Archives for category: U.S. Department of Education

The General Accounting Office, which is the federal government’s watchdog agency, just issued a report concluding that charter schools are failing to enroll a fair share of students with disabilities. Advocates of students with special needs have complained about this for the past few years, and it is now confirmed.

The report showed that special-education students—those with diagnosed disabilities from Down Syndrome to attention-deficit disorder—made up 8.2% of charter school students during the 2009-2010 school year. While that was up from 7.7% the year before, it was below the average at traditional public schools of 11.2% in 2009-2010, and 11.3% the previous year.
“These are differences that cannot remain. They are not acceptable,” said Rep. George Miller (D., Calif), a charter-school proponent who asked the GAO to look into the issue. The House passed a bill last year that would make it easier for charter schools to expand, and “we want to make sure that all children—including those who are special ed—have a chance to participate in this revolutionary education reform,” he said. The Senate hasn’t yet voted on the bill.

Congressman George Miller of California, who requested the study, is the leading Democrat on education in the House of Representatives. Miller is a big proponent of testing (he was one of the prime sponsors of NCLB) and now of charters. He is also a favorite of Democrats for Education Reform, the organization of Wall Street hedge fund managers that promotes charters everywhere. DFER has raised large sums of money for Miller.

Eva Moskowitz, a charter founder in New York City, says in the article that the reason the numbers of special education students are low is because her schools are able to move students out of special education because of her schools’  superior methods. But this claim demonstrates that her schools take students with the mildest disabilities, and leaves those with high needs to the public schools, a complaint often lodged against charters.

The most disturbing comment in the article about the study comes at the very end.

Jim Shelton, who oversees charter school initiatives for the Department of Education, said the enrollment gaps between charters and traditional schools are a “relatively small difference,” and that it was difficult to draw conclusions based on the information provided. But he said his office would takes steps to address the issue.

Shelton, formerly of McKinsey, formerly of the Gates Foundation, formerly part of Race to the Top, formerly in charge of innovation grants, now runs the U.S. Department of Education’s charter school initiatives. He sees only a “relatively small difference” in the data presented by GAO. In other words, no problem here. Move on, look the other way. He finds it difficult to draw conclusions. He sees nothing of importance. But his office will “take steps” to address this unimportant issue.
In a story about this report in Huffington Post, Shelton says, “The report puts a fine point on issues we were concerned about,” demonstrating his lack of interest in the issue. Expecting Shelton to monitor charter school violations of the rights of students with special needs or of any other wrong committed by these private sector schools is putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.
Diane

In what must be the most startling development of the past month, year, and perhaps decade, the U.S. Department of Education is now launching a Race to the Top competition for districts. It has nearly $400 million to award, but as we have seen in the state-level competition, the amount of money was sufficient to compel almost every state to rewrite its laws so as to be eligible.

So with this relatively small amount of federal discretionary money, Arne Duncan has set the stage to impose his will and his flawed ideas on districts across the nation.

Districts will have to show that they have the data to track students from pre-k through post-secondary education, as well as to tie test results to individual teachers. The data systems will be elaborate and they will track everyone from age 3-21. And teachers will be held accountable!

What is worse, as the article in Education Week cited above noted, is that “districts will have to promise to implement evaluation systems that take student outcomes into account–not just for teacher and principal performance, but for district superintendents and school boards. That’s a big departure from the state-level Race to the Top competitions, which just looked at educators who actually work in schools, not district-level leaders.”

Think of it. Who will evaluate superintendents and school boards? Will they be evaluated by test scores? Will the federal government fire school boards if test scores are flat? Will it fire district superintendents and replace them? Will Arne Duncan tell school boards and superintendents to raise test scores or resign? Did anyone in Congress approve this bizarre program of federal over-reach?

Even conservative blogger Rick Hess was taken aback. As he put it, “My only reaction to reading the info on this new Race to the Top-District was, “You have…got…to…be…kidding.” It’s like they read all their admiring press clips from RTT, strenuously tuned out any criticism or lessons learned from the, um, uneven track record when it comes to implementation, and wanted to see whether they could take the hubris meter up to 11 (with apologies to Spinal Tap).”

Hess disapproves because he thinks that the new competition will result only in vague promises and punch-list compliance. I am appalled because the U.S. Department of Education should not be in the business of telling districts how to do their job. They lack the competence to do so, and by doing so they ignore decades of history, tradition, and precedent. Is it really appropriate for Arne Duncan to take control of the nation’s schools?

Has anyone at the U. S. Department of Education ever heard of the principle of federalism? Does Arne Duncan think he was appointed the national Superintendent of Schools? Is there no limit to his desire to impose his bad ideas on others? His belief in the value of standardized testing is startling, to say the least. One might even say it is faith-based.

Diane

I thought I was done with blogging for the day but then I read a comment on an earlier post. It was very disturbing. If true, it’s frightening to think that the Obama administration plans to “monitor” special education by test scores and to reduce the number of people on the ground.

“For-profit higher education is a $30 billion industry, and it has the wherewithal to call off the regulators.” Exactly. DoEd will reform (translation: eliminate) OSEP’s compliance procedures assuring IDEA and special education IEPs are effectively working for children with disabilities. OSEP director Melodie Musgrove told us at the Council for Exceptional Children’s international convention (CEC) in April, 2012 that they will be monitoring “achievement data” (translation: standardized test scores) from Washington and cutting back on state compliance officers (translation: firing). Her “vision” for OSEP  is “results driven accountability” and to “reward teachers who work with sped students.” (translation: TfA exploiting the SPED teacher shortage).

OSEP’s shift from compliance to monitoring sets back 40 years of special education progress in assuring all schools provide a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities.

Musgrove signaled that DoEd and OSEP would essentially ignore IEP violations.
This is a huge gift to the for-profits. Shifting away from school compliance on IEPs  means schools will not be accountable to parents or teachers for providing individualized educational services. You know, all those expensive services like smaller class groupings, collaborative teaching, inclusion, transportation, psychological support, speech therapy, OT, PT, etc. that the profiteers don’t want to pay for.

Musgrove said we could call her anytime a 205-245-8020 or e-mail her at melody.musgrove@ed.gov. She added, we might not like what we hear…

If you are the parent or child of a child with special needs, or if you care about children with special needs, you should get in touch with Musgrove.

Diane

Yesterday I engaged in an unexpected exchange on Twitter with Justin Hamilton, who is press secretary to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan.

It started after I retweeted a blog by master-teacher Nancy Flanagan. Nancy’s blog took issue with a listing of the up-and-coming stars of American education, which focused heavily on the entrepreneurial sector and forgot teachers. Nancy listed some of the outspoken teachers who are emerging stars in the profession, like Julie Cavanaugh and Brian Jones, two New York City teachers who starred in “The Inconvenient Truth Behind ‘Waiting for Superman.'”

When I retweeted Nancy’s blog, I asked “Who will transform education: entrepreneurs or educators?”

I don’t have the exact sequence, but Jersey Jazzman (one of my favorite bloggers) recapitulated the tweets and blogs here: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2012/05/weasels-in-department-of-education.html?spref=tw.

Before long, Hamilton responded to my tweet by saying that we should not choose between entrepreneurs and educators, but should count on both of them to transform education.

We then had a lively exchange, in which I made clear, in tweet after tweet, that my reference to “entrepreneurs” referred specifically to the for-profit education industry, which seeks to get rich by coming up with new ventures in education. In our twitter exchange, I referred specifically to the for-profit charter industry (most charters in Michigan for-profit) and also to the for-profit cyber charters,which make big profits and get poor results. I asked why Secretary Duncan has never spoken out against the depredations of this industry, which uses lobbyists to buy access to children.

Hamilton responded with an ad hominem tweet, saying that I was an entrepreneur because I get paid to make speeches and to write books.

That seems to be the default position of the U.S. Department of Education, to go personal when they can’t defend what they are doing. A year ago, Secretary Duncan claimed that “Diane is in denial” after I debunked his claims about miraculous turnarounds that happen by firing the staff. (See my earlier post “Psychologizing Female Critics”).

My takeaway from our exchange: the US Department of Education welcomes for-profit entrepreneurs and will never turn its back on them, no matter how paltry their results or how constricted their definition of “education.” The advance of corporate greed into the education sector, in my view, has nothing to recommend it. Corporations will seek to replace teachers with computers, will shave costs wherever possible, and will deliver a product that is as cheaply produced as possible in order to maximize profits. I fail to understand what that has to do with education, as I understand the meaning of the term.

Diane