Latest News and Comment from Education

Monday, February 2, 2015

Big for-profit schools, big donations: the influence of charter schools on Pennsylvania politics | PennLive.com

Big for-profit schools, big donations: the influence of charter schools on Pennsylvania politics | PennLive.com:



Big for-profit schools, big donations: the influence of charter schools on Pennsylvania politics








 It's no secret that Harrisburg is a hive of lobbyists, each representing industries and interests that spend millions to persuade state lawmakers to bend laws in their favor.

But perhaps what makes the charter-school lobby unique among the pack, says State Rep. Bernie O'Neill, a Republican from Bucks County, is its ability to deploy children to its cause.
In 2014, O'Neil experienced that first hand after proposing changes to a funding formula that would affect charter schools. Parents and children stormed his office and barraged him with calls and emails.
"They were calling me the anti-Christ of everything," O'Neill said. "Everybody was coming after me."
In recent years, as charter schools have proliferated - particularly those run by for-profit management companies - so too has their influence on legislators. In few other places has that been more true than Pennsylvania, which is one of only 11 states that has no limits on campaign contributions from PACs or individuals.
According to a PennLive analysis of donations on Follow The Money, a campaign donation database, charter school advocates have donated more than $10 million to Pennsylvania politicians the past nine years.
To be sure, charter-school advocacy groups aren't the only ones spending big to influence education policy in the Keystone State. The Pennsylvania State Education Association, which represents 170,000 teachers and related professionals, has spent about $8.3 million over the same time period according to Follow The Money.
But what perhaps makes the influx of money from charter-school groups unique in Pennsylvania is the magnitude of spending by only a handful of donors and, in recent years, some of their high-profile successes in moving and blocking legislation.
"They are mobilized," O'Neill said. "Let me tell you something: they are mobilized."
Big schools, big donations
In Pennsylvania, a charter school has to be set up as a non-profit. However, a charter-school company can get around that by setting up a foundation to file the application and then contracting with the foundation to run the school.
While not all charter schools in Pennsylvania are run by for-profit management organizations, many are.
Jessie Ramey, a historian of social policy based in Pittsburgh, said there's little doubt Big for-profit schools, big donations: the influence of charter schools on Pennsylvania politics | PennLive.com:

New oversight weighed after tax-funded charter schools fail | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com

New oversight weighed after tax-funded charter schools fail | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com:



New oversight weighed after tax-funded charter schools fail






RALEIGH, N.C.
A Kinston charter school that an audit said mismanaged money for years before closing and three Charlotte charter schools shuttered after running into first-year financial problems have some state leaders seeking more oversight of the non-traditional public schools.
Both the top Democrat in the state House and the former state Republican Party chairman who now heads the State Board of Education said they want tighter controls over taxpayer money going to charter schools in trouble.
State school board chairman Bill Cobey and House Minority Leader Rep. Larry Hall were reacting to a report last week by state Auditor Beth Wood's office that found a collection of questionable financial choices preceded the sudden shutdown of Kinston Charter Academy weeks after it opened for its 2013-14 academic year, its ninth overall.
"I don't want to be responsible for public funds being squandered. That's what it's all about," Cobey said. "This is a nonpartisan issue. Nobody wants state tax dollars to be lost, and we have now an illustration (of that happening) — a pretty dramatic illustration."
Charter schools are tuition-free public schools operated by a nonprofit board of directors with much greater financial and academic flexibility than traditional schools. The first opened two decades ago, but their numbers were capped at 100 statewide until lawmakers lifted that limit in 2011. There now are nearly 150 charter schools statewide, with 11 more set to open in August.
Ten charter schools are on a financial watch list kept by state monitors. Six in the most serious category receive state funds on a monthly basis instead of the normal three payments per year, state records show. They include Entrepreneur High School in Charlotte, which shut down in January with just $14 in its bank account.
Hall, D-Durham, said he will file legislation this week in the Republican-led Legislature to increase the financial accountability requirements for charter schools.
"There is an alarming pattern being established of charter schools' reckless mismanagement and eventual collapse after diverting public school funds," Hall said in a statement. "When the smoke clears, our children are denied their constitutionally mandated education."
Though the Kinston charter school was cited for financial deficiencies multiple times over six years, it received a third of its annual state operating revenues based on student enrollment — $667,000 in taxpayer funds — for the upcoming 2013-14 academic year, the report said. Some of the money went to pay off two loans totaling $230,000 borrowed to keep the doors open that carried interest rates of up to 515 percent, auditors said. Because charter school boards manage their own finances and operations, they aren't required to inform state school officials when they take on additional debt, the report said.
The Kinston school closed in September 2013 and state officials are considering suing to recover taxpayer funds.
Former school CEO and principal Ozie Hall Jr. disputed the audit's findings and said financial limits forced by state education officials worsened the school's fight to survive. Hall is now involved with a charter school in Harnett County.
Concrete Roses STEM Academy got its initial allotment of taxpayer funds in July based its projection New oversight weighed after tax-funded charter schools fail | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com:

Teachers union, think tank propose compromise on testing of U.S. students | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Teachers union, think tank propose compromise on testing of U.S. students | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:



Teachers union, think tank propose compromise on testing of U.S. students

WASHINGTON — As Congress undertakes its most serious effort to rewrite the No Child Left Behind education law, backlash against standardized testing has prompted vigorous debate about whether the federal government should continue requiring annual exams.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, has written a draft revision that proposes two options:
• Continue requiring annual tests every year in third through eighth grades and once in high school, the policy favored by the Obama administration and a group of the nation’s most influential civil rights groups.
• Or get rid of those annual tests and give states much more room to develop their own testing regimes. One option for states would be to require assessments once each at the elementary, middle and high school levels. That is known as “grade-span testing,” an approach that is favored by the National Education Association, which is the nation’s largest teachers union, and by many parents and teachers who say overtesting has warped schools.
Now, trying to bridge the gap between those two sides, is the American Federation of Teachers, the nation’s second-largest teachers union, and the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank with ties to the Obama administration.
The two groups want to keep administering tests each year and keep publishing data that show — for each school, school district and state — how subgroups of students are faring.
But most of those tests wouldn’t be used to judge schools. Only once at each grade span would the tests actually “count,” i.e., be part of an accountability system used to identify and force change at struggling schools.
Under No Child Left Behind, every annual test has counted, and schools that have persistently failed to meet achievement targets have been subjected to a range of sanctions and interventions.
Mr. Alexander, chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the committee’s ranking member, aren’t saying what they think of the hybrid approach.
“When our hearings are completed, I will work with Sen. Murray and others to see what the best ideas are,” Mr. Alexander said through a spokeswoman. A spokeswoman for Ms. Murray reiterated the Democrat’s oft-stated concern “about anything that would roll back the annual statewide assessments.”
The union and the think tank argue that their proposal is a way to thread the needle on a difficult issue. Achievement gaps would still be plainly transparent, they argue, but schools, teachers and students could ratchet down the stress and time they expend on testing in favor of more time and energy for teaching and learning.
“After a decade of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, we know that an environment with high-stakes, annual tests forces schools to focus on compliance, not on kids,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. “Ultimately, this re-envisioned accountability system, with grade-span testing as one of many measures, will allow us to put kids, not high-stakes tests, at the center of everything we do.”
A spokeswoman for Education Secretary Arne Duncan, who has pressed for annual testing, declined to comment on the AFT-CAP proposal. But the proposal has drawn criticism from champions of the Obama administration’s approach to testing.
“Dumb Policy Ideas Not Limited to the Far Right,” reads the headline of a blog post by Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust, a nonprofit that joined more than a dozen civil rights Teachers union, think tank propose compromise on testing of U.S. students | Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Rule No. 84: Diane Ravitch's Other Letter to Lamar Alexander | Peter Cunningham

Rule No. 84: Diane Ravitch's Other Letter to Lamar Alexander | Peter Cunningham:



Rule No. 84: Diane Ravitch's Other Letter to Lamar Alexander


Education historian and reform critic Diane Ravitch recently sent an open letter to Senator Lamar Alexander with recommendations for rewriting No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the nation's chief law governing elementary and secondary education.
In her letter to Senator Alexander, she argued forcefully against testing and accountability. She also quoted from Alexander's Little Plaid Book of rules. "May I remind you," Ravitch wrote, "of something you wrote in your book of advice: 'No. 84: Read anything Diane Ravitch writes about education'."
Professor Ravitch recently appeared at the very top of a list of the 200 most influential education scholars in America. She carries great sway with policymakers, reporters, advocates, teachers and parents. It is important that both her supporters and critics understand just how far she has moved from her long-held views on testing, accountability and other issues.
To that end, and in keeping with Rule #84, I have compiled an alternative letter of advice from Diane Ravitch to Lamar Alexander about NCLB -- the text of which is composed, word-for-word, from Diane Ravitch's writings about education over the last four decades.
***
Dear Lamar,
I wish I could be in Washington for the hearings about the reauthorization of NCLB.
I learned a lot about education policy and federalism after you chose me to serve as your Assistant Secretary of Education in charge of research and improvement and as counsel to the Secretary of Education (you). I am imagining that I am still advising you, as I did from 1991 to 1993.
NATIONAL STANDARDS
During my 18-month stint in the Department of Education, no issue consumed more of my time and energy than the role of standards in improving education. I devoted my energy to advocating the creation of voluntary national standards. Government agencies tend to move slowly, but in a matter of months, OERI [my division at the Department] made awards to major organizations of teachers and scholars to develop national standards in science, history, geography, civics, the arts, English, and foreign languages.
I would say, sorrowfully, that NCLB has failed. It did nothing to raise standards, because it left decisions about standards to the states. So many states have very low standards and yet announce that more and more students are "proficient." The states responded to NCLB by dumbing down their standards. We are producing a generation of drones, not students who are ready for college and the modern workplace.
I have favored common standards for a long time. Content standards--what children are expected to learn--are necessary for educational improvement because they are the starting point for education. When educators fail to agree on what children should learn, it means that they have failed to identify their most fundamental goals.
Absent standards, poor and minority children do not have equal access to challenging courses; absent assessments, no one can know the size of the gap between schools or groups of students or whether that gap is growing larger or smaller. Without valid standards and assessments, there is no way to identify low-performing schools or to determine whether all students are receiving equal educational opportunity.
THE NEXT GENERATION OF ASSESSMENTS
I, too, would like to see national testing, not the current idiotic system written into the No Child Left Behind federal law that permits every state to choose its own test and set its own standards, no matter how low they may be. When a state (or nation) announces standards but continues to use old tests, then of course the new standards will be ignored. The failure of national standards and testing will undermine faith in public education and pave the way for privatization of education.
In the future, many students will be tested by sophisticated computer programs that quickly eliminate questions that are too easy or too hard for a particular student, leaving ample time for students to answer open-ended questions or engage in challenging performance assignments.
Clear measures of "value-added" (that is, improved performance) must be developed, and assessments should measure progress toward meeting the standards.
STANDARDIZED TESTING
No one wants to be tested. But tests and standards are a necessary fact of life. Exams play a constructive role. They tell public officials whether new school programs are making a difference and where new investments are likely to pay off. They tell teachers what their students have learned--and have not. They tell parents how their children are doing compared with others their age.
In the past few years, we have seen the enormous benefits that flow to disadvantaged students because of the information provided by state tests. Those who fall behind are now getting extra instruction in after-school classes and summer programs.
It is reasonable to assess whether students are ready to advance to the next grade or graduate from high school. If students need extra time and help, they should get it, but they won't unless we first carefully assess what they have learned.
If the tests are thoughtful and thought-provoking, then teaching to the test makes sense, because the teacher is helping students prepare for the test. If the test does not test what was taught by the teacher, what does it test? Educators have an inordinate fear of "teaching to the test," but the best tests gauge whether students learned what they were taught. "Teaching to the test" is not nearly so dangerous to education as the spread of cultural illiteracy.
To say that tests create cheating is wrong. What creates cheating is people who cheat. I grew up in Houston, Texas, where I went to the public schools. We had tests and grades every six weeks, and no one ever dreamed of organizing a revolt against tests.
ACHIEVEMENT GAPS/POVERTY
There truly is a crisis--not in American education as a whole, but in a specific sector of American education. The crisis is to be found in our inner cities, and among African American and Hispanic children in particular. There is a four-year gap in achievement in every subject area between white high school seniors and minority high school seniors--that is, the scores of the average black of Hispanic senior are about the same as those of the average white eighth-grader. This constitutes nothing less than a national emergency.
We must take care not to build into public policy a sense of resignation that children's socioeconomic status determines their destiny. No one is so naive as to believe that efforts to improve academic achievement would counteract deleterious social trends, such as the weakening of the family, the spread of drugs and violence, and the persistence of poverty. Public policy must relentlessly seek to replicate schools that demonstrate the ability to educate children from impoverished backgrounds instead of perpetuating (and rewarding) those that use the pupil's circumstances as a rationale for failure.
CLOSING SCHOOLS/TEACHER TENURE AND QUALITY
It is unjust to compel poor children to attend bad schools. It is unjust that there is no realistic way to force the closure of schools that students and parents would abandon if they could. They should not be expected to wait patiently for the transformation of the failing institutions where their children are required to go each day. We surely would not be willing to make the same sacrifice of our own children. Why should Rule No. 84: Diane Ravitch's Other Letter to Lamar Alexander | Peter Cunningham:

Sunday, February 1, 2015

5 facts about charter schools you won’t hear in the ‘National School Choice Week’ propaganda

5 facts about charter schools you won’t hear in the ‘National School Choice Week’ propaganda:


5 facts about charter schools you won’t hear in the ‘National School Choice Week’ propaganda
LAURIE LEVY, ALTERNET
29 JAN 2015 AT 10:34 ET 







Wow! Check out the fancy website for National School Choice Week. It’s polished, it’s colorful; it features kids of all races with bright smiling faces. They even have their own dance! The videos are tearjerkers, reminiscent, in emotional value, of the highly touted documentary film, Waiting for Superman, which propelled school choice advocates into the national conversation back in 2010.
I must confess that when I first watched that movie, seeing the tears of kids who lost the charter lottery and were doomed to attend terrible public schools hit me right in the gut. It struck me as so unfair that they’d have to miss out on… hold on a second. Something didn’t feel quite right. Was I being manipulated? Why did those kids and their parents have to gather in an auditorium to be publicly devastated by not being selected for their choice school, anyway? Wouldn’t a letter or email have done the trick?
Turns out, I was totally taken in by a slick, well-made film that played a bit loose with the facts about school choice. Given how much Americans love the idea of choice, I’m sure I’m not the only one. So in honor of National School Choice Week, here are a few actual facts about charter schools you may want to consider before jumping on the bandwagon.
1. There are no data that support the idea that charter schools are superior to public schools. Even using data from the high-stakes tests school choice folks admire so much. According to Data First, an initiative of the Center for Public Education, on math assessments 17% of kids in charter schools perform significantly better than their peers in public schools. But 37% perform significantly worse. For the rest (46%), scores were comparable. According to a national study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), “less than one hundredth of one percent (<0.01 percent) of the variation in test performance in reading is explainable by charter school enrollment.” Not exactly proof of a winning formula, no matter how you slice it.
2. Unlike public schools, charters can pick and choose their students. Children with special needs are not chosen. Children with behavior problems are expelled. According to Julian Vasquez Heilig, “KIPP and other charters faced a federal lawsuit in New Orleans for not serving special populations and/or doing so poorly.” According to Diane Ravitch in her book, The Myth of the Charter School, some charter schools “counsel out” or expel students just before state testing day. Lower-performing students tend to mysteriously drop out. Throws that “better performing” 17% into serious question, doesn’t it?
3. Children who are better resourced with more family support are the winners in the school choice game. Children from disorganized families don’t even enter the lottery. Children with significant special needs are not well served in charter schools that lack the appropriate resources. The privatization of our schools puts public schools at a huge disadvantage, stranding the least advantaged and disabled in underfunded, under-resourced schools. Much like Lady Liberty, public schools welcome all who end up on their shores:
“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me….”
Just don’t send them to a charter school.
4. It’s family income, stupid. Ravitch and many others have pointed out numerous studies linking income and test scores. One study demonstrates how SAT scores favor students from wealthy families. Another study at Washington State University confirms the correlation between parental income and ACT and SAT scores, while a different 5 facts about charter schools you won’t hear in the ‘National School Choice Week’ propaganda:
Big Education Ape: Got Choice? Ubetcha! - ALL The RIGHT People Celebrate National $chool Choice Week http://bit.ly/1z2lai7

Principal: What I’ve learned about annual standardized testing - The Washington Post

Principal: What I’ve learned about annual standardized testing - The Washington Post:



Principal: What I’ve learned about annual standardized testing






 The U.S. Congress is — eight years late — taking up the rewriting of No Child Left Behind, and one of the key issues under discussion is just how big the federal footprint on local public schools should be. No Child Left Behind requires that students take an annual standardized test for purposes of holding schools “accountable” from Grades 3-8 and once in high school. Whether such annual testing is now being hotly debated. Here’s a post looking at this issue, by Principal Carol Burris of South Side High School in New York, who was named New York’s 2013 High School Principal of the Year by the School Administrators Association of New York and the National Association of Secondary School Principals. In 2010, tapped as the 2010 New York State Outstanding Educator by the School Administrators Association of New York State. Burris has been exposing the botched school reform program in New York for years on this blog. Some of her pieces are listed after the post.

By Carol Burris
“My experience in the education world is that there are really two worlds in it. One is the world of contract and consultants and academics and experts and plenty of officials at the federal state and local level. And the other is a world of principals and classroom teachers who are actually providing education to students. What I’m hearing from my principals’ and teachers’ world is that the footprint of that first world has become way too big in their lives to the point where it’s inhibiting their ability to do the jobs they’re entrusted to do.”
 So began Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democrat from Rhode Island, at the January 21st Senate education committee hearing to rewrite No Child Left Behind. His thoughts, which were given at the end of the hearing, were the perfect bookend to the remarks of Sen. Lamar Alexander, the Republican from Tennessee, who chairs the panel and who opened the hearing on a similar theme.
Earlier, Alexander reminded those in attendance that the Department of Education should not be “a national school board.” He said that the overreach of President Obama’s Race to the Top education funding competition is inhibiting the work of states to create challenging standards. Alexander closed with an excerpt from my letter to him, which originally appeared here on the Answer Sheet. That letter talked about the steady decrease of democratic control of our schools, as well as the ineffectiveness of test-based reforms.
Although these two senators, Whitehouse and Alexander, sit on different sides of the aisle, they both expressed clear discomfort with the federal Principal: What I’ve learned about annual standardized testing - The Washington Post:

West Virginia Legislation Would Criminalize Teaching Social Problems First | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community

West Virginia Legislation Would Criminalize Teaching Social Problems First | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community:



West Virginia Legislation Would Criminalize Teaching Social Problems First

(Photo: Melinda Shelton/cc/flickr)

Attention West Virginia civics teachers.
Legislation was introduced this week in the West Virginia House of Delegates (HB 2107) that would prohibit the teaching of “social problems, economics, foreign affairs, the United Nations, world government, socialism or communism until basic courses in American state and local geography and history are completed.”
And if the teacher teaches “social problems” first?
He or she will be charged with a misdemeanor crime and fined.
And then fired.
The bill was introduced by Delegates John Overington (R-Berkeley), Geoff Foster (R-Putnam), Eric Householder (R-Berkeley), Kelli Sobonya (R-Cabell), Michel Moffat (R-Putnam), Ruth Rowan (R-Hampshire), Cindy Frich (R-Monogalia) and Jim Butler (R-Mason).
The legislation requires one and a half years of study in the history of the United States and the founding documents of the country, including “the study of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States with an emphasis on the Bill of Rights, using the historical, political and social environments surrounding each document at the time of its initial passage or ratification and shall include the study of historical documents such as the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers to firmly establish the historical background leading to the establishment of the provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights by the founding fathers for the purposes of safeguarding our Constitutional republic.”
That must be taught first.
The bill makes clear that “before students may participate in secondary level courses involving the study of social problems, global economics, foreign affairs, the United Nations, world government, socialism or communism, pupils shall first have completed basic instruction in geography, United States history, United States government and the government of the State of West Virginia, local governments in West Virginia, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitutions of the United States and the State of West Virginia.”
What if the study of the history of the United States involves the study of social problems, like slavery?
Is the teacher charged with a crime?
What if the study of the U.S. history involves the study of global economics?
Will the teacher be fired?
What if the study of U.S. history involves the study of a U.S. president, Woodrow Wilson, who first proposed the League of Nations?
Will the teacher be dragged out of school?

An outstanding music teacher tells Governor Cuomo why his reform plan is a bad idea | Round the Inkwell

An outstanding music teacher tells Governor Cuomo why his reform plan is a bad idea | Round the Inkwell:



An outstanding music teacher tells Governor Cuomo why his reform plan is a bad idea

By carolcorbettburris, January 31, 2015




 Doreen Fryling is a remarkable teacher of music, as well as a public school mom.  She is does not support Cuomo’s efforts to make test scores 50% of a teacher evaluation.  Although Cuomo now mocks the present APPR system, he helped create it. He said it was “one of the toughest in the country”.  And now he says it is baloney, so he wants to put some crushed glass in the sandwich.

Here is what Doreen wrote.  I am so proud to be her principal.
Dear Governor Cuomo,
I am compelled to write to you regarding your proposed changes to the New York State Teacher Evaluations. This letter is an attempt to offer you a teacher’s perspective of your new evaluation proposal.  I have been impressed by your willingness to explore multiple perspectives on other issues facing the people in the great State of New York.  I write with the hope that you are indeed a reasonable leader who really does have good intentions.  I offer this letter publicly because I believe it is an opportunity to inspire others to generate ideas that can help students.
Governor, there are those who say that you have fabricated a crisis in education because you have been bought or that you are settling a political score with the teacher’s union for not endorsing you in the last election.  I will leave the speculation to others and merely address your current proposal and how it affects my children, my colleagues, my students, and me.
I teach in a school district on Long Island, one that consistently excels in all it does for all of its students.  We are not a failing school district, nor are we in crisis.  Unfortunately, changes made by your administration in the past, and certainly your new proposal, threaten the very stability and excellence that we currently provide to our students.  I see this threat in the school district in which I teach and also in my children’s schools.
There are negative consequences to your teacher evaluation program.  Curriculum is being narrowed to focus more on test prep in math and English.  Students have less access to a broad exposure to the arts, social studies, sciences, and languages.  Teachers are becoming demoralized, as the profession they entered out of a love for learning is slowly eroded into become a singular effort to raise standardized test scores.  When you propose to make 50% of a teacher’s effectiveness score based on these tests, you shift the priority of teaching for the sake of An outstanding music teacher tells Governor Cuomo why his reform plan is a bad idea | Round the Inkwell:

Why Rescue the Latest, Failed "Chief for Change?" | John Thompson

Why Rescue the Latest, Failed "Chief for Change?" | John Thompson:



Why Rescue the Latest, Failed "Chief for Change?"








 Why would Tulsa even think of hiring embattled Chief for Change Deborah Gist as superintendent? Oklahoma voters recently rejected Chief for Change Janet Barresi and her devotion to test, sort, and punish. Students, parents, teachers, and administrators have risen up in a grassroots rebellion against the bubble-in mania of Gist and Baressi, and the voters overwhelmingly elected a State Superintendent, Joy Hofmeister, who is making good on her promise to bring civility and collaboration back to our schools. So, why would Tulsa hire a charter member of an organization dedicated to destroying local school governance and the professional autonomy of teachers, as well as our unions?

This is a national issue, not just a threat to Oklahoma schools. Why would Tulsa hire an ideologue who pioneered the mass dismissal of teachers in order to stifle dissent?
As in other states at the depths of the Great Recession, Oklahoma was given an offer it could not refuse. We could forfeit millions of federal dollars and remain under the micromanaging of the discredited No Child Left Behind regime, or we could agree to the Gates Foundation's risky, experiment for using test scores to fire teachers. To be eligible for federal grants, we had to embrace Arne Duncan's School Improvement Grant (SIG) system of removing at least ½ of the teachers in high-challenge schools and/or labeling teachers who oppose teach-to-the-test as "culture killers," and "exiting" them.
But, now, why would Tulsa hire Gist, who made her name as a blood-in-the-eye "reformer" by rushing to the head of the line, and helping to fire all teachers in Rhode Island's Central Falls High School? Why would Tulsa hire a Chief for Change who is being run out of her own state?
Six years ago, it made sense for Tulsa to apply for a pilot project grant to test some of Bill Gates' pet theories. Even then, scholars and practitioners who sought to use high-stakes tests and a not-ready-for-prime-time statistical model to evaluate teachers were few and far between, but only in retrospect did we learn that Gates would demand such complete fidelity to those hypotheses. Back then, we did not know that Arne Duncan would fill his Department of Education with Gates Foundation staff, and that Bill Gates' untested preferences would soon become the law in almost all of the nation.
The Gates/Duncan value-added models, which were promoted by Gist, have now been proven to be biased against teachers in high-poverty schools. Now, we understand that the full implementation of Gates' theory would prompt an exodus of its top teachers away from schools where it is harder to meet their growth targets. So, why would an 80% low-income district hire Gist, a last true believer in punishing schools and individuals for not meeting quantitative goals (even though they have proven to be impossible in neighborhood schools that serve everyone who walks in their doors?)
The Gates/Duncan/Gist value-added evaluations are collective punishment of teachers who commit to high-challenge schools. It is now clear that they always were a club to beat down teachers and unions who opposed test-driven accountability. So, Why Rescue the Latest, Failed "Chief for Change?" | John Thompson:

Hot fundraising produces hot water for Sacramento’s Crocker/Riverside school | The Sacramento Bee The Sacramento Bee

Hot fundraising produces hot water for Sacramento’s Crocker/Riverside school | The Sacramento Bee The Sacramento Bee:



Hot fundraising produces hot water for Sacramento’s Crocker/Riverside school

01/31/2015 3:51 PM 
 01/31/2015 10:05 PM
Actor and environmentalist Ed Begley Jr. right, signs a lunch box for Zoe Reese, 10, at Crocker/Riverside Elementary School during an event to celebrate Earth Day in 2008. The school in an affluent city neighborhood is seeing tension between two parent fundraising groups this year.
Actor and environmentalist Ed Begley Jr. right, signs a lunch box for Zoe Reese, 10, at Crocker/Riverside Elementary School during an event to celebrate Earth Day in 2008. The school in an affluent city neighborhood is seeing tension between two parent fundraising groups this year. AUTUMN CRUZ ACRUZ@SACBEE.COM

Parents at Crocker/Riverside Elementary School in Sacramento’s Land Park neighborhood are seeing the downside of raising large amounts of money to enhance their children’s education.
While many Sacramento City Unified schools struggle to raise funds in one parent-based organization, Crocker/Riverside now has two groups that combined generate more than $100,000 annually. This academic year, the campus has seen increasing tension between the school’s parent-teacher association and the fledgling Land Park Schools Foundation, which formed last year as an alternative to the traditional fundraising arm.
The disharmony went public nearly two weeks ago when Principal Daniel McCord and PTA leaders were stymied in their effort to replace the PTA with a new parent-teacher organization. They were accused of being secretive, and one parent affiliated with the Land Park Schools Foundation filed a formal request seeking copies of McCord’s communications and PTA records.
It’s an uncommon state for the parents of Crocker/Riverside, where the emphasis has long been on campus advocacy and cordiality. In recent years, the well-heeled Land Park neighborhood redoubled its fundraising efforts as state funding declined and Capitol leaders steered more money to campuses with underprivileged students.
“Our school is very close-knit,” former PTA President Anne Hawley said. “You know how families are sometimes. You have little squabbles and you kiss and make up. At the end of the day, I think everyone wants what’s best for the kids.”
A few blocks north of William Land Park in a neighborhood where homes routinely sell for more than half a million dollars, Crocker/Riverside has the smallest share of low-income elementary school students in the city district. Less than 15 percent qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, compared with 73 percent for the entire Sacramento City Unified School District, according to state data.
Since 2012-13, Crocker PTA members have exceeded $100,000 annually in their fundraising for the 650-student campus. At Crocker, the money has helped in multiple ways, such as buying school supplies, reimbursing teachers, helping fund the library and holding science fairs.
So what’s the problem?
Ask that question in Land Park and the answer stems from a years-old discussion. PTA members a few years back looked for ways to shore up their liability insurance for successful off-campus fundraisers where alcohol was served.
The statewide PTA collects a share of the locally raised PTA dollars and provides insurance. But that insurance doesn’t cover alcohol service.
One proposed solution has been to establish a parent-teacher organization and disband the PTA. That would mean no money going to the statewide PTA and greater ability to hold events with alcohol.
The conversation about a parent-teacher organization had been off and on when some parents chose to create a PTA Booster Club. That approach would protect the PTA and the school, parent Michael B. Sullivan wrote in a 2013 email to parents. But the PTA, he wrote that same year, pushed back with “attitudes ranging from friendly but dismissive to suspicious and surly.”
PTA leaders, in their own emailed responses, said at the time they wanted to resolve the alcohol issue without creating a second organization.
By February 2014, Sullivan and several others created the nonprofit Land Park Schools Foundation, a group with a stated mission to raise money for schools in affluent sections of Land Park but also campuses serving low-income housing projects near Broadway.
In its first year, the group raised about $14,000, all for Crocker/Riverside, according to Konrad von Schoech, president of the Land Park Schools Foundation.
Soon after McCord became Crocker principal in 2013, discussions about creating an independent parent-teacher organization resumed, he said in a letter two weeks ago to parents. Creating a new group and transitioning from the old PTA would reduce costs, resolve insurance issues and ease paperwork demands, he wrote.
“I think we can do better for ourselves,” he told parents. He said the executive committee of the PTA had approved a plan for the Crocker/Riverside Parent Teacher Organization, and the issue would go to the general PTA membership on Jan. 20.
But the PTA meeting took a different tack.
McCord apologized to those in attendance for pushing the idea, saying he should have first done more outreach. He apologized, he said, to “anybody (who) felt like this was a secretive process or felt left out.”
Von Schoech, the Land Park Schools Foundation president, said, “I haven’t heard anybody talk against the idea of PTO. It’s against the process.”
The same day, Sullivan, treasurer of the Land Park Schools Foundation, wrote a Public Records Act request to the school district seeking “files, memorandums, letters, notes” tied to the PTA and the proposed PTO for the last 17 months. He also sought all emails exchanged between theHot fundraising produces hot water for Sacramento’s Crocker/Riverside school | The Sacramento Bee The Sacramento Bee:

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article8873084.html#storylink=cpy









Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/education/article8873084.html#storylink=cpy