts.

For years, the states where segregation was outlawed resisted the court decision. Their favorite ploy was school choice. They knew that school choice would preserve racial segregation because whites would choose to stay with whites, and blacks would be fearful of applying to white schools, where they would face a hostile climate, harassment, and even violence.

The Supreme Court and lower federal courts overturned the many strategies enacted to evade the necessity of desegregation.

But that was then,and this is now.

Now, billionaires proudly sponsor segregated schools. Now, cities and states authorize all-black, all-Hispanic, all-white charter schools without embarrassment.

The UCLA Civil Rights Project says that racial resegregation is on the rise, for blacks and Hispanics.

The federal government–most especially, the U.S. Department of Education–doesn’t care about racial segregation any more. Nor does it have an active interest in discrimination against students with disabilities. When the ACLU recently won a ruling against voucher schools in Milwaukee that excluded students with disabilities, it went not to the Office of Civil Rights in the Department of Education, but to the U.S. Department of Justice. When the U.D. Government Accountability Office issued a report criticizing charter schools for their mall proportions of students with disabilities, James Shelton of the U.S. Department of Education said something like, “we’ll have to look into that.” That was the last heard from this Department.

Those who care about the resegregation of public education and discrimination against students because of their disabilities will have to wait for another administration that also cares about fairness, equity, and the principles enunciated on May 17, 1954. This one does not.

Matt DiCarlo here describes a paper that shows how utterly arbitrary NCLB is.

Some states look good.

Some states look very bad.

But the states that look bad may actually be outperforming the states that look good..

When will our policymakers acknowledge that NCLB is a harmful, destructive law that has wreaked havoc on American education?

Where Matt and I part company is this observation he concludes with: “…accountability systems can play a productive role in education, but this analysis demonstrates very clearly that, when it comes to the design and implementation of these systems, details matter. Seemingly trivial choices can have drastic effects on measured outcomes.”

No, accountability systems are not likely to play a productive number in education. NCLB is a disaster. Race to the Top is a double disaster.

Who will be held “accountable” for low test scores? Teachers? Students? Principals? Schools? Superintendents? Local school boards? Legislators? Governors? The U,S. Department of Education? Congress?

In 2011, when the U.S. Department of Education revised the regulations governing FERPA to allow third parties to access children’s data without the consent of their parents, the Council of Chief School Officers weighed in. Here is. Comment by Sheila Kaplan, whose organization (educationnewyork.com) is devoted to student privacy issues:

“Here’s Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Comments on 2011 FERPA RULE CHANGE

CCSSO own the Common Core State Standards Copyright with the National Governor’s Association (NGA).

Click to access ccsso.pdf

Also:

“The American Council on Education expressed concerns about the FERPA rule change:

Click to access ace.pdf

The most bizarre was the Head Start opposed the rule change saying they’re under HHS authority, not he USED, and the USED was acting beyond their authority.

HEAD START says US ED acted beyond their authority. This one is interesting.

Click to access headstart.pdf