An educator challenges the Gates Foundation - The Washington Post

An educator challenges the Gates Foundation - The Washington Post:

An educator challenges the Gates Foundation

Anybody paying attention to school reform in recent years knows the power that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has wielded with its ability to play a leading role in driving the reform agenda by distributing mountains of cash to every sector of the education world. Veteran educator Anthony Cody has been questioning the role of the foundation on a blog,Living in Dialogue, that he wrote for some time on Education Week, and now as an independent Web site. He even engaged in a discussion with the foundation about its role in school reform. Now Cody has written a booktitled, “The Educator and the Oligarch: A Teacher Challenges Bill Gates,” in which he explores the foundation’s influence on education issues and whether that has been good or bad for the public school system.

Cody taught in high-poverty schools in Oakland, Calif., for 24 years, 18 of them as a middle school science teacher. He is the treasurer and a founding member of the nonprofit Network for Public Education.

Here’s a Q&A I did with Cody (over e-mail) about his new book:

Valerie Strauss: The title of your new book is intriguing, “The Educator and the Oligarch: A Teacher Challenges the Gates Foundation.”  What is the challenge?

Anthony Cody: In my book, I share a series of challenges that I posed to the Gates Foundation, and to Bill Gates himself. The real challenge we face is that which the Gates Foundation states it has taken on — how to make our society, and our education system, more equitable. However, when I look at the approach they have taken, I see some basic problems. Their approach has been to pursue standardization and the metrics of test scores in order to put market forces in the driver’s seat in education. This has had very bad effects on students, who are not at all standard, and on teachers, as well. I challenge them with the understanding I gained in my 24 years working in Oakland, where I came to understand the sort of collaborative environment we need to foster growth among teachers.

One of the problems with the Gates Foundation is that they have had an almost unlimited source of funding over the past decade. And they are conducting a large-scale experiment with the children of the nation. Nobody voted for them to do this. They use the power of their money to pay for research, to pay organizations to support their agenda, and this undermines democratic decision-making, especially in communities that, due to poverty, lack effective political power.

I have no great wealth, no real access to political power. I am a retired science teacher with a blog. I saw the effects their agenda had on the An educator challenges the Gates Foundation - The Washington Post:

On Amazon: The Educator And The Oligarch: A Teacher Challenges The Gates Foundation Paperback 

From the Common Core to test-based teacher evaluation systems cropping up around the country, to the rapid expansion of semi-private charter schools, the Gates Foundation has had a huge, largely invisible influence on public education in 21st century America.

Can a teacher challenge the wealthiest man in the world? Anthony Cody, who spent 24 years working in the high poverty schools of Oakland, California, has done so here. Education reform is the top domestic priority for the Gates Foundation, and this philanthropic organization has poured billions of dollars into reshaping American schools. This money has paid for research, advocacy, and a whole non-profit industry aligned with the Gates agenda. According to Cody, their chosen path of data-driven reform, centered on high stakes tests, educational technology and market-based competition between schools, threatens great harm to public education.

The Gates agenda has largely become the guiding policy for the Obama administration’s Department of Education. Gates-sponsored projects like the Common Core have support of major corporations, the Chamber of Commerce, and Republican leaders like Jeb Bush as well. In this book, that agenda is subjected to a detailed critique.

In part one, Cody describes what he calls “the assault on public education” waged by Gates and his foundation. In part two, we find Cody in direct conversation with representatives of the Gates Foundation, describing in detail the flaws in their approach, and offering constructive alternatives. Part three explores the dystopian future Gatesian reforms are bringing into our schools. In the closing section, Cody turns the tables on Gates, holding him and his foundation accountable for the impact they have had on our children and schools. In doing so, he raises disturbing questions about the growing role corporate philanthropies such as the Gates Foundation are playing in public policy, and the dangers we face when market forces are made central to our educational system.

On Facebook: The Educator and the Oligarch http://on.fb.me/1qI4rMw

The Inconvenient “Lost Standards” of NYS: Why Deformers Prefer Common Core for Evaluating Teachers | Critical Classrooms, Critical Kids

The Inconvenient “Lost Standards” of NYS: Why Deformers Prefer Common Core for Evaluating Teachers | Critical Classrooms, Critical Kids:

The Inconvenient “Lost Standards” of NYS: Why Deformers Prefer Common Core for Evaluating Teachers

 Among the nauseating ed tech solicitations sent to my New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) email account over the holiday was this message from New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and family:

We send you our sincere gratitude for your service to 
the people of the City of New York, 
and our very best wishes to you and your family for 
a New Year full of love, peace and happiness. 

Bill, Chirlane, Chiara and Dante

Love, peace and happiness.  I sometimes feel these emotions at school, but they are fleeting and occur only behind “closed doors,” in the presence of 25 six and seven-years-olds.  I’m certainly not feeling any love or “sincere gratitude” from the NYCDOE administration, including the district in which I teach. But thank you, Bill, for the gesture.  If ever you want to consult with working teachers and administrators who will tell you what our schools REALLY need in order to thrive, please reach out. Unfortunately, our prescription for education reform does not go along with the state and federal governments’ agendas, which, as it’s becoming increasingly evident, center on using teachers as scapegoats for the educational ills in our country.

I begin this new year with mixed emotions.  I’m excited to resume the creative, inspiring work I do with my energetic first graders – we are a family – but I’m also weighed down with new feelings of self-doubt, indignation and increasing despair. Recent observations of my teaching practice, which are not holistic, have felt punitive. Charlotte Danielson’sFramework for Teaching – a rubric that addresses the so-called instructional shifts of the Common Core - is used as a checklist for these brief and infrequent snapshots of the work being done in my classroom.  During this time, if administrators do not see evidence of what they are looking for – such as an assessment tied to an art project they are observing me teach – then I am at risk for a developing or ineffective rating for that component of the domain.

Additionally, New York’s use of valued-added modeling (VAM) to rate teachers, a tool widely considered to be junk science, is further demoralizing. Last year, I was rated “developing” on the local and state measures of New York’s fledgling teacher evaluation system; I still don’t know what standardized tests these ratings were based on since my English-language learners (ELLs) made progress on the 2014 NYS English as a Second Language Achievement Test (NYSESLAT). These Tweets from January 3, 2015 show that draconian teacher evaluation plans are not unique to New York.  They make me want to cry.

On the first day of 2015, Carol Burris, principal of Long Island’s South Side High School, reported in The Washington Post’s Answer Sheet on the latest developments of New York’s teacher evaluation system. New York Board of Regents chancellor, Merryl Tisch,The Inconvenient “Lost Standards” of NYS: Why Deformers Prefer Common Core for Evaluating Teachers | Critical Classrooms, Critical Kids:

A Call for Social Media Solidarity: “This Is Our House” | the becoming radical

A Call for Social Media Solidarity: “This Is Our House” | the becoming radical:

A CALL FOR SOCIAL MEDIA SOLIDARITY: “THIS IS OUR HOUSE”

Let me start with an image.

Whether you have witnessed this in person or on TV, picture a college football stadium during a special event game when the fans organize a “white out” (or other appropriate color). The effect is impressive with the stadium almost entirely one color, a statement by the fans that “this is our house.”

Now, let me make a case about creating that same sort of solidarity among educators and public education advocates through social media.

Historically and significantly during the last three decades, U.S. public education policy and public discourse have been dominated by politicians, political appointees, billionaire hobbyists, pundits, and self-appointed entrepreneurs—most of whom having no or little experience or expertise in the field of education or education scholarship.

In fact, the “white out” in the media is inversely proportional to the expertise in the field:

Across MSNBC, CNN, And Fox, Only 9 Percent Of Guests In Education Segments Were Educators. On segments in which there was a substantial discussion of domestic education policy between January 1, 2014, and October 31, 2014, there were 185 guests total on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox, only 16 of whom were educators, or 9 percent. Media Matters

Next, allow me to chase what may appear to be a brief tangent.

While teaching high school English in rural SC for 18 years, I always enjoyed my U.S. literature unit on Arthur Miller’sThe Crucible. One of the lines from the play was particularly enjoyable—when Tituba exclaims, “No, no, sir, I don’t truck with no Devil!”

Having grown up in the 1960s and 1970s, my mind always goes to this [1]:

Art and property of Robert Crumb.

But students often found the phrasing odd, despite my affinity for the metaphor and power of Tituba’s language.

To this day, I am apt to adopt Tituba’s stance when expressing my allegiances, and that brings me back to the point of this call for social media solidarity among educators and public education advocates.

Over about two years of blogging at my own site and engaging regularly on Twitter and other social media platforms, I have gradually adopted a stance that I do not truck with those who are disproportionately dominating the field of and public discourse about education.

Yes, I have done my share of calling out, discrediting, and arguing with, but except on rare occasions, I am done with A Call for Social Media Solidarity: “This Is Our House” | the becoming radical:

Regulations.gov - Proposed Rule Document Feds Takeover Teacher Training

Regulations.gov - Proposed Rule Document:

Regulations.gov - Proposed Rule Document:

http://susanschneiderblog.com/

Deadline in 4 Weeks: A Letter to Educators (Part II)

¶ Tagged Assessments, CCSSI, Common Core Standards, Education, Evaluations, High-Stakes Testing, Higher Education, IHE, teacher evaluations, teacher preparation programs, teachers, Teaching, Testing, VAM ¶ Leave a comment

Last week, I published a piece calling educators to action about a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) working its way through the US Department of Education: Deadline in 5 Weeks: A Letter to Educators. The post received a personal record-breaking 8,635 hits last week – and for that I thank you for sharing! However, out of all those people, only 126 even looked at theregulations.gov site to possibly post a comment – that’s only 1%.

We can do better.

Now, the number of comments on the NPRM have gone up from 71 to 272. Out of 272 comments, 5 are in favor of the proposed changes. That’s almost 3%. The rest, a full 97%, are AGAINST the NPRM. That’s good, but we need so many more than that. We need thousands of comments, not hundreds, to even make a dent.

I urge you to post a comment, and soon.

But if you cannot, and I am sure that with so many of you back in session this week your time is extremely limited, I am planning to write up a comment that will also take the form of a petition so that others can sign on in agreement against the proposed rule changes.

Please post a comment to the US Department of Education HERE; share the information with as many as possible through facebook, newsletters, newspapers, etc (you all have my permission to use last week’s post however you see fit, but please give credit), and pass the word along to as many as you can – and in as many states as you can – about my upcoming comment. We only have 4 weeks to do this.. so let’s do it!

December 29, 2014

Deadline in 5 weeks: A Letter to Educators

¶ Tagged American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Arne Duncan, ARRA, Assessments, CCSS, CCSSI,College, Common Core State Standards Initiative, High-Stakes Testing, Higher Education, IHE, Institutes of Higher Education, Legislation, Race to the Top, RTTT, teacher preparation programs, teachers, Teaching,Testing, U.S. Department of Education, Value-added model, VAM ¶ 25 Comments

Dear Educators,

In just five weeks time, a deadline concerning teacher preparation programs – on a national scale – will pass… will you have educated yourself on the issue and made your opinion known? Recently,the ED “announced” new guidelines that many were not happy with; I put quotes aroundannounced because it was actually announced years before in the Federal Register, but many educators missed it… years later, just days before the new guidelines are effective, many teachers and parents are left wondering how they could have missed it, if there is there anything that can be done in these final days, and how can they make their opposition known.

Sadly, the boat may have sailed for those rule changes. However, there is a new boat on the horizon that you shouldn’t miss…

Don’t let the implementation dates in 2017-2019 fool you, this is a normal implementation timeline – and you don’t want to be left scratching your head in a couple years wondering where the new legislation came from. If you have an opinion, let it be known now – while there is still time to make alterations.. or scrap the rule changes all together.

I read through most of the 200-page proposal. It gave me a headache. To save you that, I have outlined the changes below – this outline is obviously not exhaustive, but it highlights the main issues others have had after reading such a long-winded draft. And there is opposition – mostly opposition – almost complete opposition. Of the 71 public comments available so far, only one – ONE – was positive.

To give you some warning, this is what some people are saying about this proposed legislation:
“[It] is at best unworkable.”
“[It is] likely to produce dire unintended consequences for public schools”
“This proposal uses flawed tools and will do great damage”
“the proposed new regulations … would be an unmitigated disaster.”
“These regulations are both dangerous and irresponsible.”
“Some of this is benign, some of it is deceptive, and some of it is rank foolishness.”
“I find the proposal … horrendous.”

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) re: Teacher Preparation Issues…
To paraphrase the summary for this rule change, Duncan proposes:
(1) that annual State report cards provide more meaningful data on the performance of each teacher preparation program in the State, and
(2) to amend the regulations governing the TEACH Grant Program to consider teacher preparation program quality when determining a program’s eligibility to participate in the TEACH Grant Program and to update, clarify, and improve the current regulations

The reason behind these changes is that the Federal Government feels that “[current] State and IHE reporting requirements have not produced information that is sufficiently helpful to programs, the public, or the Secretary in improving low-performing teacher preparation.” As such, “Rather than focusing on outcome measures of program quality, the title II reporting system currently relies on States to establish their own indicators of program effectiveness”.

The ED states that the goal of this proposed legislation would provide “access to more meaningful indicators of teacher preparation program performance.” By establishing these changes, the ED would be “Creating a feedback loop between school districts and higher education [that] will not only facilitate program improvement, but will also provide information that can be used, for example, by potential employers to guide their hiring decisions and by prospective teachers to guide their application decisions.”

It all kind of sounds like unicorns and rainbows, right? I mean, more access to how a teacher prep program is doing sounds like an excellent idea to students that are deciding where to go to grad school, to employers hiring new graduates, and to the public as a whole for providing a means to make sure their public institutions of higher education (IHEs) are doing a good job preparing teachers to educate their children.

But how does the Federal Government measure program performance? How do they define these “meaningful indicators”? Therein lies the ruse. First, the Federal Government, and not the States, will be supplying these definitions. Second, to provide consistency, these definitions are aligned with Departmental initiatives such as Race to the Top. And third, and possibly the biggest thorn of all, these indicators would link test scores of K-12 students to the institutions that trained the teacher – and allow the use VAM to do it.

The four meaningful indicators:

1. Student learning outcomes: would be defined as data on the aggregate learning outcomes of students taught by new teachers trained by each teacher preparation program in the State.
   This would be measured by student growth, which would be newly defined as the change
   in student achievement in tested grades and subjects, as well as the change in student
   achievement in non-tested grades and subjects for an individual student between two or
   more points in time. The draft also states that this measurement could be a simple
   comparison of achievement between two points in time or a more complex “value-added
   model”.
   Student achievement would be determined using
   (a) a student’s score on the State’s assessments, and,
   (b) as appropriate, other measures of student learning described in the definition of
   “student achievement in non-tested grades and subjects” that are rigorous and
   comparable across schools and consistent with State requirements.
   For non-tested grades and subjects, achievement would be determined by measures of
   student learning and performance, such as students’ results on pre-tests and end-of-
   course-tests, objective performance-based assessments, student learning objectives,
   student performance on English language proficiency assessments, and other measures
   of student achievement, that are rigorous and comparable across schools and consistent
   with State requirements.
2. Employment outcomes: defined to include the teacher placement rate, the teacher placement rate calculated for high-need schools, the teacher retention rate, and the teacher retention rate calculated for high-need schools.
   In addition, a State could, at its discretion, assess traditional and alternative route teacher
   preparation programs differently based on whether there are differences in the programs
   that affect employment outcomes, provided that varied assessments result in equivalent
   levels of accountability and reporting.
3. Survey outcomes: is defined as qualitative and quantitative data collected through survey instruments, including, but not limited to, a teacher survey and an employer survey, designed to capture perceptions of whether new teachers who are employed as teachers in their first year of teaching in the State where the teacher preparation program is located have the skills needed to succeed in the classroom.
4. Accreditation or State Approval To Provide Teacher Candidates With Content and Pedagogical Knowledge and Quality Clinical Preparation and as Having Rigorous Teacher Candidate Entry and Exit Qualifications: this would be a determination of whether:
   (a) the teacher preparation program is accredited by a specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary for accreditation of professional teacher education programs or, alternatively,
   (b) that the program:
   1. Produces teacher candidates with content and pedagogical knowledge;
   2. Produces teacher candidates with quality clinical preparation; and
   3. Produces teacher candidates who have met rigorous teacher candidate entry and exitqualifications.

Now, if you didn’t quite catch the main drift of this proposal from the language above, don’t worry… they hid all that (and more) in 200 pages of legal gibberish, so even I didn’t catch on at first. But after a few hours of ripping it apart piece by piece, a couple themes became apparent to me: through this proposed legislation, the ED is crafting, and possibly controlling, teacher prep programs to their liking by explicitly defining the methods States must use to assess programs and then specifying the consequences for the “State-determined” label attached to each program (exceptional, effective, at risk, or low-performing); it is also embedding Race to the Top language into law – making it much harder to revise – even though RTTT is not law in itself, but an optional contest laid out in the ARRA of 2009 (which is Federal law); and finally, the ED is solidifying standardized testing as high-stakes for yet another group: IHEs – rating teacher prep programs almost entirely by the grades of a teacher’s students on standardized tests.

I will come out and say that I believe teacher prep programs need to be part of the move to realign our education system, and even that some of the ideas in this proposal aren’t bad at all.. but, as a whole, this is absolutely not the way to do it. The proposal should be majorly revised, or possibly scrapped, if the ED cannot dissect the draft appropriately. If you agree – or, even better, if your group or organization agrees – you can comment on the proposed regulations HERE. Don’t be sorry you never did…

And I will leave you with my favorite comment excerpt yet:
“So here’s my modest proposal: Arne Duncan has been secretary of education for six years, and in that role he is ultimately responsible for the educational progress of all U.S. students. According to the most recent PISA results, U.S. students’ scores haven’t improved on Duncan’s watch. Therefore, by Duncan’s own logic, I propose that we deprive his alma mater — Harvard University — of some federal funding for its current students because Duncan’s failure to improve U.S. PISA scores demonstrates that Harvard (which educated Duncan) is responsible for U.S. students’ flat scores on the PISA exam. If Duncan and Harvard don’t like the logic of my modest proposal, then Duncan should withdraw his proposed scheme for rating teacher preparation programs based on the educational outcomes of their alumni’s students, as my logic simply tracks his own.”
— Sarah Blaine, parentingthecore blog

Susan Schneider

On The Education Enterprise

Menu

Skip to content

• Home
• About

http://susanschneiderblog.com/

Off the Beaten Gadfly – the Best Education Blog Pieces You Never Read in 2014 | gadflyonthewallblog

Off the Beaten Gadfly – the Best Education Blog Pieces You Never Read in 2014 | gadflyonthewallblog:

Off the Beaten Gadfly – the Best Education Blog Pieces You Never Read in 2014

December 31, 2014 stevenmsinger Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Education "Reform", Labor, satire, Standardized Testing, Teacher Tenure, Uncategorized, Unionsbadass teachers association, charter schools, common core, Corporate Education Reform, education, Kafka, standardized testing, Union Contract

So you’re interested in education.

You’ve read your Diane Ravich. You peruse Peter Greene’s blog with your morning coffee. You have a Badass Teachers Association jersey on under your button down work shirt and tie.

But you need something more.

Well, friend, have I got a treat for you!

Please to enjoy Gadflyonthewallblog! This is the site where all the cool intellectuals go – the folks who want an edge to fight corporate school reform.

You probably already read Gadfly’s Top 10 Posts of 2014. That wouldn’t get by a discerning customer like you. But have you seen this – Gadfly Deep Tracks?

That’s right! These are the five posts selected by the author that maybe didn’t get the page views of the popular articles but are really worth your time.

Take a look. There’s some really good stuff here!

So for your continued edification, elucidation and just plain old enjoyment, I present to you the Top 5 Gadfly Rarities:

---

5) RAIDERS OF YOUR LOST PENSION

Views: 50  
Publication: July 22

Description: Have you ever wished you could be a fly on the wall and listen to a secret meeting of corporate education reformers to hear what they REALLY think? Well, here’s your chance. I came across a conservative think tank paper that outlines ways to manipulate school boards to reduce teachers pension benefits. It’s all right here: Teach for America, Disaster Capitalism, Reducing School Budgets, etc. This is a smoking gun.

Fun Facts: My first post. It’s where I got the name for my blog. I thought this was really important, but not many people saw it. Here’s my attempt to change that.

---

4) FORGET CORPORATIONS… UNIONS REALLY ARE PEOPLE

Views: 152  
Publication: Nov. 1

Description: Why do some people hate labor unions so much? Maybe it’s because they don’t understand them. In this article I outline the philosophy behind unions and debunk many common criticisms.

Fun Facts: Strong union folks loved this. Randi Weingarten was a fan. But it never gained the audience I feel it deserves. This is important. At best, it’s a way to Off the Beaten Gadfly – the Best Education Blog Pieces You Never Read in 2014 | gadflyonthewallblog:

Repercussions of Losing Part-Time Resource Classes for Students with Mild/Moderate Disabilities:

Repercussions of Losing Part-Time Resource Classes for Students with Mild/Moderate Disabilities

JANUARY 5, 2015 BY NANCY BAILEY LEAVE A COMMENT

It is interesting that so many titles and posts I write involving school reform have to do with loss. The resource class for students with learning disabilities and sometimes behavioral problems is one more loss when it comes to students and their public schools.

Resource classes were designed to help students in elementary, middle and high school by providing more individualized assistance in areas like reading, English, language arts and math. They also provided classes in other subjects, sometimes, especially, at the high school level. Such classes offered an important bridge for students with mild/moderate disabilities to help them get on the right track.

Resource class teachers focused on the latest research ideas, learning strategies, accommodations, strengthening weak areas and helping students to adapt to lessons they found difficult. Teachers with special education backgrounds and certification in learning disabilities were uniquely qualified to address areas like dyslexia, reading and math disabilities, gross and fine motor skills, writing, spelling, and hyperactivity. Students with serious reading disabilities often found the resource class a place of refuge.

The resource class also helped students pick up the skills they needed to successfully spend the rest of their school day in their mainstreamed regular classes. When done right, special education resource teachers collaborated with regular education teachers to make sure students did their best in the regular classes. Indeed, part of the objective of the resource class was to arm students with the necessary tools to succeed in regular classes.

Sadly, the resource class for students with learning disabilities is on its way out, if it isn’t already gone. I am always saddened when I hear parents complain that their child Repercussions of Losing Part-Time Resource Classes for Students with Mild/Moderate Disabilities: