Latest News and Comment from Education

Thursday, April 9, 2015

Teacher Turnover At Success Academy Charter Schools | Shanker Institute

Teacher Turnover At Success Academy Charter Schools | Shanker Institute:

Teacher Turnover At Success Academy Charter Schools








 A recent New York Times article about the Success Academies, a large chain of New York City charter schools, focuses a great deal on the long working hours and heavy stress faced by teachers at these schools. The article reports that three Success Academy (SA) schools had teacher turnover rates above 50 percent. Officials from the network, however, dispute these figures, which they say are inflated by the fact that many teachers who leave SA schools simply transfer to other SA schools (i.e., they are counted falsely as leaving SA when they are in fact staying within the network).

In fact, SA officials claim that, when one account for these intra-network transfers, their true turnover rate across all their schools ("attrition from the network," in the article) between June 2013 and June 2014 was 17 percent, which is far lower than many critics suggest. Now, on the one hand, these ongoing debates about teacher turnover at SA schools, which have been occurring regularly for years, are a little strange. It is clear that SA teachers work unusually long hours in high stress, tightly regulated environments, and do so for salaries that are lower than those offered by most other professional jobs with similar working conditions. It is, therefore, hardly surprising that turnover would be high; indeed, high teacher churn, like student mobility, is in many respects part of the model of schools such as the Success Academies (and, of course, some turnover, such as that among poorly performing teachers or those who are not a good fit for their schools, can be beneficial).
On the other hand, however, SA officials are making an empirical claim about turnover at their schools, one that includes an interesting and somewhat unusual angle (intra-network mobility). And this claim is very easy to examine with teacher-level data that we happen to have available via a public records request. So, let’s take a quick look at turnover at SA between 2012-13 and 2013-14 (the latest year-to-year transition we have).
In our dataset, there were 284 teachers employed in 12 SA schools in 2012-13. The simple table below presents the distribution of turnover outcomes for these teachers in 2013-14.
As you can see, just over 52 percent of these teachers remained in the same school between 2012-13 and 2013-14, while an additional 15.1 percent switched from one SA school to another within the network. This means that SA officials’ claim -- that many teachers who leave their schools are just transferring within the network -- is correct, at least in these years. Simple turnover rates, in SA's case, are overstating "real" churn. 
It also, however, means that roughly one in three SA teachers (32.8 percent) either switched to a different (non-SA) school, in NYC or elsewhere, or exited the teaching profession entirely. This is almost twice the rate of 17 percent provided by SA officials to the New York Times reporter.
It is unclear why their figures are so far off. The only possibility I can think of is that SA officials weren’t counting involuntary turnover (i.e., dismissals) – that is, their figure of 17 percent represents the 

NEA - “Opportunity for All: ESEA Week of Action” Twitter Storm

NEA - “Opportunity for All: ESEA Week of Action” Twitter Storm:




#GetESEARight TWITTER STORM INSTRUCTIONS

Goal: to generate as many tweets possible from NEA members, leaders, partners, parents and activists onThursday, April 9 between 7 -- 8 PM EST.
The hope is that such a flurry of activity will help push our hashtag -- #GetESEARight -- to generate online attention from members of Congress and media that turns in to offline action as Congress works to reauthorize ESEA.

HOW THIS WORKS

1. Mark you calendar and set a reminder for 7 — 8 PM ET on Thursday, April 9, 2015.
2. Use NEAs Twitter Tool and enter your zipcode.
3. Send your Representative and/or Senator the message to #GetESEARight using the prepopulated tweet or customize one of the sample tweets found below.
4. Share NEAs Twitter Tool with your friends and ask them to join you in the Twitter Storm!

EXTRA CREDIT

1. Download one of these template signs:
#TimetoLearn ( PDF, 66.3 KB, 1 pg.) or #OpportunityForAll ( PDF, 67.2 KB, 1 pg.)
and add your message.
2. Snap a photo and use one of the sample tweets below.
3. Use NEAs Twitter Tool to find your Representative and/or Senator’s Twitter handle and @mention them in a Tweet with your photo and message.

COLLEAGUES, FAMILY AND FRIENDS CAN DO IT, TOO!

1. Download and print #TimetoLearn ( PDF, 66.3 KB, 1 pg.) signs and #OpportunityForAll ( PDF, 67.2 KB, 1 pg.) signs.
2. Distribute them with markers to event attendees and ask that they fill in the sign with a message they want their Member of Congress to see.
3. Ask them to take a photo holding their sign, or take it for them using their phone.
4. Compose a tweet with the photo using the relevant Twitter Storm hashtag - #GetESEARight — and @mention the Member of Congress.
5. Hit “tweet” to join the Twitter Storm!

SAMPLE TWEETS

  • #Opportunityforall means knowing where schools need resources and measuring success on more than just a test score#GetESEARight.
  • Close opportunity gaps! #GetESEARight w/ better resource distribution so all students get same high-quality public education.
  • #GetESEARight! Measure what helps students develop critical thinking skills with Opportunity Dashboardhttp://bit.ly/1IUhbrY.
  • Two musts to #GetESEARight: ensure opportunity for students regardless of zip code and more learning time with fewer tests.

Governor Cuomo Started This War: Teachers and Parents, Let's Prepare For Battle | M. Shannon Hernandez

Governor Cuomo Started This War: Teachers and Parents, Let's Prepare For Battle | M. Shannon Hernandez:



Governor Cuomo Started This War: Teachers and Parents, Let's Prepare For Battle


As a public education activist, who focuses most of my efforts on local school-based, student-centered reform, I have literally been sick to my stomach since the New York State Legislature approved a budget, complete with education "reforms" proposed by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, on April 1. It wasn't a joke -- and I am angry, upset, and devastated, to say the least.
If you read my blog posts, either on my own blog, or here at The Huffington Post, you know a few things generally ring true:
  1. I don't tackle politics often.There are people who are far better versed in this type of education reform writing than I am.
  2. I seem to write posts generally weighing in over 1200 words. I want to provide value and insight into a new way of thinking about education reform -- through the lens of compassion, love, and gratitude.
  3. I rally teachers, students, and parents to take action.
Well, today, I am tackling a political issue, rallying teachers, parents, and students, and going to try and keep this rather short.
As if the NY State Teacher Evaluation System wasn't already a huge burden on teachers and their students, Cuomo has just made it worse. I'm not even sure how this was a possibility -- I worked under his brutal evaluation system just two years ago.
Once again, this bill was bundled into the budget, signed off by our lovely legislators, and no one asked educators to weigh in on the issues.
Cuomo demanded that student test scores comprise 50 percent of a teacher and principal's evaluation. It passed.
But worse yet? Neither did the legislature, nor governor, stop here. They also included into the law that lesson plans, student feedback, and parent feedback can not be included in teacher evaluations.
This means that no longer will teachers be evaluated on the relationships they are building with their students, the families they serve, and the communities they are enriching.
This is ludicrous and it's time to mobilize and take action.
  • What if... we all decided that we had had enough of the bullying and pushing around, and that we are going to get creative in how we respond to government officials who continue to demoralize our profession, our students, and our schools?
  • What if... every teacher in this state said "NO" and called out sick on all testing days? It would be quite hard to evaluate teachers based on test scores, wouldn't it?
  • What if.. .every parent in this state got behind the teachers, and said "NO" and didn't send their children to school on testing days? It would be quite hard to continue the false narrative that our students are failing the tests -- because they wouldn't be taking them.
  • What if... every administrator in our public schools said "NO" and began opting their school out of state testing? It would be quite hard to rate a school as "failing" if there wasn't any data to prove it.
It's quite clear to me that we must start thinking out-of-the-box. As educators, we've stayed in this box for too long. We are boxed in by scripted curriculum, tests that areGovernor Cuomo Started This War: Teachers and Parents, Let's Prepare For Battle | M. Shannon Hernandez:

Change the Stakes | Because a Good Education Can’t Be Measured By a Test Score

Change the Stakes | Because a Good Education Can’t Be Measured By a Test Score:





WHAT’S NEW FROM CTS

NY State tests begin on April 14th! Find everything you need to refuse the tests in NYC here.

Also see Opting Out of the State ELA & Math Tests in NYC: Frequently Asked Questions

Spring 2015 Testing Schedule

Grades 3-8 English Language Arts (ELA): April 14-16
Grades 3-8 math: April 22-24
Grades 4 & 8 science, performance: May 20-29 (school selects date)
Grades 4 & 8 science, written: June 1
NYSESLAT Speaking: April 14-May 15 (school selects date)
NYSESLAT Listening, Reading, Writing: May 4-May 15 (school selects date)

Why Opt Out

How to Opt Out

Sample Opt Out Letters

State exams / English: .html | .doc
State exams / Spanish: .html | .doc

NYC DOE Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ): Student Participation in Grades 3-8 NYS Tests, Parent Guide

Will My School Lose Funding?

Why You Can Boycott Standardized Tests Without Fear of Federal Penalties to Your School (Fairtest)
The 95% Participation Rate and How Schools Do NOT Lose Funding (NYSAPE)

Teachers of Conscience: Teachers Who Refuse to Administer Tests

Resources on Student Promotion





Privacy Laws Inadequate to Protect Student Data from Advertisers and Others | National Education Policy Center

Privacy Laws Inadequate to Protect Student Data from Advertisers and Others | National Education Policy Center:

Privacy Laws Inadequate to Protect Student Data from Advertisers and Others







 NEPC releases 17th annual report

on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends
 
Contact: 
William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net
Faith Boninger, (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com
Alex Molnar, (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com
URL for this press release: http://tinyurl.com/mmq4vw5
 
BOULDER, CO (April 9, 2015) – The computer technology that enables school districts to aggregate, collate, analyze and store massive amounts of student information – and the heavy reliance on private contractors to help manage that information collection, analysis and storage – pose significant concerns about the privacy rights of students, a new report released today shows.
While state and federal lawmakers have sought to expand the privacy rights of students and their families in the collection and dissemination of personal data collected by and for schools, those efforts have been piecemeal, incomplete, and often inadequate, the report suggests.
Those conclusions are among the findings of the 17th Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism Trends, On The Block: Student Data and Privacy in the Digital Age. The report, by Alex Molnar and Faith Boninger, is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder.
In a new educational environment that emphasizes the computerization of student data and work, questions over how long information is held, who has the right to see it, and how students and their families might correct errors and inaccuracies it contains, are far from resolved and have become “critical policy issues,” the authors write.
In particular, Molnar and Boninger note the ease with which schools themselves may become vehicles for subjecting children to increased marketing efforts. Of special concern is “anonymized” meta-data that can be used to market to students and their families, and the increased time that students are encouraged to spend working online. When children enter the Internet environment, even if they enter from a responsible site with a transparent privacy policy, they are quickly exposed to other commercial sites that may be less concerned about their privacy. “The hard truth,” Molnar and Boninger contend, is that “when schools send children into the open online environment, they are in reality often offering up these children to be tracked for the purpose of serving them ads for products that algorithms predict they will want to buy.”
Their report concludes with recommendations that lawmakers look to comprehensive guidelines in the Electronic Privacy Information Center’s Student Privacy Bill of Rights to help shape stronger privacy protections for students and their families. They also recommend the development of stronger policies to address “not only the privacy of student educational records but also the wide variety of student data (including anonymized data that may now be collected and shared)” – with particular attention to the commercial use of such data. Additionally, the authors write, as policymakers engage this issue, they need to place the burden of protection of student data “not only on schools and districts but also on any private vendors with access to student data.”
“This would align the interests of all parties, public and private, in protecting student privacy,” Molnar and Boninger write.
Find On the Block: Student Data and Privacy in the Digital Age – The Seventeenth Annual Report on Schoolhouse Commercialism: 2013-2014, by Alex Molnar and Faith Boninger, on the web at:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/schoolhouse-commercialism-2014

The mission of the National Education Policy Center is to produce and disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence.  For more information on NEPC, please visithttp://nepc.colorado.edu/.
Funding for the Annual Reports on Schoolhouse Commercialism is provided in part by Consumers Union.

What Happens When Students Boycott a Standardized Test? — The Atlantic

What Happens When Students Boycott a Standardized Test? — The Atlantic:

What Happens When Students Boycott a Standardized Test?

The movement to opt-out of nationwide exams is gaining traction—and forcing policymakers to rethink the role of such assessments in public education.








 Standardized tests have been an integral part of the American school routine since the 1970s, the protocol changing very little. Children were told to put away their books; to fill in the bubbles, with No. 2 pencils, completely; and, when the time was up, to immediately put down their writing utensils. However, those ubiquitous (and ever-dreaded) tests have evolved dramatically as of late—and deliberations over their purpose have become increasingly urgent.

This semester, students in roughly three dozen states and the District of Columbia are taking one of two new standardized tests that are known by their consonant-riddled acronyms: PARCC, which is part of the Pearson family, and SBAC, which was developed by a consortium of states. The force behind these assessments is the Common Core State Standards, the set of highly controversial universal learning benchmarks that, the thinking goes, would’ve been difficult to implement without new-and-improved standardized tests. (Students in the remaining states are taking other exams; under No Child Left Behind, the federal government requires that every state gives its kids some form of assessment, but it doesn’t stipulate a specific one.) Like the hodgepodge of older tests used over the past five decades, these new assessments are designed to gauge students' proficiency in math and English via series of multiple-choice questions.
The days of booklets and pencils, however, are long gone; these tests are administered on computers and come with fancy resources such as virtual rulers and protractors and can be customized to students with, say, special needs. Some sections feature "drop-and-drag" options and even adaptive questioning that responds to individual students’ abilities. The Common Core standards, which have been adopted by more than 40 states, emphasize critical thinking. That means the English tests include essay sections, for example, while those for math at times ask students to explain how they found their answers. Compared with the previous assessments, the results from these tests generate more information for officials and parents about student proficiency and progress.
But perhaps the most obvious distinction from years past, at least now, is that significant resistance to the standardized tests has organized in a growing number of states—to the point of mass boycotts in certain communities. This movement was jumpstarted by parents and has since garnered the support of the teachers’ unions. And now it’s getting some ammunition from the students themselves. This campaign isn’t only raising pressing concerns about the validity of standardized tests, it’s also revealing the extent to which the foray into a new era of test-driven accountability and debates surrounding this reform could end up damaging the country’s public education system. After all, the consequences of an exam boycott could be just as severe as those that come with over-testing; finding a compromise is certainly preferable to too much or too little.
While states generally have not released exact numbers on the opt-outs, school officials and local newspapers report that growing numbers of students, with their parents’ blessing, have not taken (or will not take) their standardized tests this spring. In New Jersey, for example, at least 46,000—or 5 percent—of the roughly 896,000 public-school students in grade levels subject to the exam are estimated to have opted out of the first installment of the PARCC test, which was conducted in March; greater numbers are expected refuse to take the second one in May. (Similar statistics are predicted in Colorado, Florida, and New York, too.) And while the vast majority of students are still taking their tests, the number of refusals is hard to ignore—as are the specific areas in which refusals are most prevalent. At least in New Jersey, the opt-outs are largely concentrated in wealthy communities, according to an analysis of compiled data.
Here in New Jersey, I witnessed the anti-testing politics evolve over the past few months. It appeared to begin with a small number of parents expressing diverse concerns, sharing information at school board meetings and through social media. Opposition started to increase, however, as the teachers unions helped parents organize. The teachers reversed their initial support of the new testing guidelines once the Legislature, similar to those in many other states, passed legislation tying teacher evaluations—and thus their pay—to assessment results. Some of the unions’ local branches even arranged parties to view the filmStandardized (Lies, Money, & Civil Rights: How Testing Is Ruining Public Education) or set up websites informing parents how to complete the necessary What Happens When Students Boycott a Standardized Test? — The Atlantic:

What Can We Agree On, After Atlanta? | Taking Note

What Can We Agree On, After Atlanta? | Taking Note:

What Can We Agree On, After Atlanta?







 “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold,” William Butler Yeats wrote in 1919 in ‘The Second Coming.’ Yeats was describing the world after the Great War, but it aptly describes American education today[1]: polarized, shouting at, but rarely listening to, each other. We disagree about dozens of issues: the Common Core; whether ‘opting out’ of the Common Core tests is appropriate (or even legal); the role of unions; the effectiveness of charter schools; the federal role; the amount of standardized testing; how to evaluate teachers; poverty’s impact on children’s learning, and more.

Now, out of the blue, we have two[2] points of agreement: 1) Draconian punishment for the Atlanta cheaters is unjust, unseemly and counter-productive; and 2) students are the losers when adults cheat.
By now everyone knows that 11 Atlanta educators have been convicted for cheating and could be facing serious time behind bars. Thoughtful observers like Richard RothsteinRobert Pondiscio and David Cohen are weighing in. Mr. Rothstein’s piece takes the deepest dive, and so I suggest you start there.
Even though everyone agrees that kids[3] were cheated, we don’t agree on what should be done. Should they be offered free tutoring? Or is an apology enough?
And we disagree about who’s really to blame for the cheating in Atlanta. Superintendent Beverly Hall was too ill to stand trial and died before the decision was handed down, but for many the buck started and stopped with her.[4] Others blame the unrealistic demands of No Child Left Behind for the cheating in Atlanta, Washington, DC, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Columbus, Ohio and Austin, Texas.
Everybody’s got a villain, whether it’s Arne Duncan’s Race to the Top; an obsession with ‘data-driven decision-making; education profiteers; greedy teacher unions; or a right wing vendetta against those same unions. [5]
Can’t we agree on something else? I suggest two big ideas that everyone who is genuine about putting kid first can support. One, expose hypocrites and hypocrisies, wherever they may be. Two, school spending should be transparent, because we are talking about taxpayer dollars, and sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Of course, the two are related, because hypocrisy often involves money and secrecy.
To me, the biggest hypocrites are those who preach, “Poverty can never be offered as an excuse” (for poor student performance) but then do nothing to alleviate poverty and its attendant conditions. What they are saying, bottom line, is “It’s the teachers’ fault” when kids in poverty-ridden schools do poorly on tests or fail to graduate.
These preachers disguise their mendacity with words of praise for teachers, calling them ‘heroes whose brave work changes the lives of their fortunate students blah blah blah.’ Sounds great, but when it comes from those who discount all the other factors that affect outcomes, it’s hypocrisy. They’re setting up teachers and schools to be blamed.
How satisfying and convenient to have a simple, easy-to-grasp analysis. And how hypocritical.
OK, poverty is not an excuse, but surely substandard housing, inadequate health care, poor nutrition, abuse and abandonment (all of which are more likely in high poverty areas) are factors in poor academic performance. So why are these hypocrites either standing by silently or actively opposing efforts to alleviate poverty and thereby What Can We Agree On, After Atlanta? | Taking Note:

School District projects 22 percent graduation rate in 2017 | Philadelphia Public School Notebook

School District projects 22 percent graduation rate in 2017 | Philadelphia Public School Notebook:



School District projects 22 percent graduation rate in 2017

 

Photo: Rachel Feierman
Projected impact of Keystone exams on Philadelphia graduation rates.



In two years, Pennsylvania students will have to pass three standardized tests -- the Keystone Exams -- to graduate high school.
Right now, 65 percent of Philadelphia School District students graduate in four years, but District officials expect a big drop when the Keystone Exam requirement comes into full effect.
"While our graduation rate remained steady last year, extrapolating from current seniors, only 22 percent of the Class of 2017 will graduate on time," according to a report published by the District in January. That estimate is based on the number of current seniors on track to pass all three Keystone Exams and obtain the requisite class credits to graduate this spring.
In 2008, Gov. Ed Rendell's administration introduced the Keystone Exam as the state Graduation Competency Assessments (GCA). The State Board of Education approved the graduation requirement in 2009. Since then, use of the Keystone tests to determine graduation has triggered debate at the state and local level.
States use graduation requirements to assess school performance and ensure graduates are prepared for college or the workforce. Fully 70 percent of students at the Community College of Philadelphia need to redo high school-level course work before moving on to college-level classes.
Under Gov. Tom Corbett, the number of tests to be rolled out in schools was reduced from 10 to three: biology, algebra I and literature. The Corbett administration also pushed back the year when the tests would officially count toward a student's graduation to the 2016-2017 school year. In other words, current high school sophomores.

Getting ready for the tests

Philadelphia is not alone in posting test scores that would hit their graduation rates.

Read the rest of this story at NewsWorks

Federal funding is crucial for our charter schools : News

Federal funding is crucial for our charter schools : News:

Federal funding is crucial for our charter schools



 Thousands more of St. Louis’ children could soon get their shot at achieving the American dream and be on the path toward getting prepared for a career of their choice. Or not, depending on what happens in Washington over the coming months as Congress determines funding for charter schools.

Charter schools are independent, public and tuition-free schools given the freedom to be more innovative while being held accountable for advancing student achievement. Because they are public schools they are funded by local, state and federal tax dollars. Charter schools are open to all children, serve all students, do not charge tuition, and do not have special entrance requirements. Charter schools do, however, operate independently of school districts, and this flexibility allows them to provide families with more modern, successful learning environments.

Charter schools have become an increasingly significant part of the St. Louis public school landscape, providing quality educational options for parents and students. Nearly 10,000 children in St. Louis are a part of a community twice as large attending public charter schools in Missouri. This is great news! However, many more students linger on waiting lists or live in communities throughout Missouri where charter schools are not yet even an option. Parents deserve to have options when they send their children off to be educated, and students deserve a shot at a better future.
The first step is strong support from Congress through funding. This year, there is bipartisan support to do this. Federal Charter Schools Program funding makes a critical difference in helping new charter schools open, as launch funding is often not otherwise available. Communities across the state are counting on U.S. Sen. Roy Blunt to give our children a high-quality choice in education.
To keep the American dream from becoming a distant memory, we must build a better future for our children. This dream has made our country the greatest nation on earth, and for nearly our entire history, each generation has enjoyed a better life than the previous. Education is the cornerstone of better opportunity. And the more than 6,700 public charter schools across our nation are today woven into the very education fabric that is American opportunity itself.
Public charter schools are proven to work. Nearly every academic report published on charter school performance since 2010 — 15 out of 16 — has found that students in charter schools do better in school than their traditional peers. Additionally, children who attend charter schools are more likely to graduate from high school than their traditional school peers. In dozens of charter schools across the country, every single graduating senior is accepted into college. Charter schools also continue to disproportionately top the lists of America’s best high schools in Newsweek, US News and World Report, and the Washington Post.
Now is the time for Congress to act, and vote to ensure public charter schools have the resources Federal funding is crucial for our charter schools : News:

Mapping the Growth of Statewide Voucher Programs in the United States CEEP: Indiana University Bloomington

CEEP: Indiana University Bloomington:








  • New CEEP Policy Brief
    Mapping the Growth of Statewide Voucher Programs in the United States
    A new brief comparing statewide voucher programs finds all are growing as never before in the last five years. The brief, “Mapping the Growth of Statewide Voucher Programs in the United States,” examines four statewide voucher systems for students in general education programs (open to all students): Wisconsin, Ohio, Louisiana, and Indiana. The brief is authored by Katherine Cierniak, CEEP graduate research assistant, Molly Stewart, CEEP research associate, and Anne-Maree Ruddy, director for education policy and senior research associate at CEEP.
    Click here to access a PDF of the brief.




Teachers unions: wanting the perks of membership without the politics - LA Times

Teachers unions: wanting the perks of membership without the politics - LA Times:

Teachers unions: wanting the perks of membership without the politics










If  you're a public school teacher and you pay your union dues, you get to enjoy whatever salary deal the union negotiates for you.

But the union spends part of your dues on political lobbying and campaigning, perhaps for causes and candidates you can't stand. Then what? Forcing you to pay to advance positions you dislike violates the 1st Amendment.

To deal with this problem, you can quit the union and keep your job, thanks to court rulings. You will still pay your fair share to cover the service the union provides in negotiating your contract, but you won't pay the portion that goes to political activity.



And what if you don't want to support the union's political stances, but you want to be able to vote out your contract negotiators and elect new ones? You also want some of the other benefits the union provides only to its members — including lawyers when you get into a dispute with your principal, or insurance policies and discounts. Does it violate the 1st Amendment to force you to choose between paying for unwanted political activity and accepting fewer benefits?

That's the gist of a lawsuit filed last week by four California teachers backed by the education reform group StudentsFirst. Like the suit in Vergara vs. California, in which a court found that tenure rules unconstitutionally subjected some students to bad teachers, the latest suit appears to be aimed at loosening the stranglehold that reformers say teachers unions have over public schools.

Unlike Vergara, though, the current case doesn't focus on students or education but is at its core an attack on the power of any public employee union to engage in politics. Plaintiffs argue that more and more benefits formerly won through collective bargaining are now union membership perks. That compels employees to join and pay their full dues — including the part that goes toward politicking — leaving employees who don't want to join the union with second-class benefits.



The implication is that the Constitution not only protects workers' speech but also guarantees them the right to every benefit the union offers to its members, even if those benefits were not negotiated with the company. It's a creative argument but not, in the end, convincing. The 1st Amendment prevents employees from having to join a union, and even guarantees them the fruits of collective bargaining, but it's hard to see how it allows them to join but not follow the rules.Teachers unions: wanting the perks of membership without the politics - LA Times:


Two Pro-Common Core Groups Urge Against Overhaul of No Child Left Behind | TheBlaze.com

Two Pro-Common Core Groups Urge Against Overhaul of No Child Left Behind | TheBlaze.com:

Two Pro-Common Core Groups Urge Against Overhaul of No Child Left Behind







 Two pro-Common Core advocacy groups are now urging against a dramatic overhaul to another education reform effort – No Child Left Behind.

After a bipartisan Senate bill was introduced Tuesday with backing from the White House to replace the Bush-era federal education reform, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue and Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights President Wade Henderson wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post urging against any major changes.
“Are we going to bow to the special interests of adults, or will we stand strong for the special interest that has no lobby — our children?” said the op-ed written by leaders of interest groups. “We have made great progress for millions of kids since NCLB. Let’s not return to a time when these students were left in the shadows.”
The op-ed says that while now, “accountability is directed from Washington” that states should have more flexibility to implement strong standards. Taking on one of the thorniest aspects of national standards, Donohue and Henderson defended the standardized testing.
“First, students must be given annual statewide assessments, which provide the only way for us to accurately measure what students are learning,” the op-ed said. “Let’s be clear: The federal law only requires students to be tested once or twice a year. Concern about overtesting is driven by local and state policies, not by Washington.”
Both the Chamber of Commerce and the Leadership Conference have been Common Core supporters. While support for NCLB and Common Core often doesn’t overlap, opposition to both is based heavily on concerns of federalizing education, which has traditionally been under local control, as well as concerns over too much testing.
Since President Barack Obama’s Department of Education has issuing NCLB waivers to school districts and adopted new standards. Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have voiced support for Common Core, and tied “Race to the Top” state education grants with the standards.
The bill to replace NCLB is co-sponsored by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.), respectively the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Education Committee. A hearing on the legislation is scheduled for April 14.
Alexander and Murray say their bill will eliminate the need for schools to seek waivers from some of the burdensome aspects of No Child Left Behind. Under the bill, the states would design accountability measures that are subject to federal approval; continue the often unpopular testing but allow the states to determine the weight of testing when evaluating the performance of schools; and provide federal grants to low performing school districts.
White House press secretary Josh Earnest expressed general support for the Senate legislation.
“Today’s announcement from Senator Alexander and Senator Murray is an important step in their Two Pro-Common Core Groups Urge Against Overhaul of No Child Left Behind | TheBlaze.com: