Brian Malone has written and directed a new documentary that belongs with your collection of films that make the current assault on public education clear and vivid. And the film's official release is tomorrow.
Education Inc is in the fine tradition of Food, Inc. It provides both a specific and important story and a clear and comprehensible overview of the larger forces shaping the small battles in education. The small picture is of events in Colorado, where Jefferson and Douglass counties find their school boards being bought up by outsider interests and their schools hammered by the folks who want to see public education run by private corporations.
The larger picture shows how this local battle is just one manifestation of forces that are dismantling public education across the entire country. Here's the trailer:
Tomorrow is the official launch of the film, though copies have been available for a while now. Many "official" screenings are scheduled across the country (you can find a partial listing here), but you can also go ahead and buy a copy ($15 plus s/h), then screen the film in the comfort of your own home.
This is one more opportunity to bring clarity and real information to the education debates. Check out Malone's film-- if not tomorrow, then as soon as you're able.
Thursday, August 13, 2015
Careers on the Curve
God bless Sheri Lederman.
The New York teacher is in court this week, standing up for herself and for every teacher who suffers under New York's cockamamie evaluation system. If she wins, there will be shockwaves felt all across America where teachers are evaluated based on VAM-soaked idiocy.
There are plenty of folks covering the trial, though I recommend the blog of Alexandra Milleta, a teacher educator who went to high school with Lederman. Her coverage of the first day is a particularly clear view of how curves factor into all this mess.
Talking about the curve is the best way to help civilians understand why these teacher eval systems are giant heaps of baloney. If you're old enough, you remember curves because they suck-- get yourself in a class with the smart kids who all score 100% on a test and suddenly missed-one-question 95% is a C. Of course, younger civilians may not have such memories of the curve because over the past few decades most teachers have come to understand that curving is not a Best Practice.
Evaluating teachers on the curve means that even if the VAM-sauce score actually meant something, the teacher evaluation itself will not mean jack. In a system in which every single teacher is above the bar in excellence, those teachers who are the least above the bar will be labeled failures.
Let's be clear. This does not serve the interests of parents, students, schools or communities. In such a system the meaning of "excellence" changes every year, and teacher ratings have no connection to any absolute standard. This is like a measurement system in which, instead of clear measurements like 8 centimeters or 10 feet, items are measured "longer" or "shorter." It is meaningless and provides no useful information for parents, students, schools, communities, or the teachers themselves.
It serves the interests of one group, and one group only-- the group of policy makers who want to target some teachers for punishment. It is a particularly useful if that group doesn't really care which teachers it targets as long as it gets some of them.
As Milleta reports on the testimony of Professor Aaron Pallas of Teacher College, he makes several points about the capricious garbagosity of NY's system, including this:
Third, the model is not transparent on what “needs to be done to achieve effective or highly effective ratings” which is a requirement of the law.
Actually, as with any norm-referenced test (particularly those in which the new norm is referenced freshly on the fly every time the test is given), we do know what needs to be done to get a better score or ranking-- in order for me to do better, my colleagues must do worse. Under such a ranking system, my colleagues and I are standing in a long line, and the closer to the head of the line I am, the better my score. So I need to get the people in front of me pushed back behind me somehow. At a minimum, I need to avoid helping them. If I'm a really nasty sumbitch, I can try to sabotage them.
At the very least, under this system, it is in my best interests to hope for the failure of my colleagues.
That's a career on the curve. Year to year uncertainty, knowing nothing for certain except that my colleagues and I can only succeed at the expense of each other, and that such success will ultimately be based on biased tilted twisted rankings that will shift from year to year for no rhyme nor reason.
Let's hope the court gets that. And even if it doesn't, let's hope that Sheri Lederman's suit will be an educational opportunity for the public.
The New York teacher is in court this week, standing up for herself and for every teacher who suffers under New York's cockamamie evaluation system. If she wins, there will be shockwaves felt all across America where teachers are evaluated based on VAM-soaked idiocy.
There are plenty of folks covering the trial, though I recommend the blog of Alexandra Milleta, a teacher educator who went to high school with Lederman. Her coverage of the first day is a particularly clear view of how curves factor into all this mess.
Talking about the curve is the best way to help civilians understand why these teacher eval systems are giant heaps of baloney. If you're old enough, you remember curves because they suck-- get yourself in a class with the smart kids who all score 100% on a test and suddenly missed-one-question 95% is a C. Of course, younger civilians may not have such memories of the curve because over the past few decades most teachers have come to understand that curving is not a Best Practice.
Evaluating teachers on the curve means that even if the VAM-sauce score actually meant something, the teacher evaluation itself will not mean jack. In a system in which every single teacher is above the bar in excellence, those teachers who are the least above the bar will be labeled failures.
Let's be clear. This does not serve the interests of parents, students, schools or communities. In such a system the meaning of "excellence" changes every year, and teacher ratings have no connection to any absolute standard. This is like a measurement system in which, instead of clear measurements like 8 centimeters or 10 feet, items are measured "longer" or "shorter." It is meaningless and provides no useful information for parents, students, schools, communities, or the teachers themselves.
It serves the interests of one group, and one group only-- the group of policy makers who want to target some teachers for punishment. It is a particularly useful if that group doesn't really care which teachers it targets as long as it gets some of them.
As Milleta reports on the testimony of Professor Aaron Pallas of Teacher College, he makes several points about the capricious garbagosity of NY's system, including this:
Third, the model is not transparent on what “needs to be done to achieve effective or highly effective ratings” which is a requirement of the law.
Actually, as with any norm-referenced test (particularly those in which the new norm is referenced freshly on the fly every time the test is given), we do know what needs to be done to get a better score or ranking-- in order for me to do better, my colleagues must do worse. Under such a ranking system, my colleagues and I are standing in a long line, and the closer to the head of the line I am, the better my score. So I need to get the people in front of me pushed back behind me somehow. At a minimum, I need to avoid helping them. If I'm a really nasty sumbitch, I can try to sabotage them.
At the very least, under this system, it is in my best interests to hope for the failure of my colleagues.
That's a career on the curve. Year to year uncertainty, knowing nothing for certain except that my colleagues and I can only succeed at the expense of each other, and that such success will ultimately be based on biased tilted twisted rankings that will shift from year to year for no rhyme nor reason.
Let's hope the court gets that. And even if it doesn't, let's hope that Sheri Lederman's suit will be an educational opportunity for the public.
$$-based Layoffs
Way back in 2011, Education Next published one more piece in the continued battle against teacher seniority. "Managing the Teacher Workforce" follows the standard track of the genre-- it defines "managing" as "deciding who to fire" as if that were the only important management function, and it doesn't consider a single effect of a school system in which teachers must combat each other to hold onto jobs, or how much crazier that competition becomes if they must battle each other with the chaos-fueled random noodles of VAM-sauced testing.
But it does offer this one moment of clarity and honesty about what the fight against seniority is all about.
However, were districts to adopt policies that allowed administrators to dismiss teachers according to their effectiveness rather than their seniority, they could lay off fewer teachers, achieve the same budgetary savings, and increase the overall efficacy of their teaching force.
Got that? If we could just lay off teachers based on how much they cost, we could lay off fewer teachers to get the same budget cuts.
The report doesn't discuss the implications of this factor, either. What does it do to teaching to turn it into the very definition of a dead-end career in which the minute you start to make the big money, your career is over?
Nope. Only one insight interested the "researchers"-- if we cut the more expensive teachers, we can save money without leaving ourselves quite so short-handed. Granted this was back in 2011. If anybody sees any evidence that the anti-seniority crowd has changed their mind on this, please let me know, but I won't be holding my breath.
But it does offer this one moment of clarity and honesty about what the fight against seniority is all about.
However, were districts to adopt policies that allowed administrators to dismiss teachers according to their effectiveness rather than their seniority, they could lay off fewer teachers, achieve the same budgetary savings, and increase the overall efficacy of their teaching force.
Got that? If we could just lay off teachers based on how much they cost, we could lay off fewer teachers to get the same budget cuts.
The report doesn't discuss the implications of this factor, either. What does it do to teaching to turn it into the very definition of a dead-end career in which the minute you start to make the big money, your career is over?
Nope. Only one insight interested the "researchers"-- if we cut the more expensive teachers, we can save money without leaving ourselves quite so short-handed. Granted this was back in 2011. If anybody sees any evidence that the anti-seniority crowd has changed their mind on this, please let me know, but I won't be holding my breath.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
NY To Parents: Get Stuffed
The final "official" numbers are in for last year's New York opt out, and they are huge-- in the Empire State, one out of five students did not take the Big Standardized Test.
Faced with that kind of massive revolt, one might expect that the Head Honcho of Education in NY might select any of the following strategies;
1) Take a good, hard look at the test and ask why it is seems to have alienated so many parents and families.
2) Reach out to the Opt-Out community to ask why, exactly, they have such a problem with the BS Test.
3) Go back to the drawing board and ask if the BS Test is really measuring any of the things it's supposedly measuring
4) Make a commitment to use information gathered to improve, alter or otherwise make less odious the BS Testing.
One might expect that the Head Honcho would even choose all three of those options. But it turns out that one would be wrong, because instead state education commissioner MaryEllen Elia selected
5) Ignore the opt-out parents and make threats against the schools that their children attend.
Yep. In a conference call with reporters, Elia said that "the state Education Department is in conversations with the U.S. Department of Education working on a plan regarding possible sanctions for districts with high opt-out rates."
Those sanctions could range from a phone call to the superintendent along the lines of, "What the hell happened and how do you plan to fix it next year" to withholding Title I funds.
There are several messages here. One is that, all PR noise to the contrary, the feds are still fully prepared to tell states exactly how to run their education business, local control and complaints about federal overreach be damned.
But the other, larger message is aimed directly at parents. It's only two words long, and the second word is "you."
Exactly how far Elia expects school districts to go in strong-arming, coercing, and otherwise dragging recalcitrant parents to the shores of the BS Testing ocean are as yet unexplained. How badly does Elia expect schools to punish parents and students in order to avoid being punished by the state (which is itself trying to avoid being punished by the feds).
This is what New York has come to-- in an article about Common Core, testing, and opt-out, chancellor Merryl Tisch ends up with one of the more reasonable-sounding quotes: “I can't imagine that anyone has any interest in withholding Title I funds from school kids in New York State,” she said. “To me, it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I understand carrot-and-stick, but I also understand inflaming an already tense situation.”
I suppose it could actually get worse, and by test time we may be treated to images of Elia holding a gun to the head of a cute puppy and announcing, "Parents, if too many of you opt out, I will kill your principal's pets." Or maybe she'll aim her appeal directly at the children by telling them, "Every time a child doesn't take the state test, an angel loses its wings and plunges straight to earth."
But until things get that ugly, we'll just have to settle for vague threats against schools, indicating that local districts will suffer if New York parents insist on exercising their legal rights.
Faced with that kind of massive revolt, one might expect that the Head Honcho of Education in NY might select any of the following strategies;
1) Take a good, hard look at the test and ask why it is seems to have alienated so many parents and families.
2) Reach out to the Opt-Out community to ask why, exactly, they have such a problem with the BS Test.
3) Go back to the drawing board and ask if the BS Test is really measuring any of the things it's supposedly measuring
4) Make a commitment to use information gathered to improve, alter or otherwise make less odious the BS Testing.
One might expect that the Head Honcho would even choose all three of those options. But it turns out that one would be wrong, because instead state education commissioner MaryEllen Elia selected
5) Ignore the opt-out parents and make threats against the schools that their children attend.
Yep. In a conference call with reporters, Elia said that "the state Education Department is in conversations with the U.S. Department of Education working on a plan regarding possible sanctions for districts with high opt-out rates."
Those sanctions could range from a phone call to the superintendent along the lines of, "What the hell happened and how do you plan to fix it next year" to withholding Title I funds.
There are several messages here. One is that, all PR noise to the contrary, the feds are still fully prepared to tell states exactly how to run their education business, local control and complaints about federal overreach be damned.
But the other, larger message is aimed directly at parents. It's only two words long, and the second word is "you."
Exactly how far Elia expects school districts to go in strong-arming, coercing, and otherwise dragging recalcitrant parents to the shores of the BS Testing ocean are as yet unexplained. How badly does Elia expect schools to punish parents and students in order to avoid being punished by the state (which is itself trying to avoid being punished by the feds).
This is what New York has come to-- in an article about Common Core, testing, and opt-out, chancellor Merryl Tisch ends up with one of the more reasonable-sounding quotes: “I can't imagine that anyone has any interest in withholding Title I funds from school kids in New York State,” she said. “To me, it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever. I understand carrot-and-stick, but I also understand inflaming an already tense situation.”
I suppose it could actually get worse, and by test time we may be treated to images of Elia holding a gun to the head of a cute puppy and announcing, "Parents, if too many of you opt out, I will kill your principal's pets." Or maybe she'll aim her appeal directly at the children by telling them, "Every time a child doesn't take the state test, an angel loses its wings and plunges straight to earth."
But until things get that ugly, we'll just have to settle for vague threats against schools, indicating that local districts will suffer if New York parents insist on exercising their legal rights.
Back To School List
I'm a little late on this, since most retailers rolled out Back to School displays months ago and are currently starting to clear those out so that they have room for Christmas Sale displays. But I always mean to write about this because like so many things from which people can make a buck, Back to School shopping has gotten out of hand.
So as a father and a professional educator of several decades, I have an important message to parents about your back to school shopping.
Chill.
People are trying to get you to panic. Do not do it.
In some cases, the pitch is strictly commercial. Which is fine. That's what businesses do. Work your way into Office Depot's Back to School offerings. Everything you could conceivably or inconceivably need is here, with the exception of the Winnebago needed to cart all of this stuff to school, because for a place like Office Depot, Back to School is Christmas and Mother's Day wrapped up in one revenue generating package.
But here's the non-business Great Kids website, offering parents a list of Back to School necessities that may also necessitate a second mortgage (if, as a parent, you are able to afford a house in the first place).
Back to School supply lists seem to have the longevity of cockroaches, surviving unchanged over centuries. For instance, like many other sources, Great Schools includes this on their list of "basics."
Scissors (blunt ended for younger kids, pointed for older ones)
Um, no. Do not send your older children to school with pointy-ended scissors. And while Great Kids recommend highlighters, they do acknowledge that these "are probably unnecessary for kids in kindergarten through second grade." Yes, because five-year-olds have a tendency to highlight walls and desks and their own faces.
What about a site like Real Simple, the website/magazine devoted to helping wealthy folks make their consumption less conspicuous? Their "essentials" list includes an art smock for elementary and pre-school students. Okay, fine. My own children had art smocks at home (from the popular dad's Old Shirts brand). But essential for school? I'm imagining twenty-five children arriving on the first day and asking the teacher, "Where do I put my smock."
And glue. Specifically glue sticks. Every single list has glue sticks on it. Do we have a national epidemic of Unglued Things in Schools?
Oh-- and these. I see them on lists, in stores, in the mall. Everywhere, in fact, but in actual classrooms:
The worst notebooks ever! You can't make mistakes, and when you rip one page out, another one falls out, too. And if you've taken important notes elsewhere, you can't add them to this, unless-- oh, wait!! NOW I understand the glue sticks!
Backpacks, folders, organizers, twelve different kinds of writing utensils, seventeen different kinds of bound and unbound paper, lunch boxes, a dictionary and a thesaurus!! Cozi gets a bonus point for putting a flash drive on their list, but most lists are composed of the same classic items that Great-Great-Grandma's mom was guilted into buying for Back to School.
So, parents, here's my Back to School to-do list for you.
Step One: Wait
Prior to the first day of school, do not buy anything except things you want your child to have. If your child is organizationally challenged and needs the world's most aggressive trapper-keeper, go ahead and get it. If you and your child agree that a Phineas and Ferb lunchbox is essential to get off to a great new start, I applaud your good taste. Go for it.
But if you are eying the glue stick display or the utility box loaded with 143 colored pencils strictly because you think the school will put your child back on the bus if she shows up without those items, just wait.
Neither my wife (elementary) nor I (high school) expect students to show up on the first day with anything other than a sleepy smile and a hopeful attitude. If the school actually needs your child to bring anything to school, they will tell you. Backpacks may have to fall within particular guidelines. Teachers may want particular notebook configurations. And every school now comes with its own batch of tech requirements.
Contact
Talk to your child's teachers before you need to. Go to open house. If scheduling is tight, make a phone call or an e-mail. Let your school and your teachers know what your expectations are. These are easier conversations to have when you're not in the midst of a child-related crisis. The school or teachers may give you the impression that they are too busy to have a non-critical conversation with you. Too bad for them. Have it anyway, but be focused and businesslike. Whenever dealing with teachers and schools, it's helpful to remember that we measure time out in very short increments. "Just one more thing," may mean nothing to your schedule, but to your child's teacher it may mean the difference between getting to pee or not today.
Gather contact information. Know who to contact about what, and how best to contact them.
Build partnerships
Some of the most effective work for Getting Things Done or Fixing Screwy Policies involve partnerships between teachers and parents. We know what is going on, but you are far more likely to be listened to. I can tell my boss that the new brown widgets are a terrible idea, but it's when the office starts taking phone calls from cranky parents that things will actually happen.
Where there is bad policy (and right now there is bad policy everywhere), parents and teachers have to build coalitions to fight back, as well as fighting back in their own ways. As a parent, you're going to have to find out who your allies are within the system.
Find out what the needs are
My school does not need glue sticks. On the other hand, the district stopped buying facial tissue for classrooms a few decades ago. My sister-in-law would send boxes of kleenex to school with her kids every month or so. It was greatly appreciated. Just ask a teacher-- what is something you're going to have to buy with your own money that I could get for you.
But mostly, relax
Despite what the world of consumer marketing is suggesting, there is very little that your child must absolutely have for the first day of school. There's little data to suggest that students who show up without art smocks and glue sticks all end up working for sub-minimum wage and living alone in a one-room apartment over a bar while eating cat food warmed on a hot plate.
What your child needs the first-through-last day of school is a positive attitude and support, along with constant reminders that school is important and that the child herself is a valuable and worthy human being. Yes, the ritual of Buying New Stuff for Back to School can be a great way to build excitement and enthusiasm for school, but it doesn't have to break the bank. Meanwhile, the school year is a marathon, not a sprint. I've seen hundreds of students hit that first day bright and happy and full of hope, fully intending that This Year will be different, but the dailiness of school wears it away. They don't need your support on just one day, but every day.
So as a father and a professional educator of several decades, I have an important message to parents about your back to school shopping.
Chill.
People are trying to get you to panic. Do not do it.
In some cases, the pitch is strictly commercial. Which is fine. That's what businesses do. Work your way into Office Depot's Back to School offerings. Everything you could conceivably or inconceivably need is here, with the exception of the Winnebago needed to cart all of this stuff to school, because for a place like Office Depot, Back to School is Christmas and Mother's Day wrapped up in one revenue generating package.
But here's the non-business Great Kids website, offering parents a list of Back to School necessities that may also necessitate a second mortgage (if, as a parent, you are able to afford a house in the first place).
Back to School supply lists seem to have the longevity of cockroaches, surviving unchanged over centuries. For instance, like many other sources, Great Schools includes this on their list of "basics."
Scissors (blunt ended for younger kids, pointed for older ones)
Um, no. Do not send your older children to school with pointy-ended scissors. And while Great Kids recommend highlighters, they do acknowledge that these "are probably unnecessary for kids in kindergarten through second grade." Yes, because five-year-olds have a tendency to highlight walls and desks and their own faces.
What about a site like Real Simple, the website/magazine devoted to helping wealthy folks make their consumption less conspicuous? Their "essentials" list includes an art smock for elementary and pre-school students. Okay, fine. My own children had art smocks at home (from the popular dad's Old Shirts brand). But essential for school? I'm imagining twenty-five children arriving on the first day and asking the teacher, "Where do I put my smock."
And glue. Specifically glue sticks. Every single list has glue sticks on it. Do we have a national epidemic of Unglued Things in Schools?
Oh-- and these. I see them on lists, in stores, in the mall. Everywhere, in fact, but in actual classrooms:
Backpacks, folders, organizers, twelve different kinds of writing utensils, seventeen different kinds of bound and unbound paper, lunch boxes, a dictionary and a thesaurus!! Cozi gets a bonus point for putting a flash drive on their list, but most lists are composed of the same classic items that Great-Great-Grandma's mom was guilted into buying for Back to School.
So, parents, here's my Back to School to-do list for you.
Step One: Wait
Prior to the first day of school, do not buy anything except things you want your child to have. If your child is organizationally challenged and needs the world's most aggressive trapper-keeper, go ahead and get it. If you and your child agree that a Phineas and Ferb lunchbox is essential to get off to a great new start, I applaud your good taste. Go for it.
But if you are eying the glue stick display or the utility box loaded with 143 colored pencils strictly because you think the school will put your child back on the bus if she shows up without those items, just wait.
Neither my wife (elementary) nor I (high school) expect students to show up on the first day with anything other than a sleepy smile and a hopeful attitude. If the school actually needs your child to bring anything to school, they will tell you. Backpacks may have to fall within particular guidelines. Teachers may want particular notebook configurations. And every school now comes with its own batch of tech requirements.
Contact
Talk to your child's teachers before you need to. Go to open house. If scheduling is tight, make a phone call or an e-mail. Let your school and your teachers know what your expectations are. These are easier conversations to have when you're not in the midst of a child-related crisis. The school or teachers may give you the impression that they are too busy to have a non-critical conversation with you. Too bad for them. Have it anyway, but be focused and businesslike. Whenever dealing with teachers and schools, it's helpful to remember that we measure time out in very short increments. "Just one more thing," may mean nothing to your schedule, but to your child's teacher it may mean the difference between getting to pee or not today.
Gather contact information. Know who to contact about what, and how best to contact them.
Build partnerships
Some of the most effective work for Getting Things Done or Fixing Screwy Policies involve partnerships between teachers and parents. We know what is going on, but you are far more likely to be listened to. I can tell my boss that the new brown widgets are a terrible idea, but it's when the office starts taking phone calls from cranky parents that things will actually happen.
Where there is bad policy (and right now there is bad policy everywhere), parents and teachers have to build coalitions to fight back, as well as fighting back in their own ways. As a parent, you're going to have to find out who your allies are within the system.
Find out what the needs are
My school does not need glue sticks. On the other hand, the district stopped buying facial tissue for classrooms a few decades ago. My sister-in-law would send boxes of kleenex to school with her kids every month or so. It was greatly appreciated. Just ask a teacher-- what is something you're going to have to buy with your own money that I could get for you.
But mostly, relax
Despite what the world of consumer marketing is suggesting, there is very little that your child must absolutely have for the first day of school. There's little data to suggest that students who show up without art smocks and glue sticks all end up working for sub-minimum wage and living alone in a one-room apartment over a bar while eating cat food warmed on a hot plate.
What your child needs the first-through-last day of school is a positive attitude and support, along with constant reminders that school is important and that the child herself is a valuable and worthy human being. Yes, the ritual of Buying New Stuff for Back to School can be a great way to build excitement and enthusiasm for school, but it doesn't have to break the bank. Meanwhile, the school year is a marathon, not a sprint. I've seen hundreds of students hit that first day bright and happy and full of hope, fully intending that This Year will be different, but the dailiness of school wears it away. They don't need your support on just one day, but every day.
More Bad News for SAT/ACT
The George Washington University will no longer require most
undergraduate applicants to submit SAT or ACT test scores, effective
Aug. 1.
With one sentence, the folks at GW made life just a little bit harder for standardized test manufacturers.
It's not just that another college has dropped the popular testing product requirement. Doing so touched off the usual round of press. The folks at FairTest reminded us that over 850 colleges and universities no longer require students to jump through the old hoops. Valerie Strauss helpfully broke out some striking lists of top-ranked (well, top-ranked by the not-entirely-believable US News ranking system) schools that don't require students to plunk down good money for a bad evaluation of their post-secondary prospects. Bowdoin! Bryn Mawr! Wake Forest! Hey, even my own alma mater—way to go, Allegheny!
It's not just that this calls up all the old objections, all the things we already knew about the tests. Cue the regular research showing cultural and racial bias in the tests. Trot out the 2014 research showing that high school grades are better predictors of college success than SAT's. Discuss the validity of tests so game-able that an entire industry has sprung up around gaming them.
But the bigger problem is the continued drawing of blood. Like the god-king who is nicked by a spear, the SAT and ACT are most hurt by the wound that reveals they are not what they say they are.
For generations here in the East, the SAT was just something you do. In the seventies, my classmates and I didn't even ask where the SAT came from—as far as we knew it was some sort of government-college co-operative, mandated and required, like a driver's test or vaccinations. Even "College Board" sounds like some sort of official regulatory agency.
The testing companies have fought to maintain that illusion. David Coleman and the College Board can still magically turn a drop in market share into a referendum on America's education system. They've worked to market a racially biased instrument as a tool for social justice. And Coleman has stumped hard for the virtues of his new, improved version of the SAT, continuing his work to redefine what college-ready actually means.
They've also managed the impressive trick of getting states to include their product as part of school evaluation formulas. This is tantamount to getting the government to require cars to have a Ford nameplate in order to pass inspection.
But the continued defection of top schools has drawn blood, and the growth of the opt-out movement has armed the peasants with even more spears.
More and more people are coming to see the SAT and ACT for what they are—products for sale. Much of the SAT and ACT customer base is people who pay for the product because, well, you know, you have to, right? There's no choice, right?
But with every passing defection it becomes clear there is a choice. There's a choice for students, and there's most especially a choice for colleges and universities. The SAT is not a necessary rite of passage. It's just another six-pack of snake oil, an expensive con that's long on drawbacks and short on benefits. The SAT and ACT may still rule the majority of college domains for now, but it is increasingly clear that the emperor is both fully mortal and mostly naked.
Originally published at View from the Cheap Seats
With one sentence, the folks at GW made life just a little bit harder for standardized test manufacturers.
It's not just that another college has dropped the popular testing product requirement. Doing so touched off the usual round of press. The folks at FairTest reminded us that over 850 colleges and universities no longer require students to jump through the old hoops. Valerie Strauss helpfully broke out some striking lists of top-ranked (well, top-ranked by the not-entirely-believable US News ranking system) schools that don't require students to plunk down good money for a bad evaluation of their post-secondary prospects. Bowdoin! Bryn Mawr! Wake Forest! Hey, even my own alma mater—way to go, Allegheny!
It's not just that this calls up all the old objections, all the things we already knew about the tests. Cue the regular research showing cultural and racial bias in the tests. Trot out the 2014 research showing that high school grades are better predictors of college success than SAT's. Discuss the validity of tests so game-able that an entire industry has sprung up around gaming them.
But the bigger problem is the continued drawing of blood. Like the god-king who is nicked by a spear, the SAT and ACT are most hurt by the wound that reveals they are not what they say they are.
For generations here in the East, the SAT was just something you do. In the seventies, my classmates and I didn't even ask where the SAT came from—as far as we knew it was some sort of government-college co-operative, mandated and required, like a driver's test or vaccinations. Even "College Board" sounds like some sort of official regulatory agency.
The testing companies have fought to maintain that illusion. David Coleman and the College Board can still magically turn a drop in market share into a referendum on America's education system. They've worked to market a racially biased instrument as a tool for social justice. And Coleman has stumped hard for the virtues of his new, improved version of the SAT, continuing his work to redefine what college-ready actually means.
They've also managed the impressive trick of getting states to include their product as part of school evaluation formulas. This is tantamount to getting the government to require cars to have a Ford nameplate in order to pass inspection.
But the continued defection of top schools has drawn blood, and the growth of the opt-out movement has armed the peasants with even more spears.
More and more people are coming to see the SAT and ACT for what they are—products for sale. Much of the SAT and ACT customer base is people who pay for the product because, well, you know, you have to, right? There's no choice, right?
But with every passing defection it becomes clear there is a choice. There's a choice for students, and there's most especially a choice for colleges and universities. The SAT is not a necessary rite of passage. It's just another six-pack of snake oil, an expensive con that's long on drawbacks and short on benefits. The SAT and ACT may still rule the majority of college domains for now, but it is increasingly clear that the emperor is both fully mortal and mostly naked.
Originally published at View from the Cheap Seats
Tuesday, August 11, 2015
LA Charter Onslaught
Last Friday, the LA Times brought the news that "a major charter expansion" is "in the works for LA Unified students." It might have also noted that the expansion was in the works for parents and taxpayers, but I suppose that's not as powerful as noting that this is For The Children.
But the lede will give you an idea of whence this wind is blowing:
A prominent local education foundation is discussing a major expansion of charter schools in Los Angeles aimed at boosting academic achievement for students at the lowest performing campuses.
The prominent foundation is, of course, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, though apparently the folks at Keck and Walton are in on this, too, and my hat is once again off to folks who have the chutzpah to unilaterally declare themselves the head of a previously-democratic sector of society. Did somebody elect the Broad Foundation to the school board of the LA USD? No? Well, why let that stop them from going ahead and setting policy. I think I may go ahead and declare myself the chief of police here in my town, stop down to City Hall, and let them know what the new policies are going to be.
"People have been demanding better public schools forever and not getting them," said Swati Pandey, a spokeswoman for the foundation."But we say, screw public schools-- let's just replace them with privately owned and operated charters." Ha! Okay, she's only quoted as saying that first part. I filled in the rest for her.
Folks who have attended the meetings about this unelected initiative have shared other tidbits, like a goal to enroll half of all LA students in charters over the next eight years. There also seemed to be a lot of looking at maps of where all the students trapped in failing schools are, and discussing how to get charters operating for those students.
Although they note that "an ambitious expansion of charter schools would be costly and would likely face a political fight," there's no indication of a discussion about the relative expense of supporting and improving those public schools as compared to the expensive charter-launching approach.
There's also no indication that any part of this conversation was held with the actual public school system. LAUSD board president Steve Zimmer, whatever his faults, has a quote in the article that shows he understands the problem.
"The most critical concern would be the collateral damage to the children left behind," he said.
Because this charter plan for a huger private school system (and all the major players, from Green Dot to ICEF are apparently in on this) would get its operating expenses by stripping resources from the public system.
And if you're a fan of LA school foolishness, you'll love this final line from the Times article:
The foundation declined to discuss what role, if any, Deasy is playing in the new effort.
Yesterday, the LA School School Report followed up on this "bombshell story" by getting Broad to offer some non-clarification clarification. The foundation sent an email saying, "Some schools bad. All students should have the benefit of contributing to the financial health of a privately operated charter school." I'm paraphrasing.
Because when you are announcing your intention to launch a hostile takeover of the entire public school system in a major city (or at least a takeover of its funding), the last thing you need to do is clarify yourself to the taxpayers, voters, elected officials, parents, and all those other little people that you don't have to answer to.
But the lede will give you an idea of whence this wind is blowing:
A prominent local education foundation is discussing a major expansion of charter schools in Los Angeles aimed at boosting academic achievement for students at the lowest performing campuses.
The prominent foundation is, of course, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, though apparently the folks at Keck and Walton are in on this, too, and my hat is once again off to folks who have the chutzpah to unilaterally declare themselves the head of a previously-democratic sector of society. Did somebody elect the Broad Foundation to the school board of the LA USD? No? Well, why let that stop them from going ahead and setting policy. I think I may go ahead and declare myself the chief of police here in my town, stop down to City Hall, and let them know what the new policies are going to be.
"People have been demanding better public schools forever and not getting them," said Swati Pandey, a spokeswoman for the foundation."But we say, screw public schools-- let's just replace them with privately owned and operated charters." Ha! Okay, she's only quoted as saying that first part. I filled in the rest for her.
Folks who have attended the meetings about this unelected initiative have shared other tidbits, like a goal to enroll half of all LA students in charters over the next eight years. There also seemed to be a lot of looking at maps of where all the students trapped in failing schools are, and discussing how to get charters operating for those students.
Although they note that "an ambitious expansion of charter schools would be costly and would likely face a political fight," there's no indication of a discussion about the relative expense of supporting and improving those public schools as compared to the expensive charter-launching approach.
There's also no indication that any part of this conversation was held with the actual public school system. LAUSD board president Steve Zimmer, whatever his faults, has a quote in the article that shows he understands the problem.
"The most critical concern would be the collateral damage to the children left behind," he said.
Because this charter plan for a huger private school system (and all the major players, from Green Dot to ICEF are apparently in on this) would get its operating expenses by stripping resources from the public system.
And if you're a fan of LA school foolishness, you'll love this final line from the Times article:
The foundation declined to discuss what role, if any, Deasy is playing in the new effort.
Yesterday, the LA School School Report followed up on this "bombshell story" by getting Broad to offer some non-clarification clarification. The foundation sent an email saying, "Some schools bad. All students should have the benefit of contributing to the financial health of a privately operated charter school." I'm paraphrasing.
Because when you are announcing your intention to launch a hostile takeover of the entire public school system in a major city (or at least a takeover of its funding), the last thing you need to do is clarify yourself to the taxpayers, voters, elected officials, parents, and all those other little people that you don't have to answer to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)