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

by

Russell Mokhiber

(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?

If you do mention social problems before you mention the founding documents, what, pray West Virginia Legislation Would Criminalize Teaching Social Problems First | Common Dreams | Breaking News & Views for the Progressive Community:

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

BY LORETTA KALB

LKALB@SACBEE.COM

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. 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

Cynical School Choice Stunts Ramp Up In Oklahoma

Cynical School Choice Stunts Ramp Up In Oklahoma:



CYNICAL SCHOOL CHOICE STUNTS RAMP UP IN OKLAHOMA

JANUARY 31, 2015 BRETT DICKERSON

Booker T. Washington School in Tulsa was one of the first magnet schools in the state. The main purpose was to entice Tulsa Schools parents and students to desegregate the schools there. It has been an outpost of racial inclusion and quality since. Photo by one of the early graduates of the Booker T magnet school.

Once upon a time in Oklahoma, magnet public schools were the “choice” that allowed for much more creativity and freedom. They helped to break years of racial/economic segregation. But that’s not the point of a huge “school choice” push today.

Instead, “school choice” has become code for getting an unwitting public to allow private investor corporations to siphon tax money from the public and funnel it into accountability black boxes. And worse, they will do that while re-segregating American education and society.

Advocates don’t really want competition

Proponents of “school choice” – choicers – argue that when there is competition in an education marketplace, quality will just magically break out.

But it won’t. It won’t because participants in any market place actively attempt to eliminate the competition as I pointed out in an earlier post. Increasing profits for any business come from doing away with or absorbing their competition.

Anyone who argues for competition as a way to improve schools while keeping all of the choices in place simply doesn’t understand how competition works. Or, worse, they are consciously trying to deceive others.

And that deception is what I want to point out here.

Deception

There are some people for choice who are sincere. But the ones we are hearing from the loudest and the most right now are those who make a handsome living trying to destroy support for a common, publicly-controlled education.

Their donors want a small minority of the rich to control what is being taught, and that can’t happen unless publicly-controlled schools and professional teachers are destroyed in their current form.

I’m seeing a very real increase in cynical stunts by some organizations, mostly those that are associated with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC.

If you don’t already know, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, or OCPA, is tied in tightly with ALEC, the Koch Brothers, and many other donors who want to profit by forcing you to pay taxes that their buddies in the legislature will turn over to them without any accountability.

There are several cynical, deceptive practices that I have been observing over the last several weeks as we draw nearer to the Oklahoma Legislature convening.

Twitter Hashtag Flooding

Hashtag flooding is where a relatively small group of people flood a particular hashtag that is being used by their opponents to connect with each other. The subject matter of the tweets is intended to Cynical School Choice Stunts Ramp Up In Oklahoma:

The Right Fight for Education | Joseph Bishop

The Right Fight for Education | Joseph Bishop:

The Right Fight for Education

Posted: 01/29/2015 4:29 pm EST Updated: 01/30/2015 1:59 pm EST

 Across the nation, moviegoers have lined up for screenings of the new film Selma. The movie recounts the courageous actions of thousands of ordinary, disenfranchised African-Americans in the South, including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and now-Congressman John Lewis who took to the streets of Selma, Alabama, to secure the right to vote for all Americans.

For generations young and old, the movie offers a critical reminder of the long and difficult march for racial and economic justice. Audiences today may understand why the third Monday of January is a federal holiday and know Dr. King from his speeches, but Selma provides us with a glimpse of the many struggles of those whose sacrifices helped secure groundbreaking civil rights victories -- and reminds us of the work still left to be done.

A gulf remains today in our nation between the "haves" and "have-nots," and there are few examples as glaring as the disparities that exist in our public schools. Decades ago, civil rights leaders fought to desegregate our nation's schools. Today, 60 years after the Brown v. Board of Education decision officially invalidated racial segregation in our nation's public schools, students are facing a resurgence of de factosegregation by both race and socioeconomic status. And, we continue to witness pervasive educational inequalities, especially in the inequitable distribution of school funding to low-income communities of color.

These disparities in school funding are just as destructive as the injustices of previous decades. And while much ado has accompanied recent discussions about annual testing in ESEA, too little has been done at the federal level to stimulate more equitable inputs for schools serving poor children and children of color.

States can change the historical inequalities that continue to undermine equal rights. California recently passed a new funding law that allocates all funding equitably, based on student needs. This year, Mississippi has a chance to become another model of progress. The state's voters will cast ballots in the coming year on a measure that will require the state legislature to fund all public schools at equal levels for the first time in history.

What some schools consider to be basic aspects of a quality educational experience, including access to courses like Algebra I, Geometry and Advanced Placement offerings -- in states like Mississippi -- including New York, Pennsylvania, Florida and Nevada--they are more of a rarity than the norm in schools with high African-American and Latino populations.

Meanwhile, 14 years after Congress renewed ESEA as 'No Child Left Behind' under President George W. Bush, Congressional leaders have pledged to "fast track" the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The bill could help expand education equity for all children. The question is whether our leaders take seriously the need for all children to receive the quality public education they deserve.

When President Lyndon Johnson, a former school teacher, first signed ESEA into law in 1965 on the heels of the Civil Rights Act, he and many others envisioned the law as a component of the 'War of Poverty' -- convinced it would help to advance quality education as a lever out of poverty.

Unfortunately, ESEA has begun to focus more on narrow testing and sanctions, including closing schools in low-income communities, rather than on investing in and improving these schools. This is why, along with eight other civil rights organizations,we recently released recommendations on how our leaders can make the policy changes necessary to advance equal access to resources and quality instruction in our nation's schools.

To move us forward as a nation, the newest version of ESEA must expand beyond a focus on testing, data transparency and interventions in struggling schools. Assessments, relevant data and remedies to improve schools must be accompanied by The Right Fight for Education | Joseph Bishop:

Vision 2020 – A Step in the Right Direction | Education Under Attack

Vision 2020 – A Step in the Right Direction | Education Under Attack:

Vision 2020 – A Step in the Right Direction

January 31, 2015 educationunderattack Education Under Attack, Educational Report, Pubic EducationAttacks on Schooling, Bill Gates, Common Core, Education Under Attack, IARSS, IASA, IASB,IASBO, Illinos, IPA, Melinda Gates, SCSDD, Vision 2020, Warren Buffett

Vision 2020 icons

Many people (me included) have spent a lot of time wringing their hands over what Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffett, the Walton clan, and the Koch brothers are doing to public education.  As previously posted, I believe a big reason they have gained such a foothold in the conversation is because we the public educators have been too silent.   That’s why I am so optimistic about an effort called Vision 2020. Their policy brief can be found here and the Executive Summary here.

Vision 2020 is an effort by six professional associations to take back control of the conversation and influence the political decisions shaping public education here in Illinois.  The Illinois Association of School Administrators (IASA), Illinois Association of School Business Officials (IASBO), Illinois Principals Association (IPA), Illinois Association of Regional Superintendents of Schools (IARSS), Illinois Association of School Boards (IASB), Superintendents’ Commission for the Study of Demographics and Diversity (SCSDD) came together in November, 2012 to create Vision 2020 and finalized their recommendations two years later.

They recognized that control of public education was slipping away from the professionals into the hands of non-educators.   They promote public education, saying, “As public educators, we believe public education works. We reject the premise that education in Illinois has failed but recognize its impact has not been equitably delivered to all student populations and that there are opportunities for continuous improvement.”

Vision 20200’s stated outcomes are clear:

Conscious that no single legislative attempt at school improvement can be developed, implemented, or find success without the support, devotion, and hard work of all stakeholders, Vision 20/20 asks not just for state action, but also for local action and the support of educators across the state to fulfill the promise of public education. On behalf of the over two million schoolchildren in Illinois, we challenge the State Legislature, the Governor, and all stakeholders to take action.

Their report includes 24 state policy recommendations in four major areas, as described in their Policy Brief:

Highly Effective Educators – The quality of teachers and school leaders is the greatest predictor of student achievement schools can influence. By attracting, developing, and retaining our state’s best educators, we can have a profound impact on student learning.

21st Century Learning – For success in life, students need more than knowledge of math and reading. It is time to expand the definition of student learning, commit to the development of the “whole child,” and invest in policies proven to link all schools to 21st century learning tools.

Shared Accountability – A quality education for all Illinois students cannot be ensured without the collaboration, compromise, and hard work of both educators Vision 2020 – A Step in the Right Direction | Education Under Attack:

Here Are The States That Spend The Most On Public School Students:

Here Are The States That Spend The Most On Public School Students

The Huffington Post  |  By Rebecca Klein

 The National Center for Education Statistics on Thursday released its latest data on how much money states are investing in public school students.

NCES, an arm of the Department of Education, looked at each state's revenues and expenditures per pupil in public elementary and secondary schools during the 2011-2012 school year. The agency also presented data on school spending and revenues at the level of individual school districts. School revenue is defined as funds from "local, intermediate, state, and federal sources," while school expenditure refers to "all amounts of money paid out by a school system."

The graphics below outline some of the data's highlights. The first map shows which states spent the most per pupil in 2012. The District of Columbia and New York took the top spots, spending over $19,000 per student. Utah and Idaho spent the least per student, around $6,500.

The data also showed that between fiscal years 2011 and 2012, most states' spending on education decreased.

Indeed, previous research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities showed that since 2008, spending on education has decreased in most states in the wake of the Great Recession.

Finally, NCES looked at how much the country's largest school districts are spending on students. Districts in the South and West tended to spend less than their counterparts in the Northeast, which is consistent with the state-level findings. New York City public schools spent the most on their students -- $20,226 per pupil -- while Alpine School District in Utah spent a low of $5,412 per pupil.

The data was compiled based on responses to the School District Finance Survey, which collected information from individual districts, and the National Public Here Are The States That Spend The Most On Public School Students:

Marie Corfield: This week in NJ ed 'reform': The truth is out there

Marie Corfield: This week in NJ ed 'reform': The truth is out there:

This week in NJ ed 'reform': The truth is out there

This was quite a week in the battle over public education in the Garden State: Gov. Christie's testing study commission heard mountains of testimony from concerned parents and citizens in three different venues; educators continued to host parent Take the PARCC nights; NJEA released a bombshell new poll showing massive numbers of NJ parents oppose the test; and NJ101.5 capped several days of PARCC discussion with a debate over the test. 

Here are my thoughts:

A more perfect-er life for only $19.95

My daughter and I have a running joke: All the world's problems can be solved for only 3 easy payments of $19.95. If we just went out and purchased every single as-seen-on-TV product, our lives would be perfect.

That's what ed 'reformers' want us to believe about the PARCC test. Just like the PedEgg, the Bacon Bowl and theUro Club, PARCC promises to magically transform your child's entire life from dull to dazzling—with just 10 easy hours of testing! No more struggles with 'bad' teachers who lazily sit around waiting to collect their pensions. PARCC will send them packing. White suburban moms will magically accept that their kids really aren't brilliant when they see those crappy test scores. But wait! Call now, and Pearson will upgrade your flunkie kid's educational experience with all sorts of Common Core/PARCC aligned learning materials guaranteed to make them College and Career Ready! (Just pay the cost of cuts to arts and foreign language programs.)

When TV pitch-men run the country

The reality is that the road to miraculous cures and a better, shinier, awesomer life is paved with money back guarantees that somehow never seem to materialize. Whether it's the infomercial host or the President of the United States, carnival barkers have been selling the American public an endless stream of bad ideas, sketchy products and outright colossal failures since 1893 when Clark Stanley sold his first bottle of snake oil. Here are some of my favorites from big business/pharma/government:

• Cigarettes
• Weapons of Mass Destruction
• The Pinto
• Lead Paint
• Accutane
• Asbestos
• NAFTA
• GMOs
• Phen-phen
• DDT

Feel free to add your favorites in the comments section.

Number 1 on my list is DES. 77 years ago, American doctors wanted pregnant women to have 'trust and confidence' (more on this phrase below) in a little life-changing drug called Diethylstilbestrol. Here's what the CDC says about it:

Diethylstilbestrol (DES) is an estrogen that was first manufactured in a laboratory in 1938, so it is called a "synthetic estrogen." During 1938-1971, U.S. physicians prescribed DES to pregnant women to prevent miscarriages and avoid other pregnancy problems. As a result, an estimated 5-10 million pregnant women and the children born of these pregnancies were exposed to DES. Physicians Marie Corfield: This week in NJ ed 'reform': The truth is out there: