More than 500 researchers sign NCLB letter to Congress: stop test-focused reforms - The Washington Post

More than 500 researchers sign NCLB letter to Congress: stop test-focused reforms - The Washington Post:

More than 500 researchers sign NCLB letter to Congress: stop test-focused reforms

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., sitting next to the committee’s ranking member Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., listen to testimony during a hearing looking at ways to fix the No Child Left Behind law, Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2015, on Capitol Hill in Washington. Alexander said he is open to discussion on whether the federal government should dictate standardized testing or leave it up to states. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

More than 500 education researchers around the country have signed an open letter to Congress and the Obama administration about how the No Child Left Behind law should be rewritten, saying that they “strongly urge departing from test-focused reforms that not only have been discredited for high-stakes decisions, but also have shown to widen, not close, gaps and inequities.”

Congress is now taking up a rewrite of NCLB, the current version of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (which was supposed to be rewritten in 2007), and the House education committee has already approved legislation that retains an NCLB requirement of annual standardized testing from grades 3-8 and once in high school.  The standardized testing-focused reforms at the center of NCLB have been controversial, and the law is seen now as being severely flawed.

The letter, which educational researchers can sign by Feb. 20, references a policy memo written by Kevin Welner, director of the National Education Policy Center, an attorney and a professor education policy at the University of Colorado Boulder; and William J. Mathis, managing director of the center and a former Vermont superintendent.  Here is the unannotated version, and you can find the fully annotated memo here, at the National Center of Education Policy website. The policy memo says in part:

Today’s 21-year-olds were in third grade in 2002, when the No Child Left Behind Act became law. For them and their younger siblings and neighbors, test-driven accountability policies are all they’ve known. The federal government entrusted their educations to an unproven but ambitious belief that if we test children and hold educators responsible for improving test scores, we would have almost everyone scoring as “proficient” by 2014. Thus, we would achieve “equality.” This approach has not worked.

Yet over the past 13 years, Presidents Bush and Obama remained steadfastly committed to test-based policies. These two administrations have offered federal grants through Race to the Top, so-called Flexibility Waivers under NCLB, School Improvement Grants, and various other programs to push states, districts, and schools to line up behind policies that use these same test scores in high-stakes evaluations of teachers and principals, in addition to the NCLB focus on schools. The proposed new Teacher Preparation Regulations under Title II of the Higher Education Act now attempt to expand the testing regime to teacher education programs. These expansions of test-driven accountability policies require testing even beyond that mandated by NCLB.

Not surprisingly, current debates over the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), of which NCLB is the most recent iteration, now center around specific 

More than 500 researchers sign NCLB letter to Congress: stop test-focused reforms - The Washington Post:

drjamesarnold.com: No Governor Left Behind - Part Deux

drjamesarnold.com: No Governor Left Behind - Part Deux:

No Governor Left Behind - Part Deux

Posted by Jim Arnold

No Governor Left Behind - Part Deux

    Name a state program or agency that you would describe as a model of efficiency, effectiveness and progress.  I know.  Me neither.  One of the last solutions anybody would come up with that really wanted to solve a problem would be more governmental involvement. So why does Governor Deal think that a new state agency disguised as the Opportunity School District would fare any better?  I’m not sure he does.  I think he promised himself into an educational corner during the heat of an election and had to come up with something, and Bobby Jindal happened to visit on his way to Washington and said “you should see what we pulled off in New Orleans.  We nearly doubled the number of charter schools and things are going so well I might even run for President.”  But wait a minute.  Are things in New Orleans really going that well for education?  In the early fall of 2014 the Cowen Institute at Tulane University withdrew its entire report touting the enormous academic improvements for the Recovery School District in NOLA.  Someone - gasp - had cooked the books and used selected data to make the report that presented the RSD in a favorable academic light.

http://louisianaeducator.blogspot.com/2014/10/louisiana-recovery-district-still.html

Using accurate data comparing the RSD with other public schools in Louisiana shows that the RSD charters perform consistently in the bottom third of all schools.  The vast majority of charters in Louisiana, except for those with a selective admissions process, are rated D or F by their own state.  The RSD we are supposed to emulate was rated as one of the lowest performing districts in the state. The latest LDOE testing results puts the RSD at the 17th percentile among all Louisiana public school districts.  Those schools taken over in New Orleans and converted to charters perform at a rate below 83% of all Louisiana schools in spite of the fact that a special law was passed that allowed the state to take over failing schools.

    Corporate reformers and privatizers of public education have used selective, bogus data to promote exaggerated reports of academic progress of students in the RSD to encourage other states to emulate the New Orleans model in spite of the disastrous results.  Maybe they believe that if others go along with what’s turned out to be a really bad idea they won’t look so silly all by themselves.  Retractions of these reports are rarely mentioned, and the urban legend of miraculous improvements continues unchallenged.  Six percent (6%) of the HS Seniors in the RSD scored high enough to qualify for admission in a Louisiana university.  Since 2005, RSD ACT scores have improved 2% to a class average of 16.4.  This is the model we want?   If the goal is to increase the number of charter schools there are simpler ways to do it.  If the goal is to help students in schools struggling to meet state requirements there are better paths to follow thandrjamesarnold.com: No Governor Left Behind - Part Deux: 

Yes to SBAC opt out request brings Bristol CT off the SBAC Wall of Shame - Wait What?

Yes to SBAC opt out request brings Bristol CT off the SBAC Wall of Shame - Wait What?:



Yes to SBAC opt out request brings Bristol CT off the SBAC Wall of Shame

 Connecticut school district reverses decision and recognizes a parents fundamental right to opt their child out of the Common Core SBAC Test!

Thanks to a courageous mother and son, Bristol’s superintendent has recognized the fundamental right of a parent to opt their child of children out of the discriminatory, unfair and inappropriate Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) testing scam.

Featured here at Wait, What? and on the local NBC affiliate, Christine Murphy stood up and spoke out in an effort to protect her child and children across Connecticut from the Common Core SBAC test that is intentionally designed to ensure that up to 70 percent of Connecticut’s children are deemed failures.

Governor Dannel Malloy is not only a key supporter of the Common Core and the Common Core SBAC Test but his administration cast a vote in favor of implementing SBAC pass/fail (cut-scores) at a level where the vast majority of Connecticut students will fail.

In Bristol, when Christine Murphy informed her son’s school that she was opting him out of the unfair Common Core SBAC test, local education officials – using faulty directives from Malloy’s Department of Education – told the mother that she did not have the right to remove him from having to participate in the Common Core SBAC testing scheme.

But since then, Bristol education officials have seen the light and have informed her that they will follow her directive and that her son will be exempted from the Common Core SBAC tests.

As reported in the Bristol Press,

A Bristol mother was granted the right to have her son not take the new standardized state test, even as school districts and the state want to discourage other parents from opting out.

Christine Murphy said her son, Justin Edgar-Murphy, 17, a junior at Bristol Central High School, would be at a disadvantage in taking the test because he is a special needs student with anxiety and ADHD.

The Smarter Balanced Assessment will replace the familiar paper-and-pencil CMT (Connecticut Mastery Test) and CAPT (Connecticut Academic Performance Test) with a computer adaptive test for English and math that is essentially a different test for each student taking it.

The test, commonly known as SBAC (Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, for the group of states that developed it) stems from the Common Core State Standards, a national education initiative that seeks to bring the varied curricula taught in each state into alignment with each other.

As the Bristol Press goes on to explain,

On Jan. 23, Murphy sent an e-mail to Marisa Calvi-Rogers, BCHS assistant principal, stating that she wanted to “opt out” Justin from the SBAC.

Calvi-Rogers wrote back, saying that state statute mandates all students take the test. “By law, we will make all necessary arrangements and 

Yes to SBAC opt out request brings Bristol CT off the SBAC Wall of Shame - Wait What?:

NYC Charter Schools Are Illegally Pushing Out "Difficult" Kids, Report Alleges: Gothamist

NYC Charter Schools Are Illegally Pushing Out "Difficult" Kids, Report Alleges: Gothamist:

NYC Charter Schools Are Illegally Pushing Out "Difficult" Kids, Report Alleges

(Via FAIR)

A children’s advocacy group has found that large numbers of NYC charter schools are violating state and federal law in their disciplinary practices, handing out excessive suspensions and expulsions—often without due process—to children as young as five.

Through Freedom of Information Law requests, Advocates for Children of New York (AFC) obtained the discipline policies of 155 out of the 183 total charter schools in NYC during the 2012-2013 school year and part of the 2013-2014 school year. Their report, "Civil Rights Suspended," examines how those policies fail to protect students and details some of the most egregious allegations of excessive discipline.

Of the 164 disciplinary policies from the 155 schools (some schools had multiple policies for different grade levels), the report found:

1) 107 policies allowed suspensions or expulsions for any behavior violation, no matter how minor;
2) 82 allowed suspensions or expulsions for students who were late, absent, or skipped class;
3) 133 did not include the right to written notice before a suspension took place;
4) 36 did not include the right to a hearing prior to a short-term suspension;
5) 25 did not include the right to a hearing prior to a long-term suspension;
6) 59 did not include the right to appeal a suspension or expulsion;
7) 36 did not include distinct procedures for suspending or expelling students with disabilities;
8) 52 did not include the right to alternative instruction during the full time of the suspension.

The first finding—that students are being suspended and expelled for behavior violations—is especially significant for students with disabilities, says Paulina Davis, Staff Attorney with the AFC's Charter Schools Initiative. “If you have ADHD and you can get an infraction for getting out of your seat without permission, or calling out in class, then you’re someone who is more likely to incur those types of infractions,” she explains.

City charter schools are not subject to the same disciplinary regulations as public schools under the Department of Education’s Discipline Code; instead, they are governed by the New York State Charter Schools Act and the state constitution. They must also comply with federal law, including IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), and Goss v. Lopez, a decision which regulates due process requirements for suspensions. The AFC report alleges that findings two through seven violate state law, while findings four, five, and seven—those having to do with due process and disability protections—violate federal law.

(Shutterstock)

The report describes a 10-year-old boy with ADHD who was suspended from his charter multiple times for those exact behaviors, missing over twenty days of school. Another boy with ADHD faced expulsion after throwing a bag of food on the floor and sweeping it up with a “bad attitude”—he had already been suspended three times. A five-year-old girl was suspended three times while her mother waited for her disability evaluation, then expelled for accumulating those three suspensions.

AFC has provided legal guidance or representation to over 100 parents in charter suspensions or expulsions in the past year and a half, they write in the report. But James Merriman, CEO of the New York City Charter School Center, says the incidents are isolated. In a statement issued to Gothamist, he writes:

“No one can disagree that those policies that do not fully meet applicable law should be amended. But it is tremendously unfair to suggest, as AFC does, that a handful of one-sided anecdotes compiled over a long time are any evidence that charter schools are
NYC Charter Schools Are Illegally Pushing Out "Difficult" Kids, Report Alleges: Gothamist:

‘No Child Left Behind’ has failed By Lily Eskelsen García and Otha Thornton - The Washington Post

‘No Child Left Behind’ has failed - The Washington Post:

‘No Child Left Behind’ has failed

By Lily Eskelsen García and Otha Thornton February 13 at 7:21 PM

Lily Eskelsen García is president of the National Education Association. Otha Thornton is president of the National Parent Teacher Association.

Public education for every child was an American idea, but it has always been a local and state responsibility. Even when Congress passed theElementary and Secondary Education Act 50 years ago, the intended federal role was limited but clear: ensuring equal opportunity.

The act provided federal resources for states to level the playing field between schools in wealthy and poor districts. However, its 2002 reauthorization, which became known as No Child Left Behind, took the law off track by mandating that all students hit arbitrary scores on standardized tests instead of ensuring equal opportunities.

No Child Left Behind has failed. Now we have a chance to fix the law by refocusing on the proper federal role: equal opportunity. To do that, we must change the way we think about accountability.

Under No Child Left Behind, accountability has hinged entirely on standardized test scores, a single number that has been used to determine whether students graduate or teachers keep their jobs. The problem is, a single test score is like a blinking “check engine” light on the dashboard. It can tell us something’s wrong but not how to fix it.

What we need instead is a whole dashboard of indicators that monitor better measures of success for the whole child — a critical, creative mind, a healthy body and an ethical character. And we need indicators of each student’s opportunities to learn — what programs, services and resources are available?

Success should be measured throughout the system — preschool to high school — but a standardized test tells us so little. We want to know which students are succeeding in Advanced Placement and honors programs, where they earn college credit in high school. You can measure that. We want to know which students have certified, experienced teachers and access to the support professionals they need, such as tutors, librarians, school nurses and counselors. We want to know which students have access to arts and athletic programs. Which middle school students are succeeding in science, technology, engineering and math tracks that will get them into advanced high school courses, which will get them into a university. You can measure all that, too.

And we want the data broken down by demographic groups, so we can ensure that all types of students have access to these resources. Without this dashboard of information, how would the public know which children are being shortchanged? How would anything change on the local or state level?

Real equal opportunity, of course, isn’t a “one size fits all” proposition. It means providing every child whatever he or she needs to learn, whether it’s tutoring and mentoring, counseling or other services. If a student comes to school hungry or sick, can we really say that she has an opportunity to learn? Of course not — and we must acknowledge this by seeing each student as a whole human being with individual needs.

We must also recognize that the misuse of test scores has had unintended negative consequences, especially for students at high-poverty schools. In service to high-stakes “test and punish” threats, schools with the most limited resources have been most likely to cut back on history, art, music and physical education, simply because they aren’t covered on standardized tests. Those are the schools where test prep has robbed ‘No Child Left Behind’ has failed - The Washington Post:

The 2015 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings - Rick Hess Straight Up - Education Week

The 2015 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings - Rick Hess Straight Up - Education Week:

The 2015 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings

By Rick Hess on January 7, 2015 6:30 AM

Today, we unveil the 2015 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings. Simply being included among the 200 ranked scholars is an honor, given the tens of thousands who might be included. The list of qualifying scholars includes a qualitative component, though the actual scores are composed entirely of quantitative metrics. The rankings include the top 150 finishers from last year's rankings, along with 50 "at-large" nominees chosen by a selection committee of 31 automatic qualifiers (see yesterday's post for all the requisite details).

The metrics, as explained yesterday, recognize university-based scholars in the U.S. who are contributing most substantially to public debates about education. The rankings offer a useful, if imperfect, gauge of the public influence edu-scholars had in 2014. The rubric reflects both a scholar's body of academic work—encompassing the breadth and influence of their scholarship—and their footprint on the public discourse last year.

Here are the 2015 rankings (click chart for larger view). Please note that all university affiliations reflect a scholar's institution as of December 2014.

Only university-based researchers are eligible for the rankings. The rankings don't include full-time think tankers, advocates, and such. After all, the point is to encourage universities to pay more attention to the stuff of scholarly participation in the public square. (The term "university-based" provides some useful flexibility. For instance, Tony Bryk currently hangs his hat at Carnegie. However, he is an established academic (at Stanford) with a university affiliation. So he's included. The line is admittedly blurry, but it seems to work reasonably well.)

No exercise of this kind is without complexities and limitations. The bottom line: this is a serious but inevitably imperfect attempt to nudge universities, foundations, and professional associations to do more to cultivate, encourage, and recognize serious contributions to the public debate.

The top scorers? All are familiar edu-names, with long careers featuring influential scholarship, track records of comment on public developments, and outsized public and professional roles. In order, the top five were Diane Ravitch of NYU, Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford, Howard Gardner of Harvard, UCLA's Gary Orfield, and Harvard's Paul E. Peterson. Rounding out the top ten were Andy Hargreaves of Boston College, Arizona State's David Berliner, Stanford's Larry Cuban, Yong Zhao of U. Oregon, and Arizona State's Gene V. Glass. Notable, if not too surprising, is that the top ten are all veteran, accomplished scholars who have each authored a number of (frequently influential) books, accumulated bodies of heavily cited scholarly work, and are often seen in the public square and working with state and district leaders. That reflects the intent of the scoring rubric, which weights the broad, lasting public influence of a scholar's work much more heavily than a short run of ephemeral visibility.

W. Steven Barnett of Rutgers, a leading authority on early childhood, was the highest-scoring new entrant. He debuted in the top twenty, claiming spot #17. Marc Lamont Hill of Morehouse, Jeannie Oakes (who returned to UCLA from the Ford Foundation), and UPenn's Angela Duckworth were the other new names to debut in the top fifty.

UPenn's Shaun Harper, who chairs the university's Center for the Study of Race & Equity in Education, made the biggest single leap from last year, climbing 85 spots to #42. Other returnees making especially big jumps from 2014 included Sara Goldrick-Rab of U. Wisconsin, Laura Perna of UPenn, Andy Porter of UPenn, Amy Stuart Wells of Columbia, Jim Ryan of Harvard, and Malachy Bishop of U. Kentucky.

Stanford University and Harvard University both fared exceptionally well, with Stanford placing four scholars in the top 20 and Harvard placing three. New York University was the only other institution to place multiple scholars in the top 20.

In terms of the most scholars ranked, Stanford topped all others with 22. Harvard was second, with 18, and Columbia was third, with 14. Overall, more than 50 universities placed at least one scholar in the rankings.

A number of top scorers penned influential books of recent vintage. For instance, among the top ten, just in the past year, Yong Zhao released Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Dragon: Why China Has the Best (and Worst) Education System in the World; Andy Hargreaves coauthored Uplifting The 2015 RHSU Edu-Scholar Public Influence Rankings - Rick Hess Straight Up - Education Week:

You Can Become a Millionaire if You Go into Education! A Teacher on Teaching:

A Teacher on Teaching: You Can Become a Millionaire if You Go into Education!:

You Can Become a Millionaire if You Go into Education!

Suppose we could say to the young: “You should go into teaching. Someday, you can be a millionaire! You can be the next Nathaniel A. Davis!”

Corporate education. That’s the ticket!.

Before we turn to Mr. Davis, however, we need to set the background. This week Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee offered up the latest in a long string of schemes to fix the public schools. Teachers, I imagine, might wonder, “Shouldn’t education in this country be fixed by now? How many plans have politicians put forward?”

Ignore that conundrum.

Alexander was Secretary of Education under President George H. W. Bush.
(At no time in his life did he ever really work in education.)
By the way:  the answer to that questions was "no."

Here’s the bold new plan—not to be confused with previous bold new plans. Such as: No Child Left Behind. Mr. Alexander wants Congress to free up federal funds for 11,000,000 students from low-income families. Not new funds. No, Alexander is a fiscal hawk. His idea is to take away money that the public schools already receive. Then he wants to give it to parents to spend so they can enroll their children in schools of their choice. Choice! That’s what makes America great. Well, not counting parents who are gay or lesbian and might want to choose whom they marry.

Ignore that too.

What Senator Alexander wants is to divert $24 billion in funding. That’s 41% of federal dollars spent on K-12 education. Or: $2,100 per child.

Under his plan states might use the money to:

a) Help low-income students attend public schools outside their neighborhoods.
b) Fund individual scholarships to help pay private school tuition.
c) Attend charter schools, including “for profit” institutions.


Choice is cool! Like: would a member of Congress rather go to a fine restaurant with a lobbyist and A Teacher on Teaching: You Can Become a Millionaire if You Go into Education!:

Tennessee Education Report | Killing K-12, Inc.

Tennessee Education Report | Killing K-12, Inc.:

KILLING K-12, INC.

by ANDY SPEARS

Iwrote earlier about legislation filed this session that would extend the life of failing Tennessee Virtual Academy (TNVA) operator K-12, Inc.

Now, legislation has been filed that would effectively kill K-12, Inc. in Tennessee.

HB 1331/SB 1363 by Rep. Mike Stewart and Sen. Jeff Yarbro, both of Nashville, would have the effect of ending K-12, Inc.’s reign as an unchecked operator of a failing virtual school.

Here’s the basic language of the bill:

Local Education Agencies – As introduced, prohibits an LEA from contracting for services with a nonprofit or for-profit operator or manager of a virtual school if the contract requires the LEA to pay more per pupil for students in the virtual school than the operator or manager charges individual students for its services. – Amends TCA Title 49, Chapter 16, Part 2.

Union County is the LEA “home” of the Tennessee Virtual Academy, a school that has been among Tennessee’s lowest performing since its opening. K-12, Inc. operates the school and does so at an apparent profit.

Interestingly, in Wednesday’s Senate Education Committee meeting, Sen. Todd Gardenhire of Chattanooga brought up virtual schools during a presentation on Pre-K that had nothing to do with virtual schools.

Gardenhire repeatedly asked if online instruction, such as that offered through a virtual school, would be the most appropriate option for a student diagnosed with Autism. When the representative from the Tennessee Department of Education said that it would depend on the quality of the virtual program, Gardenhire persisted, accusing the TN DOE of hedging on the issue.

Gardenhire asked if it was appropriate to close a virtual school that might be the only option for an Autistic child.

This line of questioning was interesting not just because it was irrelevant to the topic at hand. It also outlines a likely line of argument proponents of K-12, Inc. such as Tennessee Education Report | Killing K-12, Inc.:

Gene V Glass: Education in Two Worlds: Arizona Education Politics Getting Weirder and Weirder

Gene V Glass: Education in Two Worlds: Arizona Education Politics Getting Weirder and Weirder:



Arizona Education Politics Getting Weirder and Weirder

It all started when Doug Ducey won the governor's race last November. Duce, who cut his political teeth as a student at Arizona State University editing the campus newspaper, made his millions in the ice cream business (Cold Stone Creamery). Immediately upon taking office he instituted a hiring freeze and promised to increase school choice. That same mid-term election saw a virtual unknown Republican school board member, Diane Douglas, defeat ASU Education professor David Garcia for the office of State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Douglas vowed to dump Common Core on grounds of its being federal intrusion into a state responsibility, but policy had nothing to do with her victory; if you had an R behind your name in the mid-term election, you won.

Two days ago, Douglas fired two of the top administrators of the State Board of Education -- Executive Director and Asst. Executive Director. It's not hard to imagine why; they were far down the road of installing the Common Core in Arizona schools. Although Douglas is ex officio member of the State Board, the Governor questioned whether she had the authority to hire these two persons and he reinstated them. Yesterday, the whole business erupted in a public fight between Ducey and Douglas over whether the latter has the authority to fire people in her department. After a prayer breakfast Thursday morning, the Governor was barely out the door before he gave reporters an insincere piece of his mind: "[I'm] sorry she chose to go down that path." Douglas shot back. Ducey, she said, is establishing a "shadow faction of charter school operators and former state superintendents [referring to Lisa Graham Keegan who supported Douglas's opponent in the election] who support Common Core and moving funds from traditional public schools to charter schools."



Score +1 for Douglas for speaking the truth. The Arizona Senate has moved forward quickly in this session to support the privatization of K-12 education. The Senate education committee has already approved bills that would 1) award vouchers (at 90% state per pupil expenditure) to any student whose application Gene V Glass: Education in Two Worlds: Arizona Education Politics Getting Weirder and Weirder:

Holyoke teacher's union president on potential state receivership: 'This is not a done deal' | masslive.com

Holyoke teacher's union president on potential state receivership: 'This is not a done deal' | masslive.com:

Holyoke teacher's union president on potential state receivership: 'This is not a done deal'

 HOLYOKE -- At a meeting of concerned teachers, city parents and community members on Thursday, the Holyoke Teacher's Association president spoke of the possibility of Holyoke Public Schools in receivership.

HTA President Gus Morales shared with the group of approximately 50 people a letter to the editor of CommonWealth Magazine, regarding a recent piece they wrote on Holyoke Public Schools.

"Holyoke is not asking to be recused by the state," Morales said, reading from his letter. He went on to critique outside help the state has provided to city educators. "The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has a history of bringing in private partners who have a poor understanding of Holyoke and consequently design ineffective education plans for our students," he said. "We saw it with America's Choice's involvement in the district, and we are seeing it with Project GRAD, which is working in two of our schools. The DESE itself has reported on the shortcomings of its private partners. There absolutely is room for gains in student achievement, but the obstacles our students face are created by economic injustice and not from poor teaching or lack of community concern."

Additionally, Morales emphasized that Lawrence, while also a Gateway City, is not the same as Holyoke. "In Lawrence, former mayor William Lantigua asked the DESE to take over the public schools. But in Holyoke, the City Council opposes the state placing the public schools into receivership. The School Committee opposes the move. The superintendent opposes the move. The teachers oppose the move. And hundreds of parents and other community residents are organizing against the move."

Morales was not the only education official to discuss the district. In a formal lettersent to state education officials, the Holyoke School Committee responded to critiques of the district.

Below is the full letter Morales sent to CommonWealth Magazine:

In regards to Michael Jonas' Feb. 5 column about Holyoke public schools, I'd like to point this out to the author and to Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester: Holyoke is not asking to be recused by the state. In fact, for as long as the state has been involved in the Holyoke Public Schools, all I can see is a track record of money being diverted to private interests and away from student services.In Lawrence, former mayor William Lantigua asked the DESE to take over the public schools. But in Holyoke, the City Council opposes the state placing the public schools into receivership. The School Committee opposes the move. The superintendent opposes the move. The teachers oppose the move. And hundreds of parents and other community residents are organizing against the move.
This opposition is based on good reason and sound policy. The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has a history of bringing in private partners who have a poor understanding of Holyoke and consequently design ineffective education plans for our students. We saw it with America's Choice's involvement in the district, and we are seeing it with Project GRAD, which is working in two of our schools. The DESE itself has reported on the shortcomings of its private partners. There absolutely is room for gains in student achievement, but the obstacles our students face are created by economic injustice and not from poor teaching or lack of community concern.
We have not seen the DESE or any other state agency stepping up to allocate the resources necessary for Holyoke's schools to provide the education our students need and deserve. According to the state's own figures, school spending in Holyoke is barely hitting minimum requirements while the academic, social and emotional needs of our students are comparatively high.
That is why we need an investment in resources from the state; we do not Holyoke teacher's union president on potential state receivership: 'This is not a done deal' | masslive.com:

HOLYOKE SCHOOLS

• Holyoke teacher's union president on potential state receivership: 'This is not a done deal'
• Holyoke School Committee responds to state education officials critique of district
• Holyoke Public Schools offer literacy and parenting classes to city parents
• Holyoke Public Schools produce video to highlight new district initiatives
• Holyoke School Committee member calls state education commissioner's comments 'ridiculous'

White House Denounces House Bill to Rewrite No Child Left Behind - US News

White House Denounces House Bill to Rewrite No Child Left Behind - US News:

White House Slams House Rewrite of No Child Left Behind

Passing the bill could cost schools billions, the Obama administration says.

Big Education Ape: Student Success Act: Corporate Education Reform on Steroids | Education & the Workforce Committee http://bit.ly/1uFiMzf

 White House officials targeted House Republicans Friday in a report denouncing a bill to rewrite the No Child Left Behind Act, saying the measure would have "disastrous" fiscal consequences for schools nationwide.

The House bill, the Student Success Act, would reduce funding for schools by more than $7 billion in the next six years compared with the administration's proposal, laid out in President Barack Obama's2016 budget, the White House said in the report.

[READ: No Child Left Behind Rewrite Heads to House Floor Despite Democrats' Objections]

It's the first time the White House itself has directly responded to congressional efforts to update No Child Left Behind, formally known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In January, Education Secretary Arne Duncan detailed his priorities for an updated law, foreshadowing some proposals in the president's budget. The White House report takes particular issue with the House bill's funding levels, inclusion of portable Title I funds for disadvantaged schools and students, and removal of a "maintenance of effort" provision that ensures states keep funding levels relatively constant year to year. 

"After an economic crisis that hit school budgets and educators very hard, this bill attempts to cut our way to better schools … denying students and teachers the resources they need," Cecilia Munoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, said in a call with reporters Friday.

The House education committee late Wednesday passed a bill that among many things would significantly reduce the federal footprint in schools nationwide and allow funds for poor students to follow them between public schools. Democrats on the committee took a strong stance against the bill, saying they had no input in the process. No amendments offered by Democratic members were adopted.

[MORE: Report: Republican Plan Could Cost Poor School Districts Millions]

Meanwhile, Republican and Democratic members of the Senate education committee have renewed their efforts to draft a bipartisan reauthorization bill. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., who leads the committee, previously released a working draft of legislation and held several hearings on what needs to change in the law. While Alexander's draft bill included many provisions similar to proposals in the House bill – including Title I portability – it's unclear if they will remain in the final draft. The Title I topic, in particular, is a sticking point for the Democrats Alexander needs to woo.

Those who support Title I portability say it's a matter of helping disadvantaged students get out of failing schools and keep the resources they need to succeed.

Nearly 24 million students in more than half of all public schools benefit from Title I, the largest program in the sweeping education law, the White House report said. While the House proposal would lock in Title I funding at current levels, which haven't increased since 2012, Obama's 2016 budget seeks to increase the federal investment in Title I by $1 billion. Adding dollars and federal programs to the reauthorization bill was a non-starter for House Republicans, who on Wednesday during the bill's markup session blocked any amendment that would do so, including measures to reduce testing, beef White House Denounces House Bill to Rewrite No Child Left Behind - US News:

More Feedback for the Gates Foundation: Yes, Housing Affects Education - Living in Dialogue

More Feedback for the Gates Foundation: Yes, Housing Affects Education - Living in Dialogue:



More Feedback for the Gates Foundation: Yes, Housing Affects Education 

 By Anthony Cody.

We are getting decidedly mixed signals from the Gates Foundation these days. From Bill Gates himself, we get a sense of frustration that education has not welcomed his central thesis that the “tools of science” — namely common standards and high stakes tests aligned to them. He does not seem to understand the reasons his solutions have not worked, and it is unclear if he is even curious as to why. But Dr. Sue Desmond-Hellman, the new CEO of the Gates Foundation seems a bit more open, and just last month gave an interview in which she suggested that,

As a western academician, as a Gates Foundation person, the first thing you should be doing is listening and learning. And have a huge sense of humility about what you don’t know.

I wrote a post about this, and tweeted it to her, and she responded thanking me for the feedback. So I am hoping that there is some serious reflection taking place up in Seattle, and in the interest of helping that process along, I am going to re-post a series of blog entries I wrote back in 2012, when I was engaged in an active back and forth dialogue with representatives of the Gates Foundation’s education team. In this series, I sought to document the core issues where the Gates Foundation’s agenda was off base.

Since today’s news indicates there may be a growing awareness at the Gates Foundation of the connections between housing and education, I am starting with this, the third essay in the 2012 exchange, originally posted here. Housing is one of several poverty-related issues that are addressed here. I will share the other four essays over the next week. (And the entire series, plus more, is available in my recent book, The Educator and the Oligarch, a Teacher Challenges the Gates Foundation.)

Can Schools Defeat Poverty by Ignoring It?

This post is the third round of a five-part exchange with the Gates Foundation. This post can also be viewed and commented on over at the Gates Foundation’s Impatient Optimist blog. This time I get to go first, and our topic is this:

What is the role of education reform in relation to the problem of family poverty? What is the best way to achieve greater equity in educational and life prospects for children of poverty?

The Gates Foundation’s central slogan is “All lives have equal value,” and the thrust of their work around education has been promoting institutional and political reform, based on the premise that this will increase equity, especially for the poor. The Gates Foundation has avoided systematic efforts to achieve equity of resources for schools and the children who attend them; instead, it asserts that teacher effectiveness is the best lever in this regard, and it has focused most of its research and advocacy on promoting public investment in systems that measure and promote teacher effectiveness.

In the name of reform, the Gates Foundation has wielded its political influence to effectively shift public funds, earmarked for the service of poor children, away from investment in those children’s direct education experience. Through the Race to the Top and NCLB waiver conditions, the US Department of Education has instead dedicated public resources to creating state and federal mandates for the Gates Foundation’s costly project — making sure every aspect of our educational system is “driven by data.” The future public More Feedback for the Gates Foundation: Yes, Housing Affects Education - Living in Dialogue:

The Worst Sort of Violence Against Children - Badass Teachers Association

Badass Teachers Association:

The Worst Sort of Violence against Children

BY:  Steven Singer

Originally posted on his blog:  https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2015/02/11/the-worst-sort-of-violence-against-children/

She was smiling and laughing, but her eyes were terrified.

Sitting in class among her fellow middle school students, her words were all bravado. But her gestures were wild and frightened. Tears were close.

So as the morning bell rang and the conversation continued unabated, I held myself in check. I stopped the loud rebuke forming in my teacher’s throat and just listened.

“You know that shooting at Monroeville Mall Saturday night, Mr. Singer? I was there!”

I swallowed. “My gosh, Paulette. Are you okay?”

She acts street smart and unbreakable, but I can still see the little girl in her. She’s only 13.

She slowed down and told us what happened; a story framed as bragging but really a desperate plea for safety and love.

She went to the mall with her mother. When they separated so she could go to the restroom, the gunfire began. She ran out and Mom was gone. She was ushered into a nearby store where the customers were kept in lockdown. She stayed there until the police cleared the mall, and it was safe to find her mother and go home.

A 17-year-old boy had gunned down three people. One was his target. The others were bystanders – parents who had gotten in the way. Now they were all in the hospital, two in critical condition.

And my student – my beautiful, precious, pain-in-the-butt, braggadocious, darling little child – was stuck in the mix.

I could imagine how scared she must have been separated from her mother, hiding with strangers as police swept the shops, food court and children’s play center.

Here she was telling the class her story and getting more upset with each word.

I gave her a meaningful look and told her we’d talk more later. Then I began class.

But I kept my eye on her. Was that relief I saw as the talk turned from bullets and bloodshed to similes and metaphors? Did the flush leave her cheeks as we crafted multi-paragraph theses? I hope so.

I think I know her pretty well by now. She’s been mine for two years – in both 7th and 8th grades. I even taught her older brother when he was in middle school.

I know she’s rarely going to do her homework – and if she does, it will be finished in the last 20 minutes. I know she’d rather be out playing volleyball or cheerleading than in school writing or reading. I know when she’s secure and when she’s scared.

And I know that today’s lesson will be a breeze for her. So why not put her in her comfort zone, show her things haven’t changed, she’s still the same person, she can still do this – nothing is different?

At least, that was the plan.

As any experienced public school teacher knows, you have to satisfy a person’s basic needs before you have any chance at teaching them something new. Psychologist Abraham Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs is Badass Teachers Association: