It has become its own internet genre-- the "why I am quitting" teacher letter. It is apparently on the rise again, because lately lots of folks have been forwarding examples to me. And I don't want to seem unsympathetic-- it has to suck to feel so backed into the corner that quitting looks like your best option.
But still, I long to read something different. Something feistier. Something more like this:
Dear Board of Education:
Just wanted you to know that I am not going any damn where.
Yes, a lot of people have worked hard to turn my job into something I barely recognize, and yes, I am on the butt end of a whole lot of terrible education policy, and yes, I am regularly instructed to commit educational malpractice in my classroom.
But here's the thing-- you don't pay me nearly enough for me to do my job badly, on purpose.
I'm not going to make children miserable on purpose. I'm not going to waste valuable education time on purpose. I'm not going to teach them that reading is a miserable activity with no purpose other than to prepare for testing. I'm not going to tell them that these big stupid tests, or any other tests, or grades, even, are an important measure of how "good" they are or how much right they have to feel proud or happy or justified in taking up space on this planet. I'm not going to tell them any of that.
Most of these new education reform policies are wrong. They're bad pedagogy, bad instruction, bad for students, bad for education, and we all know it. I am not going to spend another day in my room pretending that I don't know it.
Am I God's gift to teaching, so awesome that I never need to listen to anybody about anything? Not at all. It's a big, wide, complicated world, and I'll listen to anybody who thinks they have something to share about how children can be educated.
But here's the thing. I am a teacher. I am an education professional. I trained to do this job, and I have never stopped training and learning since I started on this path. This is my world. This is the work that I committed myself to. I live here, and that means I know more about this work than the edu-tourists just passing through.
And the work I am committed to is the education of young students, the work of having them become their best selves, of finding their best way to be in the world as they choose to be. I am not committed to a year of narrow test prep and a tiny, cramped definition of success. I am not committed to a view of compliance as the highest human virtue.I am not committed to the work of trying to force them into some box that the corporate world has built for them. My first allegiance, my first obligation is to my students-- not the board, not state education bureaucrats, not policy makers, not test manufacturers, not to people who think they need to know what's going on in the school but can't be bothered to get their butts here to use their own five senses to find out. I have no obligation to those who want to profit from my work, and I have no obligation to people who want to use my classroom to further their own political or financial agenda.
So I will stay here, and I will do what I consider-- in my professional opinion-- is best for my students and my community. When I am told to implement a bad policy, I will circumvent it by any means at my disposal. I will disregard directives to commit malpractice. I will question, I will challenge, and I will push back. I will speak at every board meeting. I will talk to every parent.
If you find this not-very-team-playery of me, you can direct me to follow orders in writing, and if I choose to follow those orders, my students and their parents will understand why I am doing it.
The best bet is that in ten years, I will still be here doing the work I'm committed to doing, and meanwhile, the corporate reformsters and the edu-crats at the capital and most of my building administrators and you, board members, whether you were elected or appointed-- all of those folks will have moved on, and I will still be here. Because-- and let me be absolutely clear-- I am serious about this work. This is not a stepping stone or a resume builder for me. I am in it for life.
Or if you like a sporty metaphor, try it this way-- this is my house. And you do not stroll into my house and disrespect me and the work I do.
Quitting?? Hell no. If you want me out of here, you will have to fire my ass, and I will make it just as public and loud as I can, so that you have to step out in front of the community and explain why you're doing it. Hell, we may all end up in court, going on the record about the crap you tried to force me to do to these children.
I mean, if I'm at the point of contemplating whether or not to quit, why not make my departure cost you a little something?
I came to teaching to work. I came to make a difference in children's lives. I came to raise up whatever students were set before me and help them become the people they were meant to be. And I came to stay. You'll have to decide how you want to deal with that. But I came to stay and teach.
Yes, I know. Not everyone is in the position to be this feisty and confrontational, and not every situation lends itself to this approach (and some fortunate few don't need it). I'm not advocating this for every single teacher up against it. And yes-- lots of teachers have adopted this "stay and fight" stance-- they just haven't written a letter announcing it.
As I said, I am not unsympathetic to those who quit. You can only take as much as you can take. But still, it would be fun if somebody, some day, forwarded me a good, feisty "Bite me-- I'm staying" letter.
Wednesday, November 4, 2015
Tuesday, November 3, 2015
Rescuing Strivers from Those People
Today in Bloomberg View, Mike Petrilli is airing out his ideas about how charters should be the lifeboats that rescue strivers from the chaos of disruptive students.
His thesis is pretty simple-- strivers suffer from being trapped in classrooms that are disrupted by non-strivey students, so if we could screen for strivers and get them into a safe, striver-friendly school, rescuing them from chaotic public schools where disruptive students are, for a variety of both good and bad reasons, allowed to suck up the disruptive lion's share of time and attention.
As I said just a few days ago, when Petrilli was defending Eva Moskowitz's push-out policy, his point is not completely without merit. Every teacher on the planet has had That Student, without whom their class runs so much more smoothly. And every teacher understands the impact of the group-mind in a classroom in terms of atmosphere and what can be accomplished. And every teacher who's been working for more than ten years has seen the impact of policies that have aggressively pushed for all students, regardless of skill or inclination, back into the regular classroom.
However, I have some huge problems with Petrilli's narrative.
The Myth of the Climb to the Middle Class
In his very first paragraph, Petrilli provides a definition of a striver:
Low-income strivers -- impoverished families who follow the rules and work hard to climb the ladder to the middle class -- may be the most underserved population in America today.
It's a nice picture, but are we still claiming that if you just work hard and follow the rules you'll become successful. Because that sounds wrong several ways.
First, exactly what rules does one follow to get to the middle class? Be born to middle class parents? Because there's research that suggests that poor kids who do everything right still don't do any better than rich kids who do everything wrong. And yes, I know there are individuals who can trot out their stories of bootstrapping their way to the middle-- but they are now grown men and women who did that a decade or three ago and that's not the world that our students live in right now.
Second, the notion that a Good Student is one who 1) works hard and 2) is compliant is not an appealing one. I don't need compliant students. I need students who have some drive and initiative and are occasionally obnoxious because they are excited about stuff. Just in general, I see a real contradiction between striving and complying. The narrative that seems much more familiar to me is that if the person who has the nerve to take risks and the safety to take them without losing everything.
Disruption Is Not a Permanent Condition
Petrilli talks about disruptive students as if disruptor status is permanently and unwaveringly a thing. The student who is a gigantic, disruptive pain in the butt on Monday may be the shining light on Wednesday. Being a disruptive student is not like being left-handed. For that matter, the student who is absolute disaster in your class may be my top student.
This is betterocracy at work, the notion that some people are just better than others, and that's just how it is, and the purpose of public institutions like school is to sort out the Betters from the Lessers, allowing the Betters to rise and the Lessers to stay in place, as if every persons level of Betterness is fixed and static, wired into their dna.
Disruptosity is not an absolute, static condition. Worse, talking about "disruptive students" is like talking about "bad kids"-- it locks a child into some sort of permanent state that colors all our interactions with him, instead of recognizing that we're seeing a particular behavior on a particular day, but that behavior is not who the child is. Because...
Disruptive Students Disrupt for a Reason
If a student is wreaking havoc in my classroom, that tells me that something is going on with that person. That doesn't mean I abandon all my other students so that we can try to sit down, hold hands, and sing kumbaya. But it does mean that I have a professional and ethical obligation to see if I can find out what's up. Petrilli's model is that I lock the disruptive kid in the room by himself and take the rest of my class somewhere else-- forever.
I may need to find a way to shut my disruptor down now so I can do my job for the rest of my students. But part of my job is to find out what is going on with the disruptor, because there's a long list of reasons that a student might act out, and all of those reasons are important to know, particular as a representative of the school that is quite possibly the only place where the child encounters caring, professional adults.
Disruptive Students Can Be High Achieving Students
Like much of his talk on this subject, his call for universal screening to look for gifted students in elementary school seems to assume that academic aptitude goes hand in hand with striverliness, while not going along with disruptorosity. That is kind of hilarious. Because nobody knows how to spread chaos, disorder, and disruption like a really smart student. Particularly a really smart student who finds himself up against a school that wants him to show how compliant he is.
Rule-following compliance is, once again, not synonymous or even always concurrent with high levels of ability.
Moskowitz Is Still Wrong
You can see where Petrilli is headed. Strivers have lost patience with public schools that are in chaos because of Those Students, the Disruptors.
Frustrated that the traditional public schools aren’t willing to prioritize their children’s needs, many low-income strivers have turned to high-quality charter schools instead. But now those are under attack, too. In recent weeks, the "PBS Newshour" and "New York Times" had highly critical coverage of Success Academies, charter schools in New York City that have shown excellent results in improving student performance. The reports focused on the academies' suspending students aggressively and removing those who are chronic disrupters.
First, these "high-quality charters" (and you can keep calling them "high-quality" or "super-dee-duper" or "able to spin straw into plutonium" as much as you want, but that doesn't make it so) aren't under attack. They're just finally being looked at openly, instead of getting to hide behind their own carefully controlled PR spin.
Second, they have not raised student achievement. They have raised student test scores. We've had this discussion before, so I'll skip to the end which is that raising test scores is easy if you stop worrying about every other aspect of a child's development and education.
Third, they are not removing chronic disruptors. They're creating problem children, and the problem is that the children will not comply quickly, quietly and obediently. I haven't seen anybody put it better than Pedro Noguera in his account of a trip to John King's No Excusey charter:
Are you preparing these kids to be leaders or followers? Because leaders get to talk in the hall. They get to talk over lunch, they get to go to the bathroom, and people can trust them. They don't need surveillance and police officers in the bathroom.
I'll Give Petrilli This
Petrilli calls for safe schools, and I have nothing to quibble with there. And he does acknowledge that the disruptors are entitled to some sort of education, somehow. Just not at the expense of the strivers.
Which leads me to this...
A Proposal
It's probably fair to say that there are some students so troubled and challenged that a traditional school setting just doesn't work for them, and they become chronic disruptors. But that's a small percentage. And since they are a small percentage of the school population and charters only have capacity for a small percentage of the school population and charter operators claim to know the secrets of making all students from all backgrounds successful, why don't we do this-- let the charters have the disruptors.
The strivers will be left in disruption-free public schools, safe and freed from Those People who interfere with their education. The disruptors will be set straight by the edu-wizards of the charter world. It's perfect.
Well, unless this was all just an elaborate argument to justify charter refusal to teach difficult students, with "difficult' broadly defined as "any students who won't do as they're told." But if the whole secret of charter success is "make sure you only teach smart, compliant students who understand and follow instructions," then the charter secret is no secret at all.
But compliance and rule-following are not particularly admirable qualities, nor are they generally top qualities of top students. It's not that I want a room full of disruptive misbehaving students, but if we start with the assumption that the best students are students who do as they're told, we don't end up anywhere good. Not good for us, not good for the students, not good for society. And really, though I doubt that Petrilli meant to go there, weirdly reminiscent of comments like "If that girl has just done as she was told, the cop wouldn't have ripped her out of her seat" or "If Freddy Gray had just followed orders, he'd still be alive."
Blind obedience is not a virtue, and disruption is not always a flaw. I'm all for getting problem students what they need in a manner that allows education to continue for everybody-- I mean, I'm really all for it as in that's what I try to do every day of my career. But Petrelli isn't just barking up the wrong tree or approaching this the wrong way-- he's trying to find the cow that will give the best milk by looking for the greenest cherries on the bush next to the barn. He's trying to warm the house by setting the couch afire with a flamethrower. I think there's something fundamentally flawed with his model of how education and humans work. In short, he's just wrong.
His thesis is pretty simple-- strivers suffer from being trapped in classrooms that are disrupted by non-strivey students, so if we could screen for strivers and get them into a safe, striver-friendly school, rescuing them from chaotic public schools where disruptive students are, for a variety of both good and bad reasons, allowed to suck up the disruptive lion's share of time and attention.
As I said just a few days ago, when Petrilli was defending Eva Moskowitz's push-out policy, his point is not completely without merit. Every teacher on the planet has had That Student, without whom their class runs so much more smoothly. And every teacher understands the impact of the group-mind in a classroom in terms of atmosphere and what can be accomplished. And every teacher who's been working for more than ten years has seen the impact of policies that have aggressively pushed for all students, regardless of skill or inclination, back into the regular classroom.
However, I have some huge problems with Petrilli's narrative.
The Myth of the Climb to the Middle Class
In his very first paragraph, Petrilli provides a definition of a striver:
Low-income strivers -- impoverished families who follow the rules and work hard to climb the ladder to the middle class -- may be the most underserved population in America today.
It's a nice picture, but are we still claiming that if you just work hard and follow the rules you'll become successful. Because that sounds wrong several ways.
First, exactly what rules does one follow to get to the middle class? Be born to middle class parents? Because there's research that suggests that poor kids who do everything right still don't do any better than rich kids who do everything wrong. And yes, I know there are individuals who can trot out their stories of bootstrapping their way to the middle-- but they are now grown men and women who did that a decade or three ago and that's not the world that our students live in right now.
Second, the notion that a Good Student is one who 1) works hard and 2) is compliant is not an appealing one. I don't need compliant students. I need students who have some drive and initiative and are occasionally obnoxious because they are excited about stuff. Just in general, I see a real contradiction between striving and complying. The narrative that seems much more familiar to me is that if the person who has the nerve to take risks and the safety to take them without losing everything.
Disruption Is Not a Permanent Condition
Petrilli talks about disruptive students as if disruptor status is permanently and unwaveringly a thing. The student who is a gigantic, disruptive pain in the butt on Monday may be the shining light on Wednesday. Being a disruptive student is not like being left-handed. For that matter, the student who is absolute disaster in your class may be my top student.
This is betterocracy at work, the notion that some people are just better than others, and that's just how it is, and the purpose of public institutions like school is to sort out the Betters from the Lessers, allowing the Betters to rise and the Lessers to stay in place, as if every persons level of Betterness is fixed and static, wired into their dna.
Disruptosity is not an absolute, static condition. Worse, talking about "disruptive students" is like talking about "bad kids"-- it locks a child into some sort of permanent state that colors all our interactions with him, instead of recognizing that we're seeing a particular behavior on a particular day, but that behavior is not who the child is. Because...
Disruptive Students Disrupt for a Reason
If a student is wreaking havoc in my classroom, that tells me that something is going on with that person. That doesn't mean I abandon all my other students so that we can try to sit down, hold hands, and sing kumbaya. But it does mean that I have a professional and ethical obligation to see if I can find out what's up. Petrilli's model is that I lock the disruptive kid in the room by himself and take the rest of my class somewhere else-- forever.
I may need to find a way to shut my disruptor down now so I can do my job for the rest of my students. But part of my job is to find out what is going on with the disruptor, because there's a long list of reasons that a student might act out, and all of those reasons are important to know, particular as a representative of the school that is quite possibly the only place where the child encounters caring, professional adults.
Disruptive Students Can Be High Achieving Students
Like much of his talk on this subject, his call for universal screening to look for gifted students in elementary school seems to assume that academic aptitude goes hand in hand with striverliness, while not going along with disruptorosity. That is kind of hilarious. Because nobody knows how to spread chaos, disorder, and disruption like a really smart student. Particularly a really smart student who finds himself up against a school that wants him to show how compliant he is.
Rule-following compliance is, once again, not synonymous or even always concurrent with high levels of ability.
Moskowitz Is Still Wrong
You can see where Petrilli is headed. Strivers have lost patience with public schools that are in chaos because of Those Students, the Disruptors.
Frustrated that the traditional public schools aren’t willing to prioritize their children’s needs, many low-income strivers have turned to high-quality charter schools instead. But now those are under attack, too. In recent weeks, the "PBS Newshour" and "New York Times" had highly critical coverage of Success Academies, charter schools in New York City that have shown excellent results in improving student performance. The reports focused on the academies' suspending students aggressively and removing those who are chronic disrupters.
First, these "high-quality charters" (and you can keep calling them "high-quality" or "super-dee-duper" or "able to spin straw into plutonium" as much as you want, but that doesn't make it so) aren't under attack. They're just finally being looked at openly, instead of getting to hide behind their own carefully controlled PR spin.
Second, they have not raised student achievement. They have raised student test scores. We've had this discussion before, so I'll skip to the end which is that raising test scores is easy if you stop worrying about every other aspect of a child's development and education.
Third, they are not removing chronic disruptors. They're creating problem children, and the problem is that the children will not comply quickly, quietly and obediently. I haven't seen anybody put it better than Pedro Noguera in his account of a trip to John King's No Excusey charter:
Are you preparing these kids to be leaders or followers? Because leaders get to talk in the hall. They get to talk over lunch, they get to go to the bathroom, and people can trust them. They don't need surveillance and police officers in the bathroom.
I'll Give Petrilli This
Petrilli calls for safe schools, and I have nothing to quibble with there. And he does acknowledge that the disruptors are entitled to some sort of education, somehow. Just not at the expense of the strivers.
Which leads me to this...
A Proposal
It's probably fair to say that there are some students so troubled and challenged that a traditional school setting just doesn't work for them, and they become chronic disruptors. But that's a small percentage. And since they are a small percentage of the school population and charters only have capacity for a small percentage of the school population and charter operators claim to know the secrets of making all students from all backgrounds successful, why don't we do this-- let the charters have the disruptors.
The strivers will be left in disruption-free public schools, safe and freed from Those People who interfere with their education. The disruptors will be set straight by the edu-wizards of the charter world. It's perfect.
Well, unless this was all just an elaborate argument to justify charter refusal to teach difficult students, with "difficult' broadly defined as "any students who won't do as they're told." But if the whole secret of charter success is "make sure you only teach smart, compliant students who understand and follow instructions," then the charter secret is no secret at all.
But compliance and rule-following are not particularly admirable qualities, nor are they generally top qualities of top students. It's not that I want a room full of disruptive misbehaving students, but if we start with the assumption that the best students are students who do as they're told, we don't end up anywhere good. Not good for us, not good for the students, not good for society. And really, though I doubt that Petrilli meant to go there, weirdly reminiscent of comments like "If that girl has just done as she was told, the cop wouldn't have ripped her out of her seat" or "If Freddy Gray had just followed orders, he'd still be alive."
Blind obedience is not a virtue, and disruption is not always a flaw. I'm all for getting problem students what they need in a manner that allows education to continue for everybody-- I mean, I'm really all for it as in that's what I try to do every day of my career. But Petrelli isn't just barking up the wrong tree or approaching this the wrong way-- he's trying to find the cow that will give the best milk by looking for the greenest cherries on the bush next to the barn. He's trying to warm the house by setting the couch afire with a flamethrower. I think there's something fundamentally flawed with his model of how education and humans work. In short, he's just wrong.
WSJ: The High-Priced Death of Common Core
I've been saying this for a while, but yesterday the Wall Street Journal put it out in the main stream media-- the Common Core as a single unifying force in US public education is dead.
The actual headline for Michael Rothfeld's piece is "Financial Woes Plague Common-Core Rollout." But "plague" is a generous description of the situation Rothfeld describes.
Five years into the biggest transformation of U.S. public education in recent history, Common Core is far from common. Though 45 states initially adopted the shared academic standards in English and math, seven have since repealed or amended them. Among the remaining 38, big disparities remain in what and how students are taught, the materials and technology they use, the preparation of teachers and the tests they are given. A dozen more states are considering revising or abandoning Common Core.
In other words, the dream that Common Core would be the single educational vision of the entire country-- that dream is dead. Dead dead deadity dead.
But Rothfeld's piece lays out a not-always-recognized (at least, not by people who don't actually work in education) culprit for the demise. He lists the usual suspects-- politics, testing, federal overreach. But the article is most interested in another malefactor-- finances.
The total cost of implementing Common Core is difficult to determine because the country’s education spending is fragmented among thousands of districts. The Wall Street Journal looked at spending by states and large school districts and found that more than $7 billion had been spent or committed in connection with the new standards.
That's billion-with-a-B (and that rhymes with P and that stands for "Probably still underestimating the total cost"). WSJ looked at all sorts of records and figures that still doesn't count things like the training budgets that have been turned into Common Core training budgets.
Rothfeld's picture of the nature of the Core is cute and quaint.
Common Core advocates hoped to make standards uniform—and to raise them across the board. Their goals were to afford students a comparable education no matter where they were, to cultivate critical thinking rather than memorization, to better prepare students for college and careers, and to enable educators to use uniform year-end tests to compare achievement. They wanted to give the tests on computers to allow more complex questions and to better analyze results.
And he allows Vicki Phillips to repeat her claims about the awesomeness of Kentucky without being challenged. In fact, Rothfeld doesn't really challenge anything about the Core, and in a way, that's what makes this article so brutal-- whether the Core is any good or not is beside his point, which is that the whole business just isn't working, and it's costing a ton of money to boot.
The plan of having everybody take the same test failed, in part because they turned out to be hella expensive (or at least charged big ticket prices). So we can't really compare results. And the adoption of the actual standards? The WSJ has whipped up a cool little map:
Rothfeld notes that people won't even say the name any more, but say "higher standards" instead. He quotes Council of Great City Schools executive director Michael Casserly insisting that Common Core still made US education better somehow, no matter how messy it has been. And then he turns back to examples of how expense sunk the whole process.
He uses Philadelphia schools as an example. The system had a large-ish grant, but then it had a financial crisis and dumped 4,000 jobs, including some people responsible for the implementation. Training is necessary but expensive (New Mexico spent $5.2 million to train half its teaching force). And now the grant money is running out, the work isn't done, and the states are already short the money they need to meet basic requirements of running schools.
We go back to Philadelphia for the most telling quote of the piece:
“It was something of a perfect storm, where expectations were rising while resources were diminishing,” says Christopher Shaffer, Philadelphia’s deputy chief of curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Dang-- it is like a perfect storm. It's almost as if someone wanted schools to fail, so that they would just have to be replaced by privately run schools set up to provide investment opportunities for hedge fund managers. But no-- that's crazy talk.
Finally, those computers that were going to allow "more complex questions" (seriously? exactly how is that supposed to work) and "to better analyze results" (yeah, we know how that's supposed to work). It turns out that buying computers for entire school systems is super-duper expensive as well-- millions of dollars for districts that are worried about new roofs and other non-frilly infrastructure.
There's plenty that goes unsaid in this piece, particularly about the actual merits of the Common Core, and in fairness to Rothfeld, that's kind of beside his point. Still, it's more likely that people will find a purchase "too expensive" if they discover they are purchasing something that is technically "a piece of crap."
And no, the Wall Street Journal does not, technically declare Common Core dead. They just describe how the body is laid out on a slab, its nationally unifying heartbeat stilled and its collective testing brain silent. Is a thing true if we describe the condition but don't say the word? I don't know. That's such a complex question that I need a computer to answer it.
The actual headline for Michael Rothfeld's piece is "Financial Woes Plague Common-Core Rollout." But "plague" is a generous description of the situation Rothfeld describes.
Five years into the biggest transformation of U.S. public education in recent history, Common Core is far from common. Though 45 states initially adopted the shared academic standards in English and math, seven have since repealed or amended them. Among the remaining 38, big disparities remain in what and how students are taught, the materials and technology they use, the preparation of teachers and the tests they are given. A dozen more states are considering revising or abandoning Common Core.
In other words, the dream that Common Core would be the single educational vision of the entire country-- that dream is dead. Dead dead deadity dead.
But Rothfeld's piece lays out a not-always-recognized (at least, not by people who don't actually work in education) culprit for the demise. He lists the usual suspects-- politics, testing, federal overreach. But the article is most interested in another malefactor-- finances.
The total cost of implementing Common Core is difficult to determine because the country’s education spending is fragmented among thousands of districts. The Wall Street Journal looked at spending by states and large school districts and found that more than $7 billion had been spent or committed in connection with the new standards.
That's billion-with-a-B (and that rhymes with P and that stands for "Probably still underestimating the total cost"). WSJ looked at all sorts of records and figures that still doesn't count things like the training budgets that have been turned into Common Core training budgets.
Rothfeld's picture of the nature of the Core is cute and quaint.
Common Core advocates hoped to make standards uniform—and to raise them across the board. Their goals were to afford students a comparable education no matter where they were, to cultivate critical thinking rather than memorization, to better prepare students for college and careers, and to enable educators to use uniform year-end tests to compare achievement. They wanted to give the tests on computers to allow more complex questions and to better analyze results.
And he allows Vicki Phillips to repeat her claims about the awesomeness of Kentucky without being challenged. In fact, Rothfeld doesn't really challenge anything about the Core, and in a way, that's what makes this article so brutal-- whether the Core is any good or not is beside his point, which is that the whole business just isn't working, and it's costing a ton of money to boot.
The plan of having everybody take the same test failed, in part because they turned out to be hella expensive (or at least charged big ticket prices). So we can't really compare results. And the adoption of the actual standards? The WSJ has whipped up a cool little map:
Rothfeld notes that people won't even say the name any more, but say "higher standards" instead. He quotes Council of Great City Schools executive director Michael Casserly insisting that Common Core still made US education better somehow, no matter how messy it has been. And then he turns back to examples of how expense sunk the whole process.
He uses Philadelphia schools as an example. The system had a large-ish grant, but then it had a financial crisis and dumped 4,000 jobs, including some people responsible for the implementation. Training is necessary but expensive (New Mexico spent $5.2 million to train half its teaching force). And now the grant money is running out, the work isn't done, and the states are already short the money they need to meet basic requirements of running schools.
We go back to Philadelphia for the most telling quote of the piece:
“It was something of a perfect storm, where expectations were rising while resources were diminishing,” says Christopher Shaffer, Philadelphia’s deputy chief of curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Dang-- it is like a perfect storm. It's almost as if someone wanted schools to fail, so that they would just have to be replaced by privately run schools set up to provide investment opportunities for hedge fund managers. But no-- that's crazy talk.
Finally, those computers that were going to allow "more complex questions" (seriously? exactly how is that supposed to work) and "to better analyze results" (yeah, we know how that's supposed to work). It turns out that buying computers for entire school systems is super-duper expensive as well-- millions of dollars for districts that are worried about new roofs and other non-frilly infrastructure.
There's plenty that goes unsaid in this piece, particularly about the actual merits of the Common Core, and in fairness to Rothfeld, that's kind of beside his point. Still, it's more likely that people will find a purchase "too expensive" if they discover they are purchasing something that is technically "a piece of crap."
And no, the Wall Street Journal does not, technically declare Common Core dead. They just describe how the body is laid out on a slab, its nationally unifying heartbeat stilled and its collective testing brain silent. Is a thing true if we describe the condition but don't say the word? I don't know. That's such a complex question that I need a computer to answer it.
Magnet vs. Charter
Once again, I had a version of this conversation.
Me: Charters are not public schools because they are not open to or committed to taking all students. They filter and cream and push out and refuse to backfill.
Reformster: What about magnet schools? Those are public schools which have stringent admission requirements. They don't educate every child, either, and they also pick and choose.
I can illustrate the hole in this argument by imagining the following contrasting conversations.
Conversation #1
Student: I would like to attend your most excellent magnet school!
School: Unfortunately, you have not met our stringent entry requirements. However, as is our legal and ethical responsibility, we will make sure to provide you with a full education elsewhere within this school district.
Conversation #2
Student: I would like to attend your delightful charter school!
Charter: Unfortunately, we don't want you. We don't have space for you. You are too old. You aren't a striver. You have educational needs we aren't prepared to meet. Or we accepted you, but now we've decided to push you out. Whatever the case, we are now done with you. Have a nice life, and good luck finding a place to go to school, because that's certainly not our problem.
Or perhaps these conversations.
Conversation A
Student: Is it true Mighty Swell Magnet School is closing?
School: I'm afraid it is, due to budgetary cuts and enrollment considerations, the district is shutting down MSMS and we won't open next fall. However, in keeping with our legal and ethical responsibilities, we have already placed you within one of the district's other schools. Don't worry. Your education will continue without interruption next year.
Conversation B
Student: Hey! This door is locked! How am I supposed to get to class today.
Charter: We closed. It just didn't make business sense to keep operating, so we are outies. Go away.
Student: But-- my education!!
Charter: Not our problem. Have a nice life.
In other words
Magnets are an extension of a district's system-wide commitment to educating every single child no matter what. Charters are not.
Me: Charters are not public schools because they are not open to or committed to taking all students. They filter and cream and push out and refuse to backfill.
Reformster: What about magnet schools? Those are public schools which have stringent admission requirements. They don't educate every child, either, and they also pick and choose.
I can illustrate the hole in this argument by imagining the following contrasting conversations.
Conversation #1
Student: I would like to attend your most excellent magnet school!
School: Unfortunately, you have not met our stringent entry requirements. However, as is our legal and ethical responsibility, we will make sure to provide you with a full education elsewhere within this school district.
Conversation #2
Student: I would like to attend your delightful charter school!
Charter: Unfortunately, we don't want you. We don't have space for you. You are too old. You aren't a striver. You have educational needs we aren't prepared to meet. Or we accepted you, but now we've decided to push you out. Whatever the case, we are now done with you. Have a nice life, and good luck finding a place to go to school, because that's certainly not our problem.
Or perhaps these conversations.
Conversation A
Student: Is it true Mighty Swell Magnet School is closing?
School: I'm afraid it is, due to budgetary cuts and enrollment considerations, the district is shutting down MSMS and we won't open next fall. However, in keeping with our legal and ethical responsibilities, we have already placed you within one of the district's other schools. Don't worry. Your education will continue without interruption next year.
Conversation B
Student: Hey! This door is locked! How am I supposed to get to class today.
Charter: We closed. It just didn't make business sense to keep operating, so we are outies. Go away.
Student: But-- my education!!
Charter: Not our problem. Have a nice life.
In other words
Magnets are an extension of a district's system-wide commitment to educating every single child no matter what. Charters are not.
Monday, November 2, 2015
NC: Queen of NCLB Takes Over University
North Carolina's conservative GOP leadership has been working hard to show the nation how an education system can be trashed quickly and thoroughly, and while we have focused lots of attention on how they are trying to gut their K-12 system, what dismantling of public education would be complete without going after the state's university system?
The writing (in big blocky letters carved out in crayon) has been on the wall for a while. Governor Patrick McCrory proposed a new funding formula for the university system just as soon as he took office in January of 2013.
It's not based on butts in seats but on how many of those butts can get jobs.
Stupid liberal arts. What universities need to be doing is providing high-level vocational training.
But the big shocker came when the state system's board of governors, led by Charlotte lawyer John Fennebresque, canned the well-respected university president Tom Ross. The firing was not well-received, and was even less well-received because Fennebresque and the board would not explain their action. Not political, they said. Doing a great job, they said. But still out of a job. The board is hand picked by the legislature, but Fennebresque swears "on a stack of Bibles" that nobody at the capital tells him what to do.
The search for Ross's replacement was quickly lost in a forest of red flags. The search was conducted in secrecy, with no opportunity for participation or input from university faculty or even many members of the board of governors. And the secrecy wasn't all that effective, because word leaked that one and possibly only one candidate was being considered-- this despite the legislature passing a rule to require the search to look at at least three.
And then in October, the board called an "emergency meeting" to consider one, and only one, candidate. It's not exactly clear what the "emergency" might have been-- UNC would be overrun with herds of unruly hamsters without a president in place? But the legislature found themselves circumvented and the faculty and half of the board of governors found themselves ignored.
And that one candidate?
Margaret Spellings.
Yes, that Margaret Spellings. Spellings is a career politician, but her career has often intersected with education, and it has generally intersected with it in the same way that a passing motorist once intersected with my open car door, changing it for the worse. She was Bush's domestic policy advisor from 2001 to 2004, then most notably the Secretary of Education from 2005-2009, where she got to lead the charge on No Child Left Behind. She had been with George Bush since he deposed Ann Richards as governor of Texas, brought into the Bush fold by Karl Rove.
Spellings has worked in everything from lobbying to political consulting. Some of her opponents view her as a culture wars combatant; she infamously called PBS to demand that they yank a children's show episode that included a lesbian couple. (Also, fun fact: back in 2007 she went toe-to-toe with NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo over student loans).
This profile of Spellings attempts to paint her as a balanced set of contradictions, a tough-talking good ol' girl with a heart of gold. But the sources for Spellings praise run the political gamut from A to B (Andy Rotherham to Mike Petrilli), and the list of things she does that annoy conservatives is thin (even though one might expect "help engineer the federal takeover of public ed" to make that list).
But while some might want to talk about Spellings' style or qualifications or experience, I'm mostly struck by the way that she is pretty consistently wrong about education.
Back in March of this year, she was still spouting nonsense about NCLB. She likes the narrative of test scores as part of national defense ("The success of every student in reading and doing math on grade level is vital to the future success of our nation") and she is another reformster to claim that, prior to NCLB's testing requirements, nobody knew if their schools were failing or not. Spellings has remained all in, loving not only national standards, but national standardized tests.
Last year she was in the Wall Street Journal, peering into the future, and what she sees is education as a consumer good:
Parents, for one, will have access to the flow of data, allowing them to help their children find the education that best fits them. Buyers, meaning the parents and students, will be in control of the education, selecting from an à la carte menu of options. Gone will be the fixed-price menu, where a student attends a school based upon geography and is offered few alternatives. Students and their parents can take their state and federal dollars and find an education that best suits them.
Like much of what Spellings has to say about education, this reveals a narrow and stunted view of education. In Spellings world, education is not a public trust, helping to bind the communities that provide it and benefit from it. The social and civic growth of children, the learning about how to be their best selves and how to be in the world-- all of that will, I guess, happen somewhere else, because school is just about collecting the right modules of pre-employment training. And if you've been paying attention to the renewed interest in our Data Overlords and their social engineering goal of knowing everything about everyone, Spellings' words have an eerie familiarity. Her dream of unleashing the foxes of market forces in the henhouse of education is not good news, and like many of Spellings' pet ideas encased in NCLB, long since proven to be bunk.
Spellings also has a checkered recent past with connections to predatory for-profit schools and the college loan collection industry.
Or you can watch her do this little spot with the Boston Consulting Group (one of the four investment horsemen of reformsterism) arguing how more data and more information will help us "wring out efficiencies" so we can do "more with less." We've poured money into education and gotten no returns in "student achievement." She also calls again for the kind of integrated data-collection that is scary. Note also that government can't do it without private sector investment-- so shrink government and sell off the pieces to investors. The very formula of privatization and austerity.
But then, the most troubling part of this is that Spellings was there in Texas and DC with Bush and Rod Paige, which means she had front row seats for the massive fiction that was the Texas Miracle. It was the Texas Miracle that was used to sell us No Child Left Behind, which means that anybody involved in that sales job ends up looking like either a fool or a liar.
It is the pattern of Spellings' career-- she either doesn't know baloney when she sees it, or she is determined to make a living selling it.
So congratulations, North Carolina. You're getting a new higher education boss who has this to say about the post:
It’s a fantastic way to make policy, in a political setting, because that’s the setting we operate in.
That's from her opening press conference, filled with goodies. And who believes that the public wants "a good value proposition" in education. Issues the schools face? Affordability, access, and "responsiveness to employers." Of course the vision and goals will have to be "measurable" because accountability. She's going to get to know every stakeholder, and she knows "a good bit about the business." The first thing she'll do is "look at the data." She likes to focus on first principles; for instance, in K-12 it's that third graders must be able to read, so what's the equivalent for higher ed? She wants to set "a few very powerful, very strategic goals." We know that most jobs require higher education and without that people won't have access to the American Dream. She likes the idea of coming to North Carolina because of the people and the quality of life and the intellectual vibrancy and the arts and the sciences. She thinks there's room for everyone in the higher ed industry, including for profits, and we shouldn't be threatened by that. We can learn a lot because between computery stuff and convenience for adults, the for-profits did swell things (she didn't mention the predatory bilking of students part) like teaching us to provide a product for customers.
Oh, and it just piles higher and deeper. She'll want co-ordinate with K-12, starting with providing super-duper teachers armed with research. The reading wars were settled by brain scientists who told us all we need to know; she doesn't explain how that fits with NC's "pass your third grade standardized reading test or fail third grade" policy, supported by roughly zero science.
We could delve into the Spellings talky catalog at greater length, but you get the idea. Every reformster idea ever is an idea she loves. Privatize, data-collect, starve for funds, test and punish, and generally treat educating our young people as if it's the same process as manufacturing toasters.
North Carolina higher education-- this is your new boss. I wouldn't ding her for having no education background-- that's not a rare issue these days. But I would view her with extreme caution based on her view of higher education as a vocational training factory. And like most reformsters, she suffers from selective data blindness-- data is absolutely awesome and our guiding star, unless it shows things like the failure of NCLB-RTTT programs or the complete inappropriateness of flunking eight year olds based on a BS Test.
One final note. Three days after serving as conductor of the railroad that chugged Spellings into power, John Fennebresque resigned his position on the Board of Governors.
Hang on to your hats, NC. Your leaders have made a hash out of K-12 education. Now the prognosis for higher ed isn't looking too great, either.
The writing (in big blocky letters carved out in crayon) has been on the wall for a while. Governor Patrick McCrory proposed a new funding formula for the university system just as soon as he took office in January of 2013.
It's not based on butts in seats but on how many of those butts can get jobs.
Stupid liberal arts. What universities need to be doing is providing high-level vocational training.
But the big shocker came when the state system's board of governors, led by Charlotte lawyer John Fennebresque, canned the well-respected university president Tom Ross. The firing was not well-received, and was even less well-received because Fennebresque and the board would not explain their action. Not political, they said. Doing a great job, they said. But still out of a job. The board is hand picked by the legislature, but Fennebresque swears "on a stack of Bibles" that nobody at the capital tells him what to do.
The search for Ross's replacement was quickly lost in a forest of red flags. The search was conducted in secrecy, with no opportunity for participation or input from university faculty or even many members of the board of governors. And the secrecy wasn't all that effective, because word leaked that one and possibly only one candidate was being considered-- this despite the legislature passing a rule to require the search to look at at least three.
And then in October, the board called an "emergency meeting" to consider one, and only one, candidate. It's not exactly clear what the "emergency" might have been-- UNC would be overrun with herds of unruly hamsters without a president in place? But the legislature found themselves circumvented and the faculty and half of the board of governors found themselves ignored.
And that one candidate?
Margaret Spellings.
Yes, that Margaret Spellings. Spellings is a career politician, but her career has often intersected with education, and it has generally intersected with it in the same way that a passing motorist once intersected with my open car door, changing it for the worse. She was Bush's domestic policy advisor from 2001 to 2004, then most notably the Secretary of Education from 2005-2009, where she got to lead the charge on No Child Left Behind. She had been with George Bush since he deposed Ann Richards as governor of Texas, brought into the Bush fold by Karl Rove.
Spellings has worked in everything from lobbying to political consulting. Some of her opponents view her as a culture wars combatant; she infamously called PBS to demand that they yank a children's show episode that included a lesbian couple. (Also, fun fact: back in 2007 she went toe-to-toe with NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo over student loans).
This profile of Spellings attempts to paint her as a balanced set of contradictions, a tough-talking good ol' girl with a heart of gold. But the sources for Spellings praise run the political gamut from A to B (Andy Rotherham to Mike Petrilli), and the list of things she does that annoy conservatives is thin (even though one might expect "help engineer the federal takeover of public ed" to make that list).
But while some might want to talk about Spellings' style or qualifications or experience, I'm mostly struck by the way that she is pretty consistently wrong about education.
Back in March of this year, she was still spouting nonsense about NCLB. She likes the narrative of test scores as part of national defense ("The success of every student in reading and doing math on grade level is vital to the future success of our nation") and she is another reformster to claim that, prior to NCLB's testing requirements, nobody knew if their schools were failing or not. Spellings has remained all in, loving not only national standards, but national standardized tests.
Last year she was in the Wall Street Journal, peering into the future, and what she sees is education as a consumer good:
Parents, for one, will have access to the flow of data, allowing them to help their children find the education that best fits them. Buyers, meaning the parents and students, will be in control of the education, selecting from an à la carte menu of options. Gone will be the fixed-price menu, where a student attends a school based upon geography and is offered few alternatives. Students and their parents can take their state and federal dollars and find an education that best suits them.
Like much of what Spellings has to say about education, this reveals a narrow and stunted view of education. In Spellings world, education is not a public trust, helping to bind the communities that provide it and benefit from it. The social and civic growth of children, the learning about how to be their best selves and how to be in the world-- all of that will, I guess, happen somewhere else, because school is just about collecting the right modules of pre-employment training. And if you've been paying attention to the renewed interest in our Data Overlords and their social engineering goal of knowing everything about everyone, Spellings' words have an eerie familiarity. Her dream of unleashing the foxes of market forces in the henhouse of education is not good news, and like many of Spellings' pet ideas encased in NCLB, long since proven to be bunk.
Spellings also has a checkered recent past with connections to predatory for-profit schools and the college loan collection industry.
Or you can watch her do this little spot with the Boston Consulting Group (one of the four investment horsemen of reformsterism) arguing how more data and more information will help us "wring out efficiencies" so we can do "more with less." We've poured money into education and gotten no returns in "student achievement." She also calls again for the kind of integrated data-collection that is scary. Note also that government can't do it without private sector investment-- so shrink government and sell off the pieces to investors. The very formula of privatization and austerity.
But then, the most troubling part of this is that Spellings was there in Texas and DC with Bush and Rod Paige, which means she had front row seats for the massive fiction that was the Texas Miracle. It was the Texas Miracle that was used to sell us No Child Left Behind, which means that anybody involved in that sales job ends up looking like either a fool or a liar.
It is the pattern of Spellings' career-- she either doesn't know baloney when she sees it, or she is determined to make a living selling it.
So congratulations, North Carolina. You're getting a new higher education boss who has this to say about the post:
It’s a fantastic way to make policy, in a political setting, because that’s the setting we operate in.
That's from her opening press conference, filled with goodies. And who believes that the public wants "a good value proposition" in education. Issues the schools face? Affordability, access, and "responsiveness to employers." Of course the vision and goals will have to be "measurable" because accountability. She's going to get to know every stakeholder, and she knows "a good bit about the business." The first thing she'll do is "look at the data." She likes to focus on first principles; for instance, in K-12 it's that third graders must be able to read, so what's the equivalent for higher ed? She wants to set "a few very powerful, very strategic goals." We know that most jobs require higher education and without that people won't have access to the American Dream. She likes the idea of coming to North Carolina because of the people and the quality of life and the intellectual vibrancy and the arts and the sciences. She thinks there's room for everyone in the higher ed industry, including for profits, and we shouldn't be threatened by that. We can learn a lot because between computery stuff and convenience for adults, the for-profits did swell things (she didn't mention the predatory bilking of students part) like teaching us to provide a product for customers.
Oh, and it just piles higher and deeper. She'll want co-ordinate with K-12, starting with providing super-duper teachers armed with research. The reading wars were settled by brain scientists who told us all we need to know; she doesn't explain how that fits with NC's "pass your third grade standardized reading test or fail third grade" policy, supported by roughly zero science.
We could delve into the Spellings talky catalog at greater length, but you get the idea. Every reformster idea ever is an idea she loves. Privatize, data-collect, starve for funds, test and punish, and generally treat educating our young people as if it's the same process as manufacturing toasters.
North Carolina higher education-- this is your new boss. I wouldn't ding her for having no education background-- that's not a rare issue these days. But I would view her with extreme caution based on her view of higher education as a vocational training factory. And like most reformsters, she suffers from selective data blindness-- data is absolutely awesome and our guiding star, unless it shows things like the failure of NCLB-RTTT programs or the complete inappropriateness of flunking eight year olds based on a BS Test.
One final note. Three days after serving as conductor of the railroad that chugged Spellings into power, John Fennebresque resigned his position on the Board of Governors.
Hang on to your hats, NC. Your leaders have made a hash out of K-12 education. Now the prognosis for higher ed isn't looking too great, either.
Sunday, November 1, 2015
Daylight Savings Cut Scores
The afternoon is only half over, but the sun is riding a little low in the sky. Within a few hours, it's going to get dark outside. That's because we switched the clocks last night.
Here's the thing-- it will get precisely as dark as it got yesterday, just as the sun rose just as high today as it rises every single day. The distribution of light and dark through the day, the distribution of the sun's high points and low points-- it will be pretty much the same today as it was yesterday.
What changed over night is not the distribution of light and dark, but the labels that we put on it. Yesterday we labeled this position of the sun 4:00. Today we are labeling it 3:00.
For those who don't get it, this is a fine way to explain cut scores. The distribution of student scores, the lights and darks, the highs and lows-- that stays pretty much the same. What changes is how people chose to label them. We can take the highest point of the curve and we can call it "on level" or "above expectations" or "below expectations." And the labels we use are reality-- it's not true to say that right now it is "really" 4:00. It's 3:00, today.
The position of the sun, just like the number of students who got a certain number of questions correct on a test-- that's a piece of raw data. But what we label it, whether we label it 12:30 AM or "Exceeds expectations," is just a label, even an arbitrary label, that we have slapped on the raw data to give it meaning. And we can give it any meaning we want.
Many folks make fun of daylight savings time because it doesn't really change a thing. Sun is still up for the same number of hours, and we stumble around in the dark for the same number of hours. Nothing really changes except the label we install. If I have the authority, I can make this moment 3:00 or 4:00 or 9:00 or 13:00. It won't change the reality of the moment-- just what we call it. Standardized test results, predictably draped across the bell curve, are the same. If I have the authority, I can label the parts of the curve anything I like. But it won't change reality a bit.
Here's the thing-- it will get precisely as dark as it got yesterday, just as the sun rose just as high today as it rises every single day. The distribution of light and dark through the day, the distribution of the sun's high points and low points-- it will be pretty much the same today as it was yesterday.
What changed over night is not the distribution of light and dark, but the labels that we put on it. Yesterday we labeled this position of the sun 4:00. Today we are labeling it 3:00.
For those who don't get it, this is a fine way to explain cut scores. The distribution of student scores, the lights and darks, the highs and lows-- that stays pretty much the same. What changes is how people chose to label them. We can take the highest point of the curve and we can call it "on level" or "above expectations" or "below expectations." And the labels we use are reality-- it's not true to say that right now it is "really" 4:00. It's 3:00, today.
The position of the sun, just like the number of students who got a certain number of questions correct on a test-- that's a piece of raw data. But what we label it, whether we label it 12:30 AM or "Exceeds expectations," is just a label, even an arbitrary label, that we have slapped on the raw data to give it meaning. And we can give it any meaning we want.
Many folks make fun of daylight savings time because it doesn't really change a thing. Sun is still up for the same number of hours, and we stumble around in the dark for the same number of hours. Nothing really changes except the label we install. If I have the authority, I can make this moment 3:00 or 4:00 or 9:00 or 13:00. It won't change the reality of the moment-- just what we call it. Standardized test results, predictably draped across the bell curve, are the same. If I have the authority, I can label the parts of the curve anything I like. But it won't change reality a bit.
ICYMI: This Week's Notable Bloggery
Here are some bloggy highlights from this week.
Damaging the Charter School Brand
John Merrow doesn't blog often, but when he does, it's powerful stuff. Here's a look at the charter school Hall of Shame, complete with historical perspective and some links to egregious actors.
Moscowitz, Petrilli, and the Hard Truth about America's Schools
This is an absolute must-read. Jersey Jazzman has managed to synthesize most of the big news of the week, from Moscowitz's meltdown to the student assault in South Carolina. Read this.
Now, I hear a lot about the quantity of my output, but for the past little bit, Mercedes Schneider has been quietly cranking out at least one post a day (or, perhaps more accurately, one post a night, because it looks like maybe she's staying up till the wee hours to write these). That is far more impressive than my output because Schneider does actual research, whereas I just remove the filter from my brain and start typing. But if you are used to checking Schneider just every now and then, you may have missed some of the gems she's been putting out there. You should save yourself the trouble and just subscribe to her blog, but ICYMI...
Louisiana's High School Letter Grades
Just when you think you've seen every way to game an evaluation system, LA comes up with yet another data dodge.
The Waltons Set Out To Promote a Choice Ecosystem
Schneider dug up a piece of paperwork in which the Waltons lay out their plan for the next five years of educational reforminess, and it's not pretty. You need to see this.
“Fund for Louisiana’s Future” is a DC Super PAC Devoted to David Vitter
One more tale of how reformy carpetbaggers are trying to buy themselves some influence.
Commentary on Mathematica’s “First Study of Its Kind” of PARCC
Mathematica performed a study on PARCC testing. Schneider pulls that apart to find the real conclusions we can reach.
Finally, from Paul Thomas, a piece that reflects his usual thoughful and nuanced view of a difficult issue.
Resisting Good/Bad Teacher/Police Frame and Confronting Systemic Flaws in Education, Law Enforcement
Damaging the Charter School Brand
John Merrow doesn't blog often, but when he does, it's powerful stuff. Here's a look at the charter school Hall of Shame, complete with historical perspective and some links to egregious actors.
Moscowitz, Petrilli, and the Hard Truth about America's Schools
This is an absolute must-read. Jersey Jazzman has managed to synthesize most of the big news of the week, from Moscowitz's meltdown to the student assault in South Carolina. Read this.
Now, I hear a lot about the quantity of my output, but for the past little bit, Mercedes Schneider has been quietly cranking out at least one post a day (or, perhaps more accurately, one post a night, because it looks like maybe she's staying up till the wee hours to write these). That is far more impressive than my output because Schneider does actual research, whereas I just remove the filter from my brain and start typing. But if you are used to checking Schneider just every now and then, you may have missed some of the gems she's been putting out there. You should save yourself the trouble and just subscribe to her blog, but ICYMI...
Louisiana's High School Letter Grades
Just when you think you've seen every way to game an evaluation system, LA comes up with yet another data dodge.
The Waltons Set Out To Promote a Choice Ecosystem
Schneider dug up a piece of paperwork in which the Waltons lay out their plan for the next five years of educational reforminess, and it's not pretty. You need to see this.
“Fund for Louisiana’s Future” is a DC Super PAC Devoted to David Vitter
One more tale of how reformy carpetbaggers are trying to buy themselves some influence.
Commentary on Mathematica’s “First Study of Its Kind” of PARCC
Mathematica performed a study on PARCC testing. Schneider pulls that apart to find the real conclusions we can reach.
Finally, from Paul Thomas, a piece that reflects his usual thoughful and nuanced view of a difficult issue.
Resisting Good/Bad Teacher/Police Frame and Confronting Systemic Flaws in Education, Law Enforcement
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)