The case was brought by the parents of Endrew F., an autistic student whose education was, according to his parents, not nearly enough. But Douglas County Schools (Colorado) took the position that they had provided "de minimis" which is what some folks believe the law requires and what they interpreted to mean "the absolute least we can get away with, even if it's not very much."
How Douglass decided to let itself get dragged all the way to the Supreme Court is beyond me, but once the case arrive, many many many people decided to chime in because the case potentially had huge repercussions for schools across the country.
The court decided the case unanimously, and in a mere sixteen pages. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the decision, and it doesn't hand a full win to either side, but it does provide some clarification for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which will no doubt result in memos flying to and from special education directors across America.
Roberts referred back the case of Amy Rowley, centering on "starkly different understandings" of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) and another case in which the parents and school disagreed; the court somewhat split the difference saying essentially that the district wasn't obliged to provide every single item that parents demanded, but it couldn't just slack off, either. He also notes that in Rowley, the court was deliberately avoiding inserting itself as an ultimate definer of educational programming.
In the case of Endrew, the parents had placed him in a private school after feeling he was stalled in the publics, and feeling that his IEPs were simply recycled same old same old. That was apparently even more problematic after the private school employed some strategies that helped with some of the behavior issues that had gotten in the way of his education (screaming, running away from school, extreme reactions to ordinary things like flies). Now the F's knew it could be done, and yet the school was proposing to repeat the same unproductive approaches of previous years. The Fs declined the school's attempt to woo them back, demanding instead that the private school tuition be paid by the district. And so here we are.
The District tried to cite Rowley, arguing that they couldn't promise a particular level of student achievement, and as long as there was progress of some sort, they had done their job.But Roberts says that Douglass cited the Rowley decision a little too precisely, setting select sentences free from their clarifying follow-ups. In the end, said Roberts, "We cannot accept the school district's reading of Rowley."
Roberts discusses at length IDEA's requirements for crafting an individualized program for the students, and notes that while the district says these are just procedural requirements, "the procedures are there for a reason." In other words, simply going through the motions of writing an IEP is not enough. When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis”
progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an
education at all. For children with disabilities, receiving instruction
that aims so low would be tantamount to “sitting idly ... awaiting the
time when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’”[the quote is from Rowley]. The IDEA demands more. It requires an educational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child's circumstances.
And there you have your Supreme Court definition of what IDEA requires.
Not that this was a win for the Fs, either. Their argument was that the IEP child should have the same opportunities and show the same basic progress as other students without special needs. Roberts rejects that as well, saying that the majority rejected that standard in Rowley as well. Roberts rejects defining FAPE as "the same as what all the other students are getting."
We will not attempt to elaborate on what “appropriate” progress will
look like from case to case. It is in the nature of the [special
education law] and the standard we adopt to resist such an effort: The
adequacy of a given IEP turns on the unique circumstances of the child
for whom it was created.
Roberts echoes Rowley in saying that the absence of any "bright-line rule" is not an invitation for other courts to substitute educational judgment for those of local education authorities. It is the education professionals who ultimately need to decide this stuff.
So, who won?
Well, for students with special needs, it's a confirmation by the Supremes that IDEA means districts can't just squeak by with de minimis, but must actually set out with a reasonably ambitious plan. For school districts, it' confirmation by the Supreme Court that educational experts are indeed the real authority on these matters, and the court should not substitute their own judgment for that of actual education professionals. Phew-- now if only the other two brnaches of government could get on board with that.
The attempts to do away with teacher tenure. The work to break the teacher unions, resulting in lower pay and less job protection. The initiatives for driving down teacher pensions. The legislative moves to take away sick and bereavement leave. The continued scapegoating of teachers. Lots of teachers look at all that and ask--
Don't they understand that this is making teaching less attractive? Don't they understand that this is making it harder to recruit and retain good people in the profession? Don't they understand that they are pushing people out the door?
Do they get it? Do they get that making teaching a profession that provides less and less job security, less and less ability to support a family, and less and less respect makes it less and less likely that people will choose teaching as a lifetime vocation?
There are, I think, three answers:
No, because teaching is a calling...
Some folks believe that teaching is such a calling and teachers are so closely identified with their profession that a teacher can't choose to not be a teacher any more than a tall person can choose to be short. It simply does not occur to these folks that a person has a choice, that a person can decide to enter the profession or leave it (and if the person does choose to leave teaching, well, that just means she wasn't really a teacher after all).
So it doesn't matter what you do to the profession-- real teachers will always want to be teachers.
No, because teaching is just a lady job...
Some folks still think of teaching as a job that some nice lady does for a few years while her husband is the real breadwinner in the home. It's like a really convenient part-time job that lets them work the same hours that the kids go to school and make a little extra money to cover grocery shopping or a nicer vacation. But it's not a real job, and they aren't really depending on it for their families or anything, so the working conditions don't need to be all that great. It should be noted that there are some teachers out there who don't exactly help counteract this stereotype.
So it doesn't matter what you do to the profession because it's not a real profession anyway.
Yes, they know exactly what they're doing.
Too many folks assume that there must be a misunderstanding or failure to Grasp the Situation, because surely nobody would want to drive people out of the profession on purpose.
But teaching is being lined up for dismantling like many jobs before it. From car-building to meat-packing, corporate leaders have found financial savings in being able to replace skilled workers with assembly-line drones. Breaking down a profession has numerous advantages if you're in power.
Teachers who don't stay also don't get expensive pensions.
Teachers who don't stay don't become active union members. They don't start speaking up for changes or challenging management decisions.
Teachers who don't stay don't get raises.
For some folks in the corporate reform movement, the teaching ideal is a Teach for America model-- the teacher comes, works for a few years, goes away. That teacher is easily replaced because in this model, the teacher is just a content delivery specialist who delivers the teacher-proof curriculum-in-a-box, or switches on the personalized learning computer and helps the occasional student deal with an issue. The easily replaced teachers is cheap-- not just because she doesn't stick around long enough to need a raise, but because her health insurance and pension costs are minimal. And because all the teachers in the building are coming and going, they don't have a chance to band together and start making noise over anything from teaching conditions to wages to the mistreatment of students by administration. And the lack of job protections (no tenure, no seniority, one year contracts) means that anybody who does look like any kind of trouble at all can be removed. You'll want to keep around one or two "team players," whose decent salaries can be used as enticement for recruitment and who can be counted on to help you keep everyone in line.
That's the dream. Sure, it means that parents and students walk into school every fall to see familiar-ish faces gone and new strangers in classrooms. But so what? Isn't school about pumping test-prep info and skills into their little heads, and not relationships?
And as an added bonus, the breaking of the union helps negate unionism as a political force. From the local level, where teachers can no longer get involved in school board elections, to the national level where NEA, the largest union in the nation, has less political juice (though, as long as they keep doing boneheaded things like supporting the Common Core, backing Arne Duncan, and giving Clinton an early-bird endorsement without talking to the membership, the NEA is not necessarily a big, scary threat).
Teachers are generally reasonable, educated people and it can be hard for them to see when opponents don't share "obvious" values. Surely, we think, these people can't want to actually drive people out of the profession. But the signs are clear that some people do, in fact, want to remake teaching in a new image, just as Ray Kroc and the McDonalds brothers remade restaurant chefs into minimum-wage assembly line workers.
For the people who see education as a $600 billion egg just waiting to be cracked, converting the education workforce into an easily replaced, high churn, low cost labor force is a worthwhile goal. Will it provide better education for children? Who cares? Did the McDonalds worry about whether or not they could crank out gourmet food? No, the goal is to get the revenue flowing away from public school workers and toward private pockets while simultaneously making that work force more compliant, less troublesome, and more easily managed.
So yes-- they understand exactly the effects of what they're doing. That's why they're doing it.
Keep reading. Keep sharing. I keep meeting people who say things like, "Boy, I wish I could blog about this stuff, but I just don't have the time/confidence/typing skills/etc." But you can take the things that you read and which make sense to you, and you can pass them on. Share what should be shared. Spread the word. We can all do that. Here's just some of what was worth sharing this week.
The indispensable Mercedes Schneider peels back some layers on yet another gathering-place of well-heeled corporate ed reformers. Some great research here and some disturbing new information.
Jennifer Berkshire interviews Ken Zeichner about how the attempts to break teacher preparation programs fit into the goals of the privatization movement.
Carol Burris takes another guest spot at The Answer Sheet to show one more example of how a supposedly high quality charter chaoin can turn out to be a big fat scam.
If you only read one piece on the list... Audrey Watters takes a good hard look at the Uber-education analogy that's suddenly a reformster fave. Here's where it falls apart and where it's view on the dangers facing public ed.
Mercedes Schneider has been on a roll this week. Here's a well-researched piece on exactly what DeVos's teaching career actually was. Follow it up with Schneider's piece on what happened to the school where Mom taught.
One of the frequently-offered reasons for the Big Standardized Tests is that they are supposed to provide information that will allow classroom teachers to "inform instruction," to tweak our instruction to better prepare for the test better educate our students. Let me show you what that really means in Pennsylvania.
Our BS Tests are called the Keystones (we're the Keystone State-- get it?). They are not a state requirement yet-- the legislature has blinked a couple of times now and kicked that can down the road. Because these tests are norm-referenced aka graded on a curve, using them as a graduation requirement is guaranteed to result in the denial of diplomas for some huge number of Pennsylvania students. However, many local districts like my own, make them a local graduation requirement in anticipation of the day when the legislature has the nerve to pull the trigger (right now 2019 is the year it all happens). The big difference with a local requirement is that we can offer an alternative assessment; our students who never pass the Keystones must complete the Binder of Doom-- a huge collection of exercises and assessment activities that allow them to demonstrate mastery. It's no fun, but it beats not getting a diploma because you passed all your classes but failed on bad standardized test.
Why do local districts attach stakes to the Keystones? Because our school rating and our individual teacher ratings depend upon those test results.
So it is with a combination of curiosity and professional concern that I try to find real, actionable data in the Keystone results, to see if there are things I can do, compromises I can make, even insights I can glean from breaking that data down.
The short answer is no. Let me walk you through the long answer. (We're just going to stick to the ELA results here).
The results come back to the schools from the state in the form of an enormous Excel document. It has as many lines as there are students who took the test, and the column designations go from A to FB. They come with a key to identify what each column includes; to create a document that you can easily read requires a lot of column hiding (the columns with the answer to "Did this student pass the test" are BP, BQ and BR.
Many of the columns are administrivia-- did this student use braille, did the student use paper or computer, that sort of thing. But buried in the columns are raw scores and administrative scores for each section of the test. There are two "modules" and each "module" includes two anchor standards segments. The Key gives a explanation of these:
I can also see raw scores broken down by multiple choice questions and "constructed" answers. The constructed answers can get a score of 1 through 10.
Annnnnnnnd that's it.
You might think that a good next step would be to look at student results broken down by questions with those questions tagged to the particular sub-standard they purport to measure. That's not happening. In fact, not only are these assessment anchors not broken down, but if you go to the listing of Pennsylvania Core Standards (because we are one of those states that totally ditched renamed Common Core), you will see that L.F.1 etc only sort of correspond to specific Core Standards.
You might also think that being able to see exactly what questions the students got wrong would allow me to zero in on what I need to teach more carefully or directly, but of course, I am forbidden to so much as look at any questions from the test, and if I accidentally see one, I should scrub it from my memory. Protecting the proprietary materials of the test manufacturer is more important than giving me the chance to get detailed and potentially useful student data from the results.
You'll also note that "reading for meaning" is assessed based on no more than six or seven questions (I don't know for a fact that it's one point per question, but the numbers seem about right based on student reports of test length-- not that I've ever looked at a copy of the test myself, because that would be a Terrible Ethical Violation).
So that's it. That's my actionable data. I know that my students got a score by answering some questions covering one of four broad goals. I don't know anything about those questions, and I don't know anything about my students' answers. I can compare how they do on fiction vs. non-fiction, and for what it's worth, only a small percentage shows a significant gap between the two scores. I can see if students who do well in my class do poorly on the test, or vice-versa. I can compare the results to our test prep test results and see if our test prep test is telling us anything useful (spoiler alert-- it is not).
But if you are imagining that I look at test results and glean insights like "Man, my students need more work on interpreting character development through use of symbolism or imagery" or "Wow, here's a list of terms I need to cover more carefully" or "They're just now seeing how form follows function in non-fiction writing structures"-- well, that's not happening.
In the world of actionable data, the Keystones, like most of the Big Standardized Tests, are just a big fat couch potato, following a design that suggests their primary purpose is to make money for the test manufacturing company. Go ahead and make your other arguments for why we need to subject students to this annual folly, but don't use my teaching as one of your excuses, because the BS Test doesn't help me one bit.
Florida (Motto: If you can't make a buck from it, what's the point?) is taking steps to bring its public school system into the final stages of Death by Charter. It's time to spread some more gasoline and light yet another match.
Because this is a purely political move, it has to have a ridiculously cynical name. So the Florida legislature is working on a bill to move students to "Schools of Hope." Actually, the bill used to call them "Schools of Success," but somebody probably figured that was promising waaaaaay too much, so "Schools of Hope" it is.
Here's the idea. Say your school cafeteria is having trouble. Many of the students it serves are malnourished and come to school hungry. The facility is underfunded and in disrepair, and the budget doesn't allow you to get the very best of food (in fact, you have reason to believe that some the funding for your cafeteria that serves mostly black students has been shifted cross town to a mostly-white cafeteria). Students often can't afford to buy full meals in your cafeteria. The state judges your effectiveness on how much the students weigh. You beg for help, but instead the legislature adds an ever-increasing number of hurdles to getting your work done and berates you for thinking that they can just throw money at the problem.
And then, one day, they decide that the solution is to offer a multi-million-dollar grant to any McDonald's that will build a restaurant across the street from the school.
Or maybe you live in a house that's been in your family for decades, and the state comes and sets fire to it, and then refuses to send a fire department. But they do offer multi-million dollar grants to any hotels that want to build a place across the street.
Of course, the legislators are totally doing it For The Children.
Here's House Speaker Richard Corcoran, one of the leaders of this initiative. "No longer will we rob children of dignity and hope. Now every single child will be afforded an opportunity of a world class education." Because nothing is more dignified and hopeful than being used as a profit-generating pawn.
"We have tried everything else," said Rep. Manny Diaz Jr., R-Hialeah. "It is our moral responsibility to make this move and provide an option for our kids." Well, almost everything. Not actually investing in and providing resources for public schools. But that would be crazy. And Diaz must know what he's talking about, because helps run Doral College, a fake college that lets students at some charter schools pretend they're taking college courses.
Rep. Michael Bileca, a Miami Republican and chairman of the House Education Committee, said legislators met with charter school operators and asked what it would take for them to set up schools in the neighborhoods now served by traditional public schools. He said one answer was that they needed help paying for new buildings to house the school.
You are saying funding matters. You're saying good strategies matter. And then you turn around and keep those strategies from schools that you could save from these turnaround options.
But wait-- there's more!
This new bill is on top of a bill that has been kicking around for a few years. This bill would require public schools to share property tax revenue with charter schools-- and it would limit districts' ability to spend on construction. The bill is co-sponsored by Rep. Diaz and Rep. Erik Fresen, and Fresen should know about these things because he works as a $150,000-a-year consultant for Civica, an architectural firm that specializes in charter school buildings. Oh-- and Academica, the 800-poung gorillas of Florida charter management, employs his sister and brother-in-law as executives. And Academica is also the group that sends its students to Diaz's fake college! So it's all one big happy family down there.
But if you want to see end-stage Death by Charter, travel up to the panhandle of Florida and little Jefferson County, the only Florida county that touches both Georgia and the Gulf of Mexico. The county has fewer than 15,000 residents and 700 school students. And come this fall, they might be the first district in the state to become all-charter.
The district has had problems with test scores, growth scores, and teacher retention. It has consolidated its schools under one K-12 roof to save money. But Grand High Education Poohbah Pam Stewart delivered an ultimatum back in January-- the district had to close its doors or hand the keys to somebody else. The district could not get an outside operator to come run the district, and other turnaround plans were rejected by the state. So the board has now voted to convert to charter, to basically shut down the district and let a charter take over.
“I know change needs to occur for our children and I’m all for that. But
here we go again rushing into something and we’re not even sure if we
can get a charter company to take our school. And I can’t wait until
July for them to tell me I have a job or I don’t have a job," says
Jefferson teacher Terri Clark. She says the district has never followed
through on what it approves. And she’s not confident it will happen now.
There are many interesting new problems that come with such a decision (stay in the retirement system? keep the old staff?) but the first big challenge is to get a charter operator to come in. Because here's the thing-- charters schools are not public schools and they don't have to serve anyone they don't want to serve. Jefferson is staring straight into the face of the biggest issue with states like Florida that are determined to set their public schools on fire so that people will abandon them and become charter customers--
What do you do if you burn down your public schools, chase all the students out, and then no charter wants them? The worst possible outcome of Death by Charter is not an all charter system. It's not even a bad all-charter system. The worst possible outcome is a whole community with no schools at all.
Jefferson is facing the Big Lie of school choice. The students and their families don't get to choose schools-- the schools get to choose them. Florida's self-serving legislators can make mouth-noises all day about how students deserve super-duper awesome school systems and they can keep chopping their public system off at the knees (and hips and shoulders and neck), but it's up to them to make sure that all their students have what they need-- not just the ones that live in profitable market shares. Florida has spent over a decade setting itself up as the vanguard of choice and charters and all things reformy, and they are well on track to show us how horribly wrong it can all go, how a state could end up with a pile of ashes. And it won't be good For The Children.
Pity the charter school movement. They have been splintering all over the place for about a year now as they have faced first, the tension between Free Marketeers, Choice Crusaders, and Social Justice Advocates. Then Trump reared up and let the voucher crowd back into the room, as well as creating terrible cognitive (or at least PR) dissonance among people who claimed to be Democrats but who had spent years supporting the very policies that Trump now championed.
Greg Richmond, president and CEO of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, popped up in EdWeek today as the latest charterizer trying to settle the whole swirly mess. He recaps that story right up through the point that Steve Zimmerman (Coalition of Community Charter Schools, NY) cried, "God save us from our friends," and Jeanne Allen (Center for Education Reform) began to nearly pee herself with joy.
Richmond wants to clear things up by articulating exactly what it is that charters stand for.
Choice, autonomy, and accountability.
Previously, we've heard autonomy and accountability. Richmond is expanding that so that he can clearly delineate between True Charter Advocates and everyone else.
As with most attempts to sort this out, Richmond's version requires a rewrite of history. Richmond, like other critic-fans, tries to use accountability as the wedge between True Charter Advocates and Those Other Guys, but of course a lack of accountability has been a selling point in charterdom for the last couple of decades. States like Florida and Betsy DeVos's MIchigan have fought hard to keep accountability rules far away from charter operators. The truest of true blue Free Marketeers have argued, as DeVos did Wednesday at Brookings, that the Free Market will provide all the accountability necessary. Charters have been pitched as a great way to create schools that don't have to play by the rules that public schools do-- that's kind of the entire point.
Richmond tries to thread the needle and say, "Well, of course, we don't want charters to operate under all the exact same rules as charters," but the fact remains-- if he wants to say that being anti-accountability makes someone Not a True Charter Advocate, he has to disregard half of the charter operators in half of charter history. It's like claiming that a true car is a convertible and all those other faux cars are just out of step with true carness.
For charter schools to succeed, educationally and politically, we must be faithful to all of the principles upon which the charter idea was built, not some at the expense of others. Charter schools without autonomy have no ability to innovate and excel. Charter schools without accountability will simply become a parallel system of failing schools.
Charter schools have innovated and excelled by aiming at select groups of students, abandoning the whole goal and purpose of public education. Where accountability has been lacking (aka almost everywhere) they have in fact delivered nothing new or effective.
But then, we don't need charters to have choice, autonomy and accountability. Good public schools offer choice, and all under one roof so that a child who wants to switch her goal from scientist to jazz musician can do so with out having to withdraw entirely. Good public schools also offer the parental choice of calling up your elected board member or administrators and telling them what you want to see. And why would public schools need to have less autonomy than charters? They don't. And we already know we can slap them with accountability measures until the cows come home, dragging their test scores behind them.
As always, I'm wondering why we need charter schools at all. What can they do that public schools can't? I mean, out of these three principles-- I know they can find ways to bar problematic or expensive students, grind teachers down into McEduworkers, craft a school around the principle of making money, and allow amateurs free reign in fields they know nothing about. Sometimes they also educate-- in pretty much the same way that public schools do. But of choice, autonomy and accountability, what is there that a charter can do that a public school cannot?
Not that it matters. Twitter snark from other charteristas has already been directed at Richmond and I don't think his column will go down in history as The Moment That Charter Advocates All United Under the Same Set of Principles. But it may build some odd bridges of understanding.
Right! When I visit great charter schools I always think,"Thank God for accountability measures that force these lazy bums to educate kids." https://t.co/3lcfRBagUg
Which, oddly enough, is what most of us in public education thought when we met Common Core and Big Standardized Tests and a raft of other reforms that were supposed to make us lousy lazy public school teachers stop holding back the secrets of success and finally get to work. So maybe charter fans will still have trouble talking to each other, but some of the rest of us may have something to chat about.
This week Education Secretary Betsy DeVos stopped by Brookings to help them help her plug choice. The main purpose of the event was to roll out a new report (The 2016 Education Choice and Competition Index), but the main outcome of the event was that DeVos said some truly extraordinary stuff. First, she delivered some prepared remarks, but then she sat down for some Q & A with Russ Whitehurst (Brookings) and that's when some kind of amazing stuff just kind of fell out of her mouth.
You can watch all of it here, though I'm not sure I recommend it. While Arne Duncan specialized in a goofy grin, like a ten-year-old boy who had snuck into a strip club and new he was doing something that might be considered either naughty or awesome, and yet he himself didn't quite get it, DeVos leans more towards a church lady smirk, like it amuses her to imagine that all those Lessers are just having fits that she is this amazing. It is the look for which "supercilious" was coined, and it's not a good look on anyone, let alone a starched white heiress. Her Trump-approved minder should really help her with that.
These include some standard DeVosisms, leading right in by noting that she is passionate about "increasing education options for parents and students" which she characterizes as a "fundamental right."
Her views about this were shaped "early on" in her time as a mother. The USED transcript omits the next part, but if we go to the tape, we see that here she tells the story of her relationship with the Potters House, a private Christian school recently profiled by Rebecca Klein. She and her husband sent a son there, volunteer there, and throw a lot of money at the place. Her experience, she says, led her to three conclusions.
First, parents know what's best for their kids. That will, further down the page, lead to a problem for the DeVosian view-- what are we to make of all the parents who choose, prefer, and support public schools?
Second, good teachers know what's best for their students. DeVos likes "good teachers," but I am beginning to wonder if she means "morally upright teachers" instead of "professionally accomplished teachers." She also hints here at something I've caught a whiff of before-- that choice provides teachers with super-awesome places to work where they can be part of an upright school that allows them to work long hours for less pay. Hooray.
Third, state and local leaders should be in charge, not the feds. I don't disagree with this, but my love of local control is tempered by the knowledge that in some places, "local control" means "racist and unequal." Consider the "failure factories" created in Pinellas County, Florida, or the segregation academies still running. So, local control might not be the absolute answer.
Tear down that wall. And that one, too.
DeVos underlines her commitment to choice, but she also underlines her commitment to children and families, not in buildings or institutions. It's a central theme of hers, and I wonder if it's a side-effect of life-long wealth-- if you always have the clout and money to stand up for yourself, does it seem inconceivable that some people without power and money need to have institutions to stand up for them? Or is this a religion thing, a desire to see all institutions torn down except the church? Whatever the case, DeVos once again lets her anti-institution (and by extension, anti-government) flag fly. Institutions also provide places for people to congregate and rebel and disagree with the Powers That Be and otherwise misbehave. Let's chop them all down.
She doesn't favor any one choice mechanism, but she does want to hit the old note about putting children's needs above adult political concerns, which is a handy way of dismissing virtually any opposing voices. Teachers don't express opinions about education because they are invested in teaching children-- they're just playing politics.
DeVos considers some specific cities that came up in the report, and her point seems to be that you need a good array of choices, and you need to make them accessible, and that includes a good application system. At no point does she suggest that oversight is needed to make sure that all the choices are actually any good.
Then she trots out Marilyn Rhames again. Rhames is one of Rick Hess's cage-busting teachers. And she acknowledges a quote from the report-- “There is no question that alternatives to the traditional school district model are destructive of the traditional school district model.”She disagrees. She believes that alternatives are constructive to education, students, parents, and teachers. And she absolutely refuses to distinguish between them, lumping all choices together, including virtual charters that have been universally shown to fail hard. But then, she's not a numbers person.
An exceptionally bad analogy
DeVos now trots out taxis vs. Uber/Lyft as her example. It's a tortured analogy-- private transportation options are not a public good, a community school is not a hired driver, and Uber in particular has actually been pretty destructive of many things. And Uber picks its own customers! DeVos offers this example "from a different part of our daily lives," as if the vast majority of folks in this country can't afford either a taxi or a lyft, but instead depend on public transport like buses or metro systems, which is still easier than rural areas where none of those options are available at all. She also tosses Airbnb into the mix, which is kind of hilarious because I'm willing to bet that she's never stayed at one in her life, and I will double that bet that she has never offered her own home as an Airbnb option. But she will use these poor analogies to propose that since we love choice in these areas, we should offer choice in schools.
She acknowledges that critics ask "often politely," why not fix the schools we have? That's true. We do ask that. Then she continues, "If only schools received more funding, they say, the schools could provide a better learning environment for those being left behind." That's not true. There are plenty of calls to fund schools completely or fairly. There are discussions about how money can best be spent. There are plenty of calls to turn the governance of local schools over to local communities. There are many many MANY discussions about programs and curriculum and ending those God-forsaken Big Standardized Tests. But I know few-if-any public school advocates whose position is, "Just give us more money."
But Betsy has set up her preferred straw man, and now she will have at him. "But of course we've already tried that, and it's proven not to work." And she will prove it with those damn School Improvement Grants. This-- this-- is the Obama/Duncan legacy-- a bad policy that, by its failure, has provided the perfect ammunition to discredit the whole idea of funding schools. Thanks, Obama.
DeVos wales away on SIG and asks, "At what point do we accept the fact that throwing money at the problem isn't the solution," as if anybody, anywhere, had suggested that throwing money at schools is the solution, although one does have to wonder why, then, she and her husband have thrown so many millions of dollars at the Potters House.
She'd like to change the culture around education-- no more "us versus them" thinking, which is an interesting point of view for someone who has spent the last thirty years up to and including this one declaring war on public schools. But she doesn't want to talk about statistics or systems-- she wants to tell anecdotes about specific children who fit her preferred outcome. So we will get heartwarming stories about students "saved" by choice or "ruined" by public schools. I predict that the years ahead will provide many of these anecdotes. I also predict that the years ahead will not include anecdotes of charter fraud, voucher scams, students who were left abandoned when their choice school closed suddenly mid-year, or students who emerged from choice schools with no actual education. Her story today is about Michael, and she declares that even one more Michael is unacceptable, but I have a feeling we're not going to hear about the Michael's who are let down by choice schools.
Finally,
So I urge us to come together to embrace policies that actually empower parents and give kids an equal shot at the quality education they deserve. It is the right and just thing to do.
As always, I wonder why we only want to give kids a "shot" at a quality education. Why not resolve to give them the actual quality education? But then, this closing line is really the first time we've brought up quality in the whole speech. Then DeVos brings it home with the True Believer invocation of what is "just and right."
And now it gets interesting.
And now DeVos sits down with Whitehurst, pours him a glass of water he doesn't really want as if we're in her house, not his, and things become extraordinary, partly, it must be said, because Whitehurst asks her some really well-aimed questions.
What's your metric?
Whitehurst asks how DeVos/Trump would like to be measured in the future? What would "we did a good job" look like?
She re-iterates her idea of replacing institutions with a student-centric culture. Whitehurst pushes back-- what exactly does that look like. How would we hold you accountable for that? Different funding mechanisms? Every parent gets to choose? Achievement is going to rise? At the end "I want some numbers" that tell me you got where you wanted to get.
Her measure is more choices. She believes the demand is there and it should be allowed to be cultivated. This is the part where DeVos says "I'm not a numbers person, not in the same way you are." Just empower parents. As long as we've got that policy, she's happy.
But what if it sucks.
Whitehurst wants to gently suggest that a whole lot of choice could result in crappy education for a lot of students. Could she see, conceptually, "that a choice environment, implemented poorly. could have negative impacts on families." And he almost has an interesting idea going, but then he restates it-- could you struggle publicly with us over the dilemma of having choice, but academic outcomes are getting worse. And that's what she jumps on, with this extraordinary statement: Well, I'm not sure how they could get a lot worse on a nationwide basis than they are today.
Ah, there she is. Betsy "Public Schools Are a Dead End" DeVos. And she cites the continuing deterioration of PISA scores and NAEP scores and now Russ Whitehurst has to correct the Secretary of Education by pointing out that NAEP scores have risen dreamatically over the last twenty years. "It's actually interesting that the Bush administration focused on reading," not math, and the math got better and all DeVos takes away from any of that is that the federal top-down approach isn't so great, chuckle chuckle.
So the Secretary of Education cannot imagine how public education can get any worse in this country (though she's not a numbers person). Which means we have some huge disconnects operating here, because parents always know best, and lots of parents think public schools are actually pretty good, and yet they couldn't get any worse. Yikes.
The players in the system
I have to tell you-- I'm liking Whitehurst more and more. Now he winds up with the notion that ESSA, Trump and DeVos all seem lined up behind the devolution of power to the states and localities and his question-- "Isn't that the traditional status quo model?" Which-- yes. Part of ed reform has been installing top-down power, so re-localizing it is in fact a return to the status quo. Okay, I like him less now that he includes the idea that school boards are elected by teachers unions.
Her response is predictable given her history. "We've seen" plenty of governors be really innovative, and she should have seen that because she's certainly thrown enough money at getting people elected who see things her way. "Empowering states" to be "laboratories" of choice is where we'll see headway made. IOW, now that we have better control of state governments, it should be okay to give them power again.
Federal role to play? "Highlighting" success and also something about states sitting back being satisfied with mediocre results. Wait-- what?? Did she just suggest that the feds are going to push accountability on the states after all? No, the federal role will be informative rather than mandating. So, you know, fliers and reports and emails and stuff. But Whitehurst is going to follow up.
What about the happy states?
If the state is happy with how things are going, then parents are stuck. What then? Just the bully pulpit, or...?
State plan submission for ESSA will be a very "good and instructive process" and they kind of bob heads at each other like maybe they can tease out a string of words that really means something. But in that process, the department will have a chance to "comment to" what the state plans. So, the power of comments. So, nothing. This has always been the challenge I imagine she faces-- she wants to keep the feds out of the process, but she knows just what she wants to see, and as the Trump administration fully grasps, if there are no consequences for breaking a rue, it's not really a rule.
Does DeVos see turning down any state plans? She doesn't know-- it's too early to say, and now she has her confident voice back. She knows this answer! But it's at least possible to refuse a state that's "complacent," and this gets a nod. But when he asks if there will be "revise and resubmit" orders, she just says there will be opportunity for discussion.
Will the feds break choice?
Whitehurst, in his Jimmy Stewart stammering way, allows as how he's just sort of compelled to ask about the budget. Which features huge education cuts, which will be covered by cutting programs, but also there's the shifting of money to choice. He then references the USA Today op-ed by charter operators saying "Don't slash the budget." And remember that time that Obama maybe killed Common Core by top-downing it (note: not a thing that actually happened). Oh-- it looks like a question is appearing over the horizon. If the feds throw their weight and tax dollars behind choice all top downy, will they hurt the charter/choice movement?
DeVos reminds us that the budget doesn't actually exist yet, so there's more sturm and drang to come before money actually appears. So, not going to answer the actual question. And Whitehurst lets her off by reminiscing about how Presidential budgets are aspirational.
Audience participation time
First up, Richard from the Century Foundation. He's going to tak about segregation and opens by noting that it can get worse with choice, but "if properly engineered" it could "produce" a lot more diversity. He asks DeVos if she supports or opposes policies aimed at promoting diversity.
DeVos warms up slowly, starting with basically "diversity is good." And then she references a report that shows that enough choices increases diversity. I'm not going to call the Secretary and alternative factifier, but this seems... unlikely? Then she works around to the Oaks school that she visited, which makes diversity a policy even though, somehow, that results in a school less diverse than the city it lives in.Now the sound is dropping out of the video, but DeVos manages to finally connect with this softball-- yes, diversity is good and we would be in favor of it.
Our next question opens with the observation that the government has a roll in protecting citizens from defective products (like exploding cars). So how does the fed balance the desire to favor parent and child choice with a need to protect consumers from metaphorically exploding schools?
"That's a really good question," DeVos says, as her metaphorical hourglass icon spins. First measure of accountability? If parents choose it. "I would love to see evidence of schools attracting students solely on the promise of a raffle ticket or something." Yes, as she has suggested before, DeVos believes that the market is never wrong, and if parents choose a school, it must be good. Parents (with information, though she doesn't say what the information would be) is the "first, best" form of accountability. Having information about the school's results transparent and available is the accountability we need. So, does she believe that choice school operators will never lie, or use very creative marketing?
This is another DeVosian mystery-- the implication that public schools are operated by a bunch of lying liars, but charter and private school operators are somehow more virtuous? Or is the belief here that the Free Market somehow forces people to be honest or else they'll be deselected. Does she believe that people won't choose you if you're a big fat liar, because I'm pretty sure DeVos is serving at the pleasure of the living embodiment, the walking proof that lying can actually be a great way to succeed in the Free Market.
That's it!
Whitehurst tells the audience to stay seated until DeVos gets out "for security reasons." She's out, and Whitehurst is back to talking about his report.
DeVos's priorities and assumptions are certainly becoming ever-clearer. She's a Mom, and she's got a big Axe, and she is going to chop the crap out of the failed terrible public school system and make kindling for a warm choice fire. Her actual knowledge is shallow and severely by her assumptions-- unsurprising from someone who said at her hearing that she had not learned anything from her years of involvement in Michigan ed reform.
The case was brought by the parents of Endrew F., an autistic student whose education was, according to his parents, not nearly enough. But Douglas County Schools (Colorado) took the position that they had provided "de minimis" which is what some folks believe the law requires and what they interpreted to mean "the absolute least we can get away with, even if it's not very much."
