Carnegie Mellon project revives failed inBloom dream to store and analyze student data - The Hechinger Report

Carnegie Mellon project revives failed inBloom dream to store and analyze student data - The Hechinger Report:

Carnegie Mellon project revives failed inBloom dream to store and analyze student data

Privacy controversy to be dodged by not storing student names, addresses or social security numbers

LearnSphere, a new $5 million federally-funded project at Carnegie Mellon University, aims to become “the biggest open repository of education data” in the world, according to the project leader, Ken Koedinger.

If you think that sounds ambitious and a lot like inBloom, the Gates Foundation-funded non-profit that shut its doors in 2014 after student privacy fears escalated, you’re right.

“There certainly are some similarities,” said Koedinger, a professor of human computer interaction and psychology at Carnegie Mellon University.

An internationally renowned leader in the field of education technology, Koedinger’s known for developing the mathematical models that drive “cognitive tutors,” which tailor instruction to individual students. He’s also a co-founder of Carnegie Learning, an educational software business that was spun off from Carnegie Mellon in 1998, and whose software is currently used by 400,000 students.

Koedinger launched LearnSphere earlier this year with the hope of making it easier and faster for researchers to analyze big datasets — mostly student keyboard clicks —  in order to test educational theories and boost learning outcomes from elementary school to college. Just as inBloom had hoped software makers and researchers would use its vast database to improve education technology, Koedinger also wants to create a forum for sharing and analyzing data on how students learn. But, he says, there are important differences between LearnSphere and inBloom.

For one, he says he’s not going to allow any personal information from school records in LearnSphere.

“In some ways, it’s a deep philosophical difference,” Koedinger said. “We are not looking that much at collecting demographic data and certainly not any kind of record information. Those are the things that tend to be particularly sensitive.”

No student names, no addresses, no zip codes, no social security numbers, he says. No race, family income or special education designations. “The student identifier column, even if yours is already anonymized, we re-anonymize it automatically,” he added.

There may be demographic information on a school — for example, the percentage of student who qualify for free or reduced-price lunches. But Koedinger says that even the school name is anonymized in most cases.

Unlike inBloom, which wanted public school districts to use its Carnegie Mellon project revives failed inBloom dream to store and analyze student data - The Hechinger Report:

Jersey Jazzman: State Standards, Mapping the NAEP, & Student Performance: Who's the "Liar"? Part I

Jersey Jazzman: State Standards, Mapping the NAEP, & Student Performance: Who's the "Liar"? Part I:

State Standards, Mapping the NAEP, & Student Performance: Who's the "Liar"? Part I 

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is sick and tired of all those states that "lie" to their students:

“The idea that the Common Core standards are nationally-imposed is a conspiracy theory in search of a conspiracy. The Common Core academic standards were both developed and adopted by the states, and they have widespread bipartisan support. GOP leaders like Jeb Bush and governors Mitch Daniels, Chris Christie, and Bill Haslam have supported the Common Core standards because they realize states must stop dummying down academic standards and lying about the performance of children and schools. In fact, South Carolina lowered the bar for proficiency in English and mathematics faster than any state in the country from 2005 to 2009, according to research by the National Center for Education Statistics.

“That’s not good for children, parents, or teachers. I hope South Carolina lawmakers will heed the voices of teachers who supported South Carolina’s decision to stop lowering academic standards and set a higher bar for success. And I hope lawmakers will continue to support the state’s decision to raise standards, with the goal of making every child college- and career-ready in today’s knowledge economy.” [emphasis mine]

Angry Arne's construction here is something I've heard echoed over and over again throughout Reformyland: we must set higher standards for our children if they are ever going to succeed in the real world of 21st century global competition knowledge-based competitive blah blah blah...

But is it true? Does setting higher standards lead to better performance?

Let's find out.

Every few years, the good folks at the National Center for Education Statistics put out a cool piece of research that attempts to shed light on how states judge their student to be - See more at: http://jerseyjazzman.blogspot.com/2015/07/state-standards-mapping-naep-student.html#sthash.90fF4CTi.dpuf

The Toughest Job In Education? Maybe Not : NPR Ed : NPR

The Toughest Job In Education? Maybe Not : NPR Ed : NPR:

The Toughest Job In Education? Maybe Not

Rosie The Assistant Principal?

LA Johnson/NPR

It's been a theory of mine that the Assistant Principal has the toughest job in education.

I got that idea a long time ago, when I was a student teacher at a middle school.

It seemed, the assistant principal's job goes something like this:

She's On duty well before the school day starts. With a walkie-talkie on her belt, making sure the buses arrive on time and that the drop-off lane is running smoothly. Then, once the bell rings, she sits in a tiny office, mostly dealing with discipline: playground scuffles, lunchroom infractions and the occasional serious problem: a knife in the backpack. Bullying. Drugs. A mixture of traffic cop and county judge: calling the parents here, a three-day suspension there, letting others off with a stern warning.

At 3:30 p.m., it's back outside for the afternoon rush. Once the parking lot clears out, off to the JV soccer game, coordinating and keeping the peace. Then into the night with a meeting of the PTA or the regional basketball tournament.

That's my theory, anyway. But I may have it all wrong.

"I'd say that's the best job," says Doug Anthony. He's the associate superintendent for talent management with the Prince George's County, Md., schools, and a former assistant principal himself.

"There's beauty in the assistant principal's position that you don't have as principal."

Sure, he says, there's the daily grunt work of running any school. But good schools and good school leaders find ways of sharing and spreading that work. And focusing on what really matters.

"The assistant principal has an opportunity to learn and grow in context," Anthony explains. "And get a certain level of coverage and freedom from the principal."

As he pointed out, "when the superintendent needs to speak to someone they usually don't' call for the assistant principal."

These differing views are important, since research over and over again shows The Toughest Job In Education? Maybe Not : NPR Ed : NPR:

Is The Senate Attempting To Change The Constitution with ECAA? » Missouri Education Watchdog

Is The Senate Attempting To Change The Constitution with ECAA? » Missouri Education Watchdog:

Is The Senate Attempting To Change The Constitution with ECAA?

As a plaintiff in a lawsuit that challenged the constitutionality of the testing consortia, I pay close attention to law, rule and policy that has to do with student testing. In the latest draft of the Senate’s Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA) there is a section that relates to testing and to the basis of our law suit which claimed that Congress, who has the constitutionally granted right under Article 1, Section 3 Clause 10  to approve interstate consortia, did not grant such approval for the formation of SBAC or the development of their assessment system.  Therefore, no state had the right to enter into such a consortium.

The ECAA, on page 228, appears to place guards around the previous abuses of the USDoED designed to push states into testing consortia. Under GEPA and NCLB they were simply forbidden to create a nationalized test for English or math. This makes it a little clearer that they are to stay out of such a process entirely.

‘‘(d) PROHIBITION.—No funds provided under this section to the Secretary shall be used to mandate, direct, control, incentivize, or make financial awards conditioned upon a State (or a consortium of States) developing any assessment common to a number of States, including testing activities prohibited under section 9529.

That is all well and good, although the USDoED didn’t bother to pay attention to the previous prohibitions and the few tsk tsk letters from the House and Senate were impotent to do anything about the Department’s transgressions.

What is worrisome is language that appears a few pages  later (p. 242) that reads:

S 1177, Sect 1205 b (1)

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may provide
19  a State educational agency, or a consortium of State
20  educational agencies, in accordance with paragraph
21  (3), with the authority to establish an innovative as-
22  sessment system.”

 According to this language, Congress could grant approval for an interstate testing consortia to develop an assessment, but the consortia would then have to wait for approval from the Secretary to develop that test. In other words, the will of Congress is now subject to the approval of a bureaucrat. This appears to be a change Is The Senate Attempting To Change The Constitution with ECAA? » Missouri Education Watchdog:

Why Don’t Schools Give Teachers Enough Time to Use the Restroom? - The Atlantic

Why Don’t Schools Give Teachers Enough Time to Use the Restroom? - The Atlantic:

Using the Restroom: A Privilege—If You’re a Teacher

Educators seldom have enough time to do their business. What’s that doing to the state of learning?

It’s common knowledge that teachers today are stressed, that they feel underappreciated and disrespected, and disillusioned. It’s no wonder they’re ditching the classroom at such high rates—to the point where states from Indiana to Arizona to Kansas are dealing with teacher shortages. Meanwhile, the number of American students who go into teaching is steadily dropping.

A recent survey conducted jointly by the American Federation of Teachers and Badass Teachers Association asked educators about the quality of their worklife, and it got some pretty harrowing feedback. Just 15 percent of the 30,000 respondents, for example, strongly agreed that they’re enthusiastic about the profession. Compare that to the roughly 90 percent percent who strongly agreed that they were enthusiastic about it when they started their career, and it’s clear that something has changed about schools that’s pushing them away. Roughly three in four respondents said they “often” feel stressed by their jobs.

One in two teachers reported having inadequate bathroom breaks.

The survey’s results were largely what one would expect. Among the “everyday stressors” in the workplace and classroom, the most-cited were time pressure and mandated curricula, respectively, for example.

But perhaps the biggest takeaway is somewhat buried in the summary report: Of the various everyday workplace stressors educators could check off, one of the most popular was “Lack of opportunity to use restroom.” In fact, a fourth of the respondents—which amounts, presumably, to 7,500 educators—cited the bathroom issue as an everyday stressor, putting it in third place only after time pressure and disciplinary issues. What’s more, roughly one in two teachers reported having inadequate bathroom breaks, while about the same ratio said they’re unable to use the breaks they do get.

The survey results should certainly be taken with some skepticism. As the second-largest education union in the country, the AFT clearly has a vested interest in advocating for better work conditions for educators, as does the Badass Teachers Association, a group that “was created to give voice to every teacher who refuses to be blamed for the failure of our society to erase poverty and inequality through education.” The language used in the summary report wasn’t particularly neutral, suggesting that at least some of the 80 questions included in the survey, which was circulated via email and social media, may have been worded in a way that influenced certain responses. (For instance: “How often do you find your work stressful?”) And certain teachers—particularly women and those who had been treated for anxiety at some point in their careers—were more prone to reporting inadequate bathroom time.

Statistical nuance aside, however, what’s clear from the survey results is that when teachers do list the issues that stress them most, the bathroom issue comes up high on the list. That means one of the most pervasive strains on teachers’ lives at work has little to do (at least directly) with the problems that get the most attention in policy circles and the media—stuff like standardized testing, the onslaught of classroom tech, and pay. Maybe the bathroom issue is too primal to make it into policy discussions. Maybe teachers’ physical discomfort seems tangential when students are underperforming, schools are underfunded, and disadvantaged children are falling further and further behind. Or maybe those teachers are too selfless or too modest or too inured to put the issue on the public’s radar. A campaign to “Reclaim the Promise of Brown v. Board”? Now that’s noble. A campaign for more time to tinkle? Not so much.

But that doesn’t mean the bathroom-break problem isn’t one decision makers and education reformers should be overlooking (which they currently seem to be doing, given the apparent lack of research and dialogue on the issue). Randi Weingarten, the president of the AFT, mentioned the problem only in passing inher keynote speech at the union’s annual TEACH conference last week: “We’ve fought for language in contracts that covers everything from class size to peer-Why Don’t Schools Give Teachers Enough Time to Use the Restroom? - The Atlantic:

Expect Education To Be Big Issue In 2016 Presidential Campaign, Survey Shows - Forbes

Expect Education To Be Big Issue In 2016 Presidential Campaign, Survey Shows - Forbes:

Expect Education To Be Big Issue In 2016 Presidential Campaign, Survey Shows

What’s the most important issue facing the country? As usual, it’s the economy and jobs, according to the latest annual survey from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. But education is the second issue on the minds of Americans who have been bombarded over the past year with news about Common Core curriculum standards, soaring student debt and standardized test opt-out movements in schools across the country.

The foundation’s recent Schooling in America Survey found that 17% of respondents said education was the most important issue facing the nation. That compares with 31% who put economy and jobs at the top of their list of concerns. Healthcare was the most important issue for 13% of those surveyed.

Education is certainly on the mind of the 21 candidates who have declared their intentions in the Democrat and Republican presidential primary races. Most of them have made a point of mentioning education issues in their launch speeches and on the stump. Democrat front-runner Hillary Clinton has already been endorsed by the American Federation of Teachers. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders advocates for free college tuition. Billionaire Donald Trump assailed former Florida Governor Jeb Bushfor his support of Common Core. “How the hell can you vote for this guy?” Trump asked the crowd at his launch last month.

Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, a socialist, called for making all public colleges and universities tuition-free at a town hall meeting at Valley High School in West Des Moines, Iowa, on July 24, 2015 (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The overwhelming majority of Americans–85%–send their children to public schools but many wish they could put them in private or parochial schools, according to the survey. The first choice for 41% of respondents was private school, though only 8% of Americans actually send their children to that type of  school. The survey showed that 36% would make a regular public school their first choice, 12% would pick a public charter school and 9% would homeschool. Currently about 5% of pupils go to a charter school and under 3% are homeschooled.

Some other findings:

• Six out of 10 respondents (60%) said K-12 education is on the “wrong track.”  Another 32% said “right direction.” Last year’s survey results were 58% to 33%.
• More than three-quarters of Americans (77%) believe the federal government if doing a poor or fair job on education. Only 20% rated the feds as good or excellent.
• 50% support Common Core and 40% oppose the state standards for curriculum in math and reading.
• 21% of Democrats are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports Common Core while 15% of Republicans are more likely to support the Common Core candidate.
• 60% of respondents favor tax-credit scholarship programs.
• 61% favor vouchers.
• 53% favor charter schools, down from 61% last year. Opposition to charters remains about the same at 27%.
• 62% favor the idea of an education savings account. 56% of respondents disagreed with the idea of means testing for ESAs.

Nevada is the most recent state to approve ESAs, making 453,000 students eligible for an account next year. The foundation says more than 352,000 students used vouchers, Expect Education To Be Big Issue In 2016 Presidential Campaign, Survey Shows - Forbes:

The scariest lesson of No Child Left Behind - Vox

The scariest lesson of No Child Left Behind - Vox:

The scariest lesson of No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind did two major things: It forced states to identify schools that were failing according to scores on standardized tests. Then it told states what to do to fix those schools.

Congress is now overhauling the law. The biggest likely change in any compromise is that the federal government will no longer tell states what they have to do if students in their schools aren't passing tests.

RelatedThe Senate's plan to replace No Child Left Behind, explained

That's partly for ideological reasons. The bill the Senate passed last week to get rid of No Child Left Behind represents the views of Republicans who want to diminish the federal role in education. But it's also an acknowledgment of a big lesson of 13 years of No Child Left Behind: Even if we can tell when schools are failing their students, it's often not clear how to fix them.

How No Child Left Behind tried to fix failing schools

The ultimate goal of No Child Left Behind was that every student would be able to read and do math by mid-2014. The law required schools to test students every year from third through eighth grades in English and math. Schools had to make "adequate yearly progress" toward the 2014 goal.

If schools with a population of at least 35 percent low-income students failed to make progress for two years in a row, consequences started to kick in:

1. After two years of not making progress, schools and districts had to make it easier for those schools' students to transfer to better schools.
2. If another year went by without improvement, schools had to offer free tutoring as well as the transfer options.
3. After four years, districts had to take "corrective action." They could choose from a menu of options, including replacing teachers and staff, reorganizing the school, implementing a new curriculum, appointing an outside expert, or extending the school day or year. (Some of these consequences are more severe than others, and districts could choose which ones to implement; firing staff is more dramatic than hiring a consultant.)
4. After five years of failing to make progress, the district had to make a plan to restructure the school, by turning it into a charter school, getting a new principal and replacing most or all of the staff, or having the state take over its management.
5. After six years, the school would be restructured.

The consequences didn't only apply if the entire school was falling behind. They also applied if a subgroup of students — students with disabilities, students from low-income The scariest lesson of No Child Left Behind - Vox:

Malloy signs charter school "transparency" bill - News - West Hartford News

Malloy signs charter school transparency bill - News - West Hartford News:

Malloy signs charter school transparency bill

HARTFORD >> Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed a bill Tuesday that requires charter schools and their management organizations to provide more information to the state about their finances.

The so-called “charter transparency” bill will require the state education commissioner to monitor and audit one charter school each year. It also requires each charter governing council to adopt anti-nepotism and conflict of interest policies and requires all employees who have contact with students to undergo a background check.

Those provisions of the bill are related to an investigation into the now-defunct charter management organization that ran Jumoke Academy in Hartford. The investigation found rampant nepotism and lacking background checks.

The new law, which was approved the last night of the regular legislative session, also requires charter schools to provide the state with an audited statement of revenues from public and private sources.

The law also changes how new charter schools are to be approved going forward, removing some of that authority from the state Department of Education and placing it in the hands of the legislature.

Under the measure, rather than the state Department of Education granting charters, the department will be empowered to grant applicants an “initial certificate,” but the charter will not be granted until the legislature approves its funding in a budget bill and the governor signs the bill.

“The number of charters that will happen in the state will now be clearly governed and limited by the amount of funding that the state of Connecticut and this General Assembly deems appropriate for said purposes,” state Rep. Andrew Fleischmann, D-West Hartford, said during the House debate.

Malloy had insisted on including $4.6 million in the state budget for two new charter schools, in Stamford and Bridgeport. Opponents of the new charter schools insisted on making sure the Malloy signs charter school transparency bill - News - West Hartford News:

Campbell Brown has a new education-focused site: Is it news or advocacy? - The Washington Post

Campbell Brown has a new education-focused site: Is it news or advocacy? - The Washington Post:

Campbell Brown has a new education-focused site: Is it news or advocacy?

Is it news, or is it advocacy? In the case of the Seventy Four, a new news site focused on education, the answer appears to be yes.

The site, co-founded and edited by former CNN and NBC anchor Campbell Brown, bills itself as “a nonprofit, nonpartisan online newsroom aimed at driving a much-needed conversation about reforming America’s education system.” The name refers to the 74 million children in the United States under age 18.

Brown, who oversees the Seventy Four’s 14-person newsroom in New York, says that the site will focus on K-12 education, federal education policy and the 2016 presidential election. She promised that it will feature accountability and investigative reporting, particularly about how public education funds are spent.

“Obviously, we’re going to challenge the education status quo and education establishment,” she said in an interview, “but we’re also going to highlight what’s working. This is not going to be a one-size-fits-all site.”

It will, she insists, take a “nonpartisan” approach to contentious issues roiling education, including teacher tenure, the expansion of charter schools and the use of taxpayer funds to support vouchers for private education.

Of course, it depends on what your definition of “nonpartisan” is.

[From 2014: Campbell Brown goes after teacher tenure in transition from journalist to advocate]

The Seventy Four’s first articles Monday suggest that it favors an agenda that is advocated primarily by business interests and conservative politicians, and that is strongly opposed by public school teachers and their unions. President Obama has supported some of the business and conservatives’ ideas, too, putting him at odds with teachers.

Its lead article Monday focused on the “notable wave of backlash” against the Washington-based American Federation of Teachers (AFT) endorsement on Saturday of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential candidacy.

Another article offered an assessment of Republican candidate Scott Walker, who clashed with public sector unions, including teachers, during his first term as Wisconsin governor. The story noted: “Equally noteworthy for education insiders, though, has been Walker’s moves to expand the use of vouchers across Wisconsin, cut K-12 education funding and overhaul tenure regulations for professors in the state’s higher education system.”

Brown — who has advocated on behalf of charter schools and is opposed to tenure for teachers — says she doesn’t consider education restructuring “to be a partisan issue. I don’t like the word ‘partisan,’ because people think it means Democrat versus Republican, and that’s not us. I agree we have a point of view; it’s a ­nonpartisan point of view. It’s a clear point of view, and that is that the public education system, in its current form, is broken, and there’s an urgency to fix it.”

Or as she wrote on her site Monday, casting aside the down-the-middle-approach of her earlier career in journalism: “I have learned that not every story has two sides. And I will not allow for false equivalency when a child’s future is being compromised, regardless of the vitriol it provokes.”

As it happens, Brown raised the funds for the Seventy Four from some of the biggest and wealthiest advocates of the restructuring that the Seventy Four appears to be espousing. The funders include the Dick and Betsy DeVos Family Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and Bloomberg Philanthropies, all of which have opposed teachers unions and supported Campbell Brown has a new education-focused site: Is it news or advocacy? - The Washington Post:

The Washington Teacher: DC Corporate Profiteers Expose the Dark Side of Charter School Industry

The Washington Teacher: DC Corporate Profiteers Expose the Dark Side of Charter School Industry:

DC Corporate Profiteers Expose the Dark Side of Charter School Industry

Written by Candi Peterson, WTU General Vice President

Recently, an education colleague asked me how do we make charter schools better? I really had no answer to his question in light of some of our recent local charter school scandals. Some of the lessons learned nationally from charter school mismanagement reveal that it is a business opportunity for some to make a quick buck at taxpayers and students’ expense.

Nobody embodies one of the most glaring problems of mismanagement of charter schools better than former Xerox Corporate executive Ken Amos in the District. He was exposed for siphoning off taxpayer money into the hands of for-profit management companies owned and controlled by the non-profit charter school sponsors all for their own personal gain.

Amos owned one of the largest charter school networks in DC. Amos is a DC Native who is highly regarded by many as a long time advocate for parents and children. He founded Dorothy I. Height Community Academy Public Charter School, known as CAPCS in 1998. DC law requires that charters schools operate as non-profit corporations.

Dorothy I. Height Community Academy Public Charter Schools served more than 1,600 students at four campuses, Armstrong, Burdick, Keene and Nicholson, including an online school.

In June 2014, Amos was charged by then DC Attorney General Irvin Nathan of funneling $13 million dollars in charter school funds for over a decade to a for-profit management company he owned.

The lawsuit alleged that Amos forced the charter school to pay his management company more than $13 million in what was known as “management fees” since 2004. According to Nathan in the lawsuit, "the diverted funds were used to enrich the company and Amos, to the detriment of the school."

Stories like Amos are all too common. I remember being surprised when J.C. Hayworth, a popular Channel 9 news anchor here in DC became embroiled in the Options Charter school scandal in 2013. This scandal led to Hayworth being removed from her post as Channel 9 anchor after a long-time stellar career of forty years.

The lawsuit alleged that three former managers, the Options school’s board chairwoman, Hayworth, and a senior official at the D.C. Public Charter School Board allegedly concocted an elaborate contracting scam that led to improper payments of more than $3 million to for profit companies

Days after the Washington Post submitted a Freedom of Information (FOIA) request seeking information about contracts between the school and two for profit companies founded by the schools senior managers; Exceptional Education Management Corp. (EEMC) and Exceptional Educational Services (EES), the DC charter school board launched an investigation.

The sad thing about these stories, both schools ultimately closed their doors to its students, totaling 2,500 students. Regulations governing charters differ among states. In the District of Columbia, for example, a separate school board authorizes charters and monitors them.

Options closed at the end of school year 2015 after being placed under receivership and parents were given the choice to attend another charter school; Kingsman Academy. In February 2015, the DC Charter School Board unanimously revoked CAPCS charter and the school officially closed at the end of school year 14-15. The school’s campuses were transferred to other entities including DC Public Schools.

Amos and his management company settled his lawsuit by entering into an agreement to repay $3 million dollars, a far cry from the $13 million dollars diverted from the school.

Charter school closings due to financial mismanagement underscore the need for more transparency, oversight and accountability. The Washington Teacher: DC Corporate Profiteers Expose the Dark Side of Charter School Industry:

United Opt Out Offers an Intimate Portrait of Activism - Living in Dialogue

United Opt Out Offers an Intimate Portrait of Activism - Living in Dialogue:

United Opt Out Offers an Intimate Portrait of Activism

The administrators of United Opt Out have published An Activist Handbook for the Education Revolution: United Opt Out’s Test of Courage. It should of high interest to advocates for real change in our schools.

One of the benefits of the 2011 Save Our Schools march in Washington, DC, was the way new organizations emerged in the months and years that followed. Many of the activists now fighting for our children’s future met for the first time that hot July afternoon on the grass near the White House. United Opt Out (UOO) was one of the groups that emerged in the months that followed, with a sharp focus on equipping parents and educators with tools and information to opt out of high stakes tests, to starve the testing machinery of the raw material it needs to operate.

In their book, “An Activist Handbook for the Education Revolution,” the seven leaders of UOO make it clear that their vision extends far beyond the act of opting out of tests. They are trying to spark a social movement. The introduction makes this clear:

We share our story for a reason. Stories create action. The UOO story may be a catalyst for other small pockets of resistance out there who are right now asking, Is it possible? Can our small group do this? Can we make a difference? Yes. You can. Read our story and see how six individuals (now seven) with no money, in different locations, from different backgrounds, each working a day job, managed to make something happen.

The book opens with a review of the corporate reform project by Morna McDermott, who closes this chapter with a reminder:

Reformers aren’t afraid that schools are failing. They’re afraid that schools will succeed. Why else do they close programs that work? Why else rob children of the joy of 

United Opt Out Offers an Intimate Portrait of Activism - Living in Dialogue:

Newark trying to force teachers to talk parents out of special education programs | Bob Braun's Ledger

Newark trying to force teachers to talk parents out of special education programs | Bob Braun's Ledger:

Newark trying to force teachers to talk parents out of special education programs

Turnamian: So wrong about so many things

Newark school administrators now working for newly appointed state superintendent Christopher Cerf are trying to force the city’s special education teachers and specialists to persuade the parents of the neediest of the city’s children to buy into a special “pathway” that could rob the students of much needed services.

At meetings a few weeks ago, teachers were given literal scripts to read to parents over the phone or in person in an effort to talk the mothers and fathers into abandoning self-contained, special needs classrooms for their children in favor of so-called “all-inclusive” classes that mix special needs students with the regular population.

The script, obtained by this site, reads as if the teachers were employed in selling new appliances to the parents rather than engaging in what could be a life-altering decision to change their children’s educational program. One script opens:

“We are calling to share exciting news about special education programs for the 2015-2016 school year,” it reads. “Newark Public School (cq) has created special education pathways for students with disabilities to increase opportunities to be educated in the general education program.”

It concludes with the blatant half-truth: “Research has shown that students educated in the general education classroom show more growth than their self-contained peers.”

The truth is that, indeed, some special education students how more growth in general education programs, while some do not. A comprehensive study  conducted by Princeton University reached this conclusion :

“The research does not support full-time inclusion for all students with Newark trying to force teachers to talk parents out of special education programs | Bob Braun's Ledger:

Brevard County School Board: $4 Million “improperly” paid for “undelivered” delivered software? Investigation needed… | Reclaim Reform

Brevard County School Board: $4 Million “improperly” paid for “undelivered” delivered software? Investigation needed… | Reclaim Reform:

Brevard County School Board: $4 Million “improperly” paid for “undelivered” delivered software? Investigation needed…

Watch Brevard County School Board members Andy Ziegler and Karen Henderson engage in double-talk about paying $4 million of “improper” payment for undelivered “delivered” software. Ziegler wants to know the definition of “delivered” and then declares it a matter of “perspective.”

Has anyone called Florida’s Attorney General about this?

Here are details and source quotes from a superb summary by Darcey Addo.

Next we heard from two attorneys from Widerman Malek. They were hired to review the CrossPointe contract, the amendments, and the payments.

A summary of their findings include:

• Millions of dollars of payments were “improper,”
• Information should have been brought to the School Board by staff when the “contract started going sideways,” and
• Terms of the contract were not defined before the contract was executed. 

They indicated: “When we receive invoices from Crosspointe/EDR, there should have been a procedure whereby staff ensured that software had 

Brevard County School Board: $4 Million “improperly” paid for “undelivered” delivered software? Investigation needed… | Reclaim Reform: