DPS Bans Health Inspectors

Detroit Federation of Teachers | Stateweb:

DPS Bans AFT Health Inspectors 

DPS refused to allow nationally recognized industrial hygienists from entering schools today to conduct health inspections based on reports from teachers and parents that conditions are dangerous.

The DFT plans to file an emergency motion with the Third District Court of Michigan to permit the inspectors to enter the schools.

The health inspectors from New York, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut came to Detroit at the DFT's request. They have conducted similar inspections in schools across the country, and intended to identify any health and safety problems in Detroit's schools and recommend solutions.

DFT interim president Ivy Bailey was told by DPS Senior Deputy General Counsel Phyllis Hurks-Hill that the inspectors were not allowed to enter the school buildings.

"Prohibiting health inspectors to enter schools further erodes the trust of the school community. Rather than collaborating with people who just want to help make our schools safe, DPS is thwarting attempts to identify and fix the unsafe, despicable conditions," Bailey said.

The inspections are a result of letters and complaints from teachers, other school employees and parents about dangerous conditions that can lead to health problems, such as mold, lead, asbestos, water damage and extreme temperatures. These health inspections would have supplemented the mayor's inspections involving building code violations.

DFT attorney Robert Fetter said the ban is illegal. "Banning health inspectors from entering schools is a violation of state labor law, the DFT contract, and the state's moral duty to provide a safe environment for all students and school employees," he said.

The inspectors had planned to inspect: Spain, Thirkell, Mann, Carleton, Detroit International Academy, Dossin, Gardner, Noble, and Sampson-Webber schools.

Because they were not allowed in the schools, the inspectors plan to meet with school employees outside of the schools today and tomorrow and have them fill out surveys about the problems they have witnessed.

- See more at: http://dft231.mi.aft.org/dps-bans-aft-health-inspectors-2316#sthash.e45VJdiq.LF9ghVzD.dpuf

How did your state do? Finally, a report card for us! | Parents Across America

How did your state do? Finally, a report card for us! | Parents Across America:

How did your state do? Finally, a report card for us!

 

We so used to hearing about the education-related report cards the corporate reform world is always giving out. Achieve just released its state-by-state “honesty gap” report comparing state test scores with NAEP national test scores. ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council, gives the best report card grades to states that privatize schools, test students often, and fire a lot of teachers. These reports are simply not helpful, serving only to promote the anti-public education political agenda.

Fortunately, the Network for Public Education has brought a new and progressive perspective to this exercise in a report card founded on the values of public school allies. The grades in “Valuing Public Education: a 50 State Report Card” reflect the values that they and we believe in—stability in the teaching force, a rejection of high stakes testing, small class sizes, integrated schools, pre-school education, a recognition that poverty matters and of course a sound rejection of charters, vouchers and other forms of privatization.

While expressing a reluctance to give out a single overall letter grade, NPE does just that while inviting you to look more deeply into the report to see the various factors behind each state’s result. We do the same:

We note that many of our chapters’ and affiliates’ states score pretty low….

Go. Look. Share. Use.

- See more at: http://parentsacrossamerica.org/state-do-finally-report-card-us/#sthash.zzcQdkzF.dpuf

California's Annual State Application for 2016 - Administration & Support (CA Dept of Education)

California's Annual State Application for 2016 - Administration & Support (CA Dept of Education):
California's Annual State Application for 2016

Annual State Application under Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is to be submitted by May 12, 2016, for federal fiscal year (FFY) 2016.

The California Department of Education (CDE), Special Education Division, completed its application for FFY 2016 federal funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), as Amended in 2004, Public Law 108-446.

The state application is available for 60 days and public written comment will be accepted for at least 30 days prior to submission to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). Written comments will be accepted from February 15 to March 31, 2016.

The IDEA established the content for the state’s application. Section I is comprised of the state’s Submission Statement for Part B of the IDEA. Section II of the state application includes a series of assurances and certifications of federal policies as detailed by the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR). In addition, the state application also includes a chart indicating the allocation of federal funds (Section III); a list identifying any rule, regulation, or policy that is state-imposed, not required by IDEA or Federal regulations (Section IV). Maintenance of State Financial Support (Section V) is not part of the eligibility requirement for the state. OSEP requires the state to follow this application process for funding.

• Section I - Submission Statement for Part B of IDEA and Section II - Assurances Related to Policies and Procedures(DOC; Posted 02-Feb-2016) 
  The state makes the assurances that it has policies and procedures in place as required by IDEA.
• Section III - Description of Use of Funds Part B of IDEA (Posted 02-Feb-2016) and Excel Interactive Spreadsheet(XLS; Posted 13-Mar-2015) 
  The Excel Spreadsheet will be updated. The estimate of how the state intends to utilize these funds. The final FFY 2015 allocation will be available after the California Legislature passes, and the Governor approves, the 2015–16 state budget. Until that time, the FFY 2015 Use of Funds Part B of IDEA is a preliminary estimate.
• Section IV - State Administration (Posted 02-Feb-2016)
  List of state statutes, regulations, or policies that are state-imposed and are not required by the IDEA of 2004 or federal regulations. (Posted 02-Feb-2016)
• Section V is not part of the eligibility requirement for the state. The state will provide the total amount of State financial support made available for special education and related services for children with disabilities by the most recent two State fiscal years (e.g. 2013–14 and 2014–15). At this time, the California Department of Education (CDE) has not calculated the final state special education apportionments for FY 2014 or 2015. Thus, the amounts shown for the Maintenance of State Financial Support for FY 2014 and FY 2015 are preliminary and based upon the most current certified special education appropriation amounts. Section V amounts will be provided later, when available.

Questions: Jeffrey Reyes | JeReyes@cde.ca.gov | 916-327-3684 

Last Reviewed: Wednesday, February 3, 2016

 California's Annual State Application for 2016 - Administration & Support (CA Dept of Education):

Malloy presents a state budget plan that would make hip hop artist B.o.B. proud - Wait What?

Malloy presents a state budget plan that would make hip hop artist B.o.B. proud - Wait What?:

Malloy presents a state budget plan that would make hip hop artist B.o.B. proud

Flanked by Lt. Governor Nancy Wyman, his “policy-partner,” Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy lectured a joint session of the Connecticut General Assembly today about the importance of being fiscally responsible.

It was a grand theatrical performance that would make hip hop artist B.o.B. proud.

Less than two weeks ago, singer and music producer B.o.B informed the world that despite what we have been told, the World is Flat!

Like Governor Dannel Malloy, the “all-knowing” musician laid down the “truth” about the flatness of the Earth explaining;

“No matter how high in elevation you are… the horizon is always eye level … sorry cadets… I didn’t wanna believe it either.”

“A lot of people are turned off by the phrase ‘flat earth’ … but there’s no way u can see all the evidence and not know… grow up.”

“I question the international laws that prevent you from exploring Antarctica 

Malloy presents a state budget plan that would make hip hop artist B.o.B. proud - Wait What?:

Seattle Schools Community Forum: Seattle's School Levies (and other state funding issues)

Seattle Schools Community Forum: Seattle's School Levies (and other state funding issues):

Seattle's School Levies (and other state funding issues)

Next Tuesday, Feb. 9th, Seattle voters will decide on the Seattle Schools' Operations levy and the BTA levy.  Both are renewals but at higher amounts than were voted on last time.

Most of you know this is a sticky wicket for me.  I've frequently spoken out frequently against capital levies but not because they aren't needed, but because I don't think this district spends the money in either levy in a transparent manner.  I'm also not sure of their priorities for spending and, given how much parent unhappiness there is out there on many issues, failing a capital levy might be a good way to get the district's attention.

Let's be clear on a few things.
- we need the Operations levy because it's 25% of the budget.  Whether we all agree on how they are spending the dollars, losing 25% of the budget would bring the district - and all its schools - to their knees.  We cannot have that happen.

- we need the BTA IV levy because of the high need for work on many, many buildings AND ongoing capacity management issues.  However, the focus of the spending should be on those issues and I'm not sure the list of items does have that focus.

(And please don't say, "oh, we can get the district to change that focus AFTER they get the money."  With levies, you are basically voting in a pot of money, Seattle Schools Community Forum: Seattle's School Levies (and other state funding issues):

Why Computer Science for All? – Save Maine Schools

Why Computer Science for All? – Save Maine Schools:

Why Computer Science for All?

President Obama’s recent announcement of a $4 billion initiative to bring computer science to all has many people scratching their heads.

“The message is that computer knowledge is needed in many professions. (The president mentioned auto mechanics and nursing.) But this is computer use, and does not require knowing how to program and design software,” writes Dr. Stephen Krashen in a letter to the New York Times.

According to the White House, we have a shortage of technology-trained workers – but this is a claim that Krashen and many others say is false.

So why 4 billion for this initiative? Certainly, there are many who would enjoy and benefit from computer sciences classes, but is it really worth this price tag – especially when school buildings are crumbling and class sizes are growing nationwide?

As with recent federal education initiatives, the ed-tech industry seems to have had a heavy hand in the plan.

“Coding is at the intersection of tech ed and EdTech,” Hadi Partovi, CEO of Code.org, told Tom Vander Ark in this article. “People ‘get’ online computer science.”

“It may be easier to sell blended computer science than blended math,” Partovi added.

Blended learning refers to a combination of online and in-person Why Computer Science for All? – Save Maine Schools:

Rahm declares war on Chicago teachers | SocialistWorker.org

Rahm declares war on Chicago teachers | SocialistWorker.org:

Rahm declares war on Chicago teachers

Chicago teacher Anthony Cappetta and Socialist Worker's Lee Sustar explain how the lines were drawn in the latest battle over public education in the city.

Members of the Chicago Teachers Union rally for a fair contract (Bob Simpson | SW)

 FACED WITH the city's threat to lay off 1,000 educators and impose a unilateral 7 percent pay cut, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) is mobilizing for a February 4 mass rally in the city's financial district in the union's biggest fight since its successful strike of 2012.

Chicago Public Schools (CPS) CEO Forest Claypool made the aggressive move against the teachers after the CTU bargaining team rejected a concessionary contract proposal that would have avoided economic layoffs if the union agreed to bigger pension contributions, higher health care costs and vague contract language around job security.

Claypool--fronting for his boss, Mayor Rahm Emanuel, and the city's ruling elite--is trying to create a crisis atmosphere to drive a wedge among union members, and to get parents to blame the teachers' union for the chaos in the classroom that would result from the massive layoffs.

But rank-and-file teachers and their union showed no signs of being intimidated ahead of a February 3 House of Delegates meeting. At the CTU's February 2 press conference, President Karen Lewis called the city's threats an "act of war." She added, "We are certain everyone who works in our public schools is facing a clear and present danger."

The CTU announced that the union will move its money out of Bank of America, the financial institution that has profited most from the toxic interest rate swap dealsnegotiated with CPS, the City of Chicago and the State of Illinois.

Meanwhile, Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner, who is out to gut public-sector collective bargaining laws and slash social spending, is pushing legislation that would allow the state to take over CPS in a bankruptcy-style proceeding.

While the legislation is unlikely to pass Illinois' Democratic-controlled legislature, Rauner is preparing the ground politically to take advantage of a CPS financial meltdown and a resulting political crisis.

And Emanuel, while opposing bankruptcy legislation, could work with Democratic legislators and the governor to create some sort of compromise, such as a revival of theSchool Finance Authority that took direct control of Chicago school spending for 15 years starting in 1980.

For now, the CTU bargaining team's rejection of the proposed offer put the possibility of a strike back on the table. In December, CTU members voted overwhelmingly to authorize a strike, several months after President Lewis called the city's demands to push pension Rahm declares war on Chicago teachers | SocialistWorker.org:

Seattle Schools Community Forum: Raise the Volume in Olympia

Seattle Schools Community Forum: Raise the Volume in Olympia:

Raise the Volume in Olympia

"Nothing big happens in Olympia unless the external voices become so loud that the legislators can't ignore it." 

                         State Superintendent Randy Dorn speaking to Washington State PTA Focus day.

Have you e-mailed/called your reps?  

• Let them know McCleary IS the thing and your disappointment that it does not appear that way to the legislature. 

• Let them know that you believe the needs of over 1M children who have been waiting for years for fully funded public education are just as important as 1,000 charter school students, call them.  No on HB 6194.  (To note, there appear to be a couple of charter school bills that were not there before with some of the same sponsors.  I'll have to read them and see what the differences are.) 

• Let them know you will support the Supreme Court in any action the Court may take in support of McCleary.

• Let them know you are a registered voter.  

In other news, hey, look at what Rep. Chad Magendanz, a charter cheerleader, has now put forth - HB 2902.

Therefore, the legislature intends to authorize a permanent tax credit for businesses that donate money to a charter school fund to ensure the citizens of Washington have the charter school option they voted for in 2012. 

Because you see that just going after the funds in the Opportunity Fund (in his HB 6194) apparently will NOT be enough in the long run.Seattle Schools Community Forum: Raise the Volume in Olympia:

Gates Gives Common Core Owner, CCSSO, $15.4 Million Just to Keep ‘Em in Business | deutsch29

Gates Gives Common Core Owner, CCSSO, $15.4 Million Just to Keep ‘Em in Business | deutsch29:

Gates Gives Common Core Owner, CCSSO, $15.4 Million Just to Keep ‘Em in Business

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)  is one of two owners of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). In fact, former CCSSO CEO Gene Wilhoit approached Gates in the summer of 2008 to ask Gates to fund CCSS.

Despite the reality that CCSS has not taken American education by the standardizing storm that its schemers had hoped, Gates continues to fund CCSS as a pet project.

Furthermore, in January 2016, Gates has decided to do something he had not yet done:

Pay CCSSO handsomely for “general operating support”:

Council of Chief State School Officers

---

Date: January 2016
Purpose: to provide for general operating support
Amount: $15,408,198
Term: 30
Topic: College-Ready
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Washington, District of Columbia
Grantee Website: http://www.ccsso.org

Gates’ paying the rent to the tune of $15.4 million (likely over 30 months) for CCSSO equals a decidedly obvious purchase of that organization– and the state Gates Gives Common Core Owner, CCSSO, $15.4 Million Just to Keep ‘Em in Business | deutsch29:

Putting California first in driving education reform | EdSource

Putting California first in driving education reform | EdSource:

Putting California first in driving education reform

In his State of the State speech last month, Gov. Jerry Brown laid down a marker on the decades-old but profoundly important question that is still dividing key constituencies in the education reform movement in California and nationally: Just how much say should Washington have over California’s education policies in return for the federal education funds the state receives?

To Brown, the answer is clear. California, not Washington, should be the driver of reforms dictating how schools will be held accountable for how well, or badly, their students do.

Referring to the state’s Local Control Funding Formula, which he championed, Brown said he is “proud of how California has led the country in the way it is returning control to local school districts.”

“For the last two decades, there has been a national movement to micromanage teachers from afar, through increasingly minute and prescriptive state and federal regulations,” he said. “California successfully fought that movement and has now changed its overly intrusive, test-heavy state control to a true system of local accountability.”

The issue is still on the table because of the recent federal law signed by President Barack Obama, the Every Student Succeeds Act, which will go into effect in the 2017-18 school year. It replaces the now widely discredited No Child Left Behind law signed by President George W. Bush in 2002, but  there is no assurance that the reforms in place in California will be any more successful in reading their goals than the No Child Left Behind

Just a week before Brown’s speech, Sue Burr, one of his closest advisors on education, pointed out at the State Board of Education meeting in Sacramento that the state will spend $71 billion of its own money on schools, and only about $7 billion will come from the federal government. “As Carl Sagan used to say,” Burr said, “that’s ‘b’ for billion.”

Her argument is that while California should adhere to the federal law, the state should not be turning itself inside out to adapt its reforms to fit the federal ones. Instead, she said, the locus of change should be here in California. “We are responsible for our children in California,” said Burr, a Brown appointee to the state board. “We have to look at what they (the federal government) have offered us, and how do we make it conform with what we are trying to do as well.”

“The state has to be the leader in proportion to our contribution (in school funding) and our responsibility (under the state constitution),” Burr said.

But the issue is far from settled, and is a central point of contention as the U.S. Department of Education draws up regulations to implement the new federal law. Late last month, 37 advocacy and civil rights organizations, including the NAACP and MALDEF, made the case that the law – the successor to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act – is in essence a civil rights law, and will require “robust and thorough” federal regulation “to close opportunity and achievement gaps.”

The U.S. Department of Education, the groups asserted in a letter to the department, “has the weighty responsibility of developing regulations that are comprehensive enough and sufficiently detailed to ensure that state and local implementation is consistent with the intent of this law and the longstanding federal role in protecting the civil rights of all Americans.”

This includes requiring states to identify the bottom 5 percent of lowest-performing schools and intervene when necessary. The groups also called for “meaningful enforcement” by the federal government of provisions in the law to ensure that minority students have equal access to quality teachers. They also asked for “thorough oversight” of reporting of per-pupil expenditures, school discipline, school climate and access to courses students need to be Putting California first in driving education reform | EdSource:

ALERT – Lobbyists for the "Education Reformers" spend $1.9 million more in Connecticut. - Wait What?

ALERT – Lobbyists for the "Education Reformers" spend $1.9 million more in Connecticut. - Wait What?:

ALERT – Lobbyists for the “Education Reformers” spend $1.9 million more in Connecticut.

While 2015 was a bad year for many Connecticut taxpayers and for those that rely on vital state services, it was a very, very good year for Connecticut’s charter school industry.

Making deep and significant cuts to a broad range of critical services, including funding for public education, Democratic Governor Dannel Malloy and the Democrats in the Connecticut General Assembly actually handed even more public money over to the privately owned, but publicly funded charter schools.

While leaving Connecticut’s real public schools without sufficient funds, Malloy and Democratic legislators approved a deal to divert more than $100 million dollars this year to the companies that operate Connecticut’s charter schools.

Why would Malloy and Connecticut’s elected officials turn their backs on their own students, parents, teachers and public schools?

Maybe it had something to do with the record breaking amount of money that the “education reformers” and the charter school industry spent lobbying the Governor and the legislature.

Connecticut’s Democratic legislative leaders initially said they would not agree to giving Connecticut’s charter schools even more money, Malloy demanded that it was, “his way or else.” Rather than doing the right thing and standing their ground against the bully, Democratic legislators even gave Malloy the additional money he wanted to open two new ALERT – Lobbyists for the "Education Reformers" spend $1.9 million more in Connecticut. - Wait What?:

Procurement in Child Nutrition Programs - Nutrition (CA Dept of Education)

Procurement in Child Nutrition Programs - Nutrition (CA Dept of Education):

Procurement in Child Nutrition Programs

Federal and state information for the procurement of food service related goods and services across all federally funded child nutrition programs and the USDA Foods Program.

Introduction

This Web page provides procurement information for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) child nutrition programs (CNP) administered by the California Department of Education (CDE), including the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), Child and Adult Care Food Program (CACFP), Summer Food Service Program (SFSP), and the Food Distribution Program (FDP). Procurement requirements apply to all agencies that participate in CNPs. The CDE is committed to providing ongoing guidance to support CNP agencies with the proper procurement of goods and services, and encourages all CNP agencies to routinely review and use the resources on both this Web page and the Procurement in School Nutrition Programs Web page.

Background

The federal government, in an attempt to streamline the administration of federal grants, consolidated several federal regulatory sections into Title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR), Part 200, Subtitle A, Chapter II. Part 200 of 2 CFRreplaces existing rules in Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, parts 3015, 3016, 3019, and 3052, and cost principles addressed in 2 CFR, parts 215, 220, 225, and 230 (Office of Management and Budget Circulars A-133, A-21, A-87, and A-122, respectively). Sponsors can find the Super Circular on the U.S. Government Publishing Office Electronic Code of Federal Regulations Part 200 Web page. 

The procurement standards in the Super Circular became effective for the NSLP, CACFP, SFSP, and FDP on October 1, 2015.

Overview

Procurement is defined as a multistep process for obtaining goods and services at the lowest possible price. The steps in this process include planning, writing specifications, advertising the procurement, awarding a contract, and managing the contract. Procurement standards for the CNPs are located in 2 CFR, sections 200.317–200.326 and in Appendix II to Part 200. At a minimum, the regulations require CNP participating districts and agencies to:

• Conduct procurements in a manner that promotes full and open competition.
• Develop and maintain a written Standard (or Code) of Conduct that covers conflicts of interest, including organizational conflicts of interest, and governs the performance of employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contracts.
• Develop and maintain written procurement procedures designed to avoid the acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items.

Federal Regulations

• The Electronic Code of Federal Regulations 2 CFR Part 200 Web page  
  Includes general procurement regulations in 2 CFR, sections 200.317–200.326.
• USDA Policy Memorandum SP 30-2015, CACFP 16-2015, and SFSP 18-2015  
  This policy memo includes a link to a set of Frequently Asked Questions about the Super Circular.
• Title 7, Code of Federal Regulations, Subchapter A, parts 210–299  
  Federal regulations governing all CNPs.

Resources

The resources listed below provide guidance to CNP districts and agencies about procurement.

• Procurement in the 21st Century  
  From the Institute of Child Nutrition, this training course is a federally endorsed resource designed specifically for CNP agencies.

School Nutrition Programs

• Procuring Local Foods  
  This USDA Web page contains a guide, decision tree, policies, and resources to help ensure that agencies have the resources and knowledge necessary to incorporate local foods into their day-to-day operations.
• Procurement—School Nutrition Programs
  This CDE Web page contains regulations, requirements, and guidance governing all school food service procurements for the School Nutrition Programs (SNP).

Child and Adult Care Food Program

• Local Foods and Related Activities in the Child and Adult Care Food Program  
  This USDA Web page provides a variety of procurement resources.

Summer Food Service Program

• Administrative Guidance for Sponsors  
  This USDA FNS handbook for SFSP sponsors contains updated procurement information resulting from the Super Circular.

Cafeteria Fund

• Cafeteria Fund Guidance 
  This CDE Web page provides information about the cafeteria fund, a restricted account that SNP agencies may use only for the operation and improvement of the nonprofit school food service.

Contact Information

If you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact your Program Specialist. A list of Program Specialists is available in the Download Forms section of the Child Nutrition Information and Payment System.  You can also contact the following program support staff for assistance:

School Nutrition Programs: Stephani Head, Office Technician, by phone at 916-322-3005 or by e-mail atshead@cde.ca.gov.

School Food Service Contracts: Debbie Reeves, Office Technician, by phone at 916-319-0636 or by e-mail atdreeves@cde.ca.gov.

Child and Adult Care Food Program: Nancy Charpentier, Office Technician, by phone at 916-327-2991 or by e-mail atncharpentier@cde.ca.gov.

Summer Food Service Program: Larry Frakes, Office Technician, by phone at 916-322-8323 or by e-mail atlfrakes@cde.ca.gov.

You can also contact the Nutrition Services Division toll-free by phone at 800-952-5609.

Questions:   School Food Services Contracts Unit|SFSCONTRACTS@cde.ca.gov|800-952-5609

Last Reviewed: Wednesday, February 3, 2016

 Procurement in Child Nutrition Programs - Nutrition (CA Dept of Education):

Please Join Truth For America Thunderclap – Cloaking Inequity

Please Join Truth For America Thunderclap – Cloaking Inequity:

Please Join Truth For America Thunderclap

On February 5th, 6th, and 7th in Washington DC, TFA will have their 25 year anniversary alumni summit. Time to fact check and share the real truth about TFA.

The Network for Public Education Action and the Badass Teachers have planned a social media Thunderclap. Please sign up here.

Teach For America is facing headwind. Several states have cut back funding and TFA has revealed that they are short of their lofty recruiting goals that were set when they received $50 million from Arne Duncan a few years ago.

And now, many in the current generation of Teach For America alumni have become more and more vocal about the detriments of the organization.

The Washington Post recently published an excerpt from Teach For America Counter-Narratives: Alumni Speak Up and Speak Out, a new book that “tells the story of the controversial organization through the eyes of alumni who share their experiences and insight about working in TFA.”

In her chapter, Wendy Chovnick, a former corps member in Washington, D.C. schools, who also served as chief of staff to the executive director in the Phoenix TFA office relayed that “expecting corps members to be transformational leaders and close the achievement gap in their first year of teaching is foolish.”

Eric Ruiz Bybee, a former New York City TFA corps member, recently wrote Teach for America stumbles because its teachers aren’t prepared. He relayed that Teach For America must reform because and that “all it takes is the willingness to finally recognize that five weeks of preparation is not enough.”

Please join the Thunderclap. Please sign up here.

T. Jameson Brewer, a former Atlanta TFA corps member, and David Greene wrote in the piece School Districts Have the Power to Change TFA that “since it is unlikely that TFA will enact meaningful change in the face of criticism, we contend that the school districts that have the power to decide to partner with TFA or not begin to set those changes into motion.”

The Network for Public Education (NPE) and the Badass Teachers Association (BATS) have noticed and supports the TFA alumni who are Please Join Truth For America Thunderclap – Cloaking Inequity:

Thunderclap. Please sign up here.

For all of Cloaking Inequity’s posts on Teach For America click here.

Please Facebook Like, Tweet, etc below and/or reblog to share this discussion with others.

Want to know about Cloaking Inequity’s freshly pressed conversations about educational policy? Click the “Follow blog by email” button on the home page.

Twitter: @ProfessorJVH

Click here for Vitae.

(Thanks to Robin Hiller for writing the text that is the basis of this post)

Lack of quality schools will doom common enrollment in New Orleans: Andre Perry | NOLA.com

Lack of quality schools will doom common enrollment in New Orleans: Andre Perry | NOLA.com:
Lack of quality schools will doom common enrollment in New Orleans: Andre Perry

Students aren't randomly assigned to schools that all operate under the same set of rules and that means we can't think of schools as stock cars in the same race. But it's still how public school parents capitulate to Louisiana's system of assigning letter grades to schools. 

School letter grades draw significantly from school test scores — numbers that often say more about how much money parents make than the quality of instruction students receive. Other factors that make it difficult to see exactly what a grade says about a school include: Biased and opaque entrance examinations, a lack of transportation, excessive school discipline, disservices to special-needs students and inequitable funding. 

See the best, worst New Orleans public schools

Louisiana Department of Education releases 2015 school grades

There were no "A" graded schools out of the 54 in the Recovery School District, which has a higher percentage of low-income and special needs students than its Orleans Parish School Board counterparts. Orleans Parish schools, which has three selective admissions schools out of 19 total, has no "F" schools.

In New Orleans, school letter grades are also stand-ins for how much liberty we give wealthy people to curate their own school populations.

For instance, New Orleans' "A" rated Lusher Charter School includes an achievement test, attendance zone and a separate application for those who don't live within their catchment zone to enroll students. Really, what does an "A" really mean?

The Louisiana attorney general forced Lusher executives to reveal the name of the test (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test) they use as the basis for their weeding processes.

The equity problem is bigger than the 26 "A" or "B" schools including Lusher. Some advocates claim that schools' impending participation in the common enrollment system, known as OneApp, will eliminate discriminatory weed-out procedures by having a computer reduce human error and bias (non-participating Orleans Parish schools like Lusher will have to join OneApp when their charters are renewed). Like the grading system, OneApp is neither a solution for a mindset of exclusivity nor higher order equity problems in New Orleans.

The Louisiana Department of Education's equity efforts should focus on making sure there is a quality school in every neighborhood. A common-enrollment program without quality schools efficiently shuffles kids between mediocre ones. That's not equity. Too many advocates prioritize choice before quality in both sequence and effort — this is wrong headed. Common enrollment is needed, but it's another limited step in the goal of providing quality choices in every neighborhood. 

Let's be real. Lusher is not doing everything it can do to prove its "A" status and provide access to students who need great schools. However, there are those who seek to make Lusher and other schools that do not currently participate in Lack of quality schools will doom common enrollment in New Orleans: Andre Perry | NOLA.com: