A Teacher Testifies in Opposition to House Bill 2426, the Charter School Bill

Eric Muhs, a teacher in the Seattle Public School district, braved the ice and snow on Friday, January 20th, with several other brave souls to provide testimony regarding House Bill 2426, the charter school bill. To follow is what he stated:

Hello. My name is Eric Muhs. I teach physics & astronomy at Ballard High School in Seattle. I’ve been teaching for 25 years, and achieved National Board Certification 5 years ago. I work 70 hours a week, and was in the news last year for leading a group of students in placing an experiment aboard the Space Shuttle Endeavour. I teach with a great science department, all of whom work harder than I do.

First of all, my thanks to the committee for the most excellent series of snow days. I know the budget is tight, but if you can throw a few more our way this winter, my students and & I solemnly promise to use the time wisely.

But I have to say I am beyond disappointed to spend my day off testifying about charter legislation. Again. 3 times rejected by voters is, what, not enough? Folks, charter schools were cool 20 years ago. Research, most famously the Stanford Credo study, has not been kind to charter schools in the interim. This is a futuristic express train from the 1990’s that you’re trying to buy a ticket on.

I remind you that you haven’t actually funded public education fully. That’s not just me saying that, is it? You have not backed us, you have starved us. Now, you want to bring another mouth to this table, to share this too-small bowl of thin soup?

Charter school selling point: smaller class sizes, individual attention. Well, I’ve got 12% more students than a year ago. That’s not just me: we’ve seen our resources cut deeper each of the last 3 years.

I work in a building with a leaking roof. I’m scared to go in on Monday and see what the damage is. Plus, I’ve been off so long, I’ve forgotten my computer login.

My district, Seattle Public Schools, has over a half billion dollars worth of deferred maintenance. That you would consider diverting even a nickel toward charter schools, a nationwide enterprise where we have two decades of overall very middling, unimpressive, C- results, fills my little heart with dirty, filthy, wet, slushy slush.

You want to see us do better? Get us some real, bona-fide, State constitution-mandated resources.

Smaller classes, of course.

Better trained and experienced teachers, of course. With time for collaboration. With time for kids with special needs.

Graduation specialists, that establish relationships with struggling kids and see them through.

College, career, internship, & employment specialists, that help students transition to the world beyond high school.

Attendance specialists, that help get kids in school and keep them there.

Teaching specialists that run math tutorial centers outside of class time, and that keep school libraries open.

Trained Instructional assistants that can help students transition from their 80 native languages to English.

Full day kindergarten, and early childhood specialists.

Thank-you

Post Script:

Mr. Muhs will be part of a grade-in on Wednesday, February 1st, at the Westlake mall food court. You can check out what teachers do in their “spare time”.

Serious Substantive Flaws With Charter School Bill HB 2428

A Parents Across America-Tacoma member provided this information on House Bill 2426 regarding charter schools. After reading this, please contact your legislators today and let them know that charter schools in our state are not a good idea. The list of education committee members in both the Washington State House and Senate are  listed at the end of this post

To follow is the post:

We have all heard the arguments for and against charter schools. Whatever your feelings on this hot button issue, there are substantial deficiencies in this particular piece of charter school legislation. If you support charter schools generally, I hope that you will set these feelings aside and look critically at HB 2428. We cannot afford to enact this extremely problematic bill.

My criticisms of this legislation, outlined below, deal with particular, substantive issues within the legislation itself. I would like to discuss the bill itself without engaging in an abstract debate on the merits and disadvantages of charters.

HB 2428 is really two almost entirely separate bills: one that addresses the establishment of voluntary charter schools, and another that creates an involuntary “Transformation Zone District” for persistently low performing schools. Because the standards and rules for these two sections are very different, I will deal with them separately.

VOLUNTARY CHARTERS

Charter schools can be “authorized” under this bill by any one of three types of entities: 1) school districts 2) colleges and universities, or 3) a (to be created) charter school commission, appointed by the legislature. Although schools do have to show some evidence of community support for a charter, there is no requirement that a school district approve a charter within its boundaries.

A charter can be revoked by a school’s authorizer if it fails to meet the performance framework set out in this bill, however I do not see any provision for closure based on budgetary constraints or changing neighborhood demographics. Many of our urban school districts have made painful school closure decisions in the past few years. Those of us who have experienced this in our own districts know how damaging school closures can be to a community. Under this legislation, a school district (especially if not the authorizer) would no longer have the authority to consider a charter for financially-motivated closure. The effect: If a charter school moves in to a neighborhood with an existing public school and changing budgets and demographics cannot support two schools, the existing public school will be the one to close, regardless of performance factors.

Under 2428, charter schools would have a right of first refusal to purchase any unused school buildings a district is selling off. Because school buildings are sold due to low enrollment, a charter would actually be more likely to be established in a neighborhood that cannot support additional students. Although students would be permitted to attend a charter regardless of their geographical proximity, there is no provision for additional transportation for out of neighborhood students.

Closing a charter school for inadequate performance would also be no easy task. HB 2428 establishes a right to counsel and legal process for charter schools, including the right to call witnesses. School districts, public universities and state commissions all have very tight budgets with little room for such a process. We have all heard the assertion that school districts do not want to fire inadequate teachers because of union due process requirements, I cannot imagine that this process would not be considerably more cumbersome and expensive.

An additional concern: although the bill does require that charters be managed by not for profit organizations, they are explicitly granted the right to contract with any entity for goods and services. Perhaps I missed it, but I do not see any provision requiring that only not for profit organizations can provide educational services.

INVOLUNTARY CHARTERS (Transformation Zone District Schools)

HB 2428 would establish a state-wide district, the “Transformation Zone.” Each year, a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 schools would be identified for transformation, from the annual list of persistently lowest achieving schools. Currently, this list only consists of 57 schools, but schools currently receiving School Improvement Grant money will be eligible for it again as this funding ends. The legislation does not specify what happens after all or substantially all schools on the list have been identified for transformation.

“Transformed” schools are plucked out of their home districts and taken over by the state, under the management of a Learning Management Organization. (Essentially, a charter) As part of this process, all existing teacher contracts are non-renewed. School districts cannot appeal the decision to transform a school, except to attempt to prove that a school does not meet the basic criteria.

For an example of why this doesn’t make sense, consider the example of “Persistently Lowest Achieving School” Rowena Chess Elementary, in Pasco. At Rowena Chess, 97.3% of students are low-income, 68.2% are transitional bilingual, and 17.3% of students are from migrant families. In other words, were Rowena Chess to be transformed, its teachers would find themselves displaced due to the test scores of students who do not speak the language of the test and in many cases have not lived in the district (and possibly the country) for more than a few months. In their place, the state will establish a new school with new teachers who will face the same challenges with an ever-shifting population of kids. A teacher in this situation may do an excellent job making a difference for individual students in the time she has with them, but our accountability system is not designed to make that determination.

“Transformation Zone” schools can be returned to their home district after three continuous years of improvement. Take some time to look at the state report card for your local schools, and you will note that scores generally oscillate quite a bit from year to year, even in very high-achieving schools. In reality, a school is likely to take quite a bit longer than three years to show three continuous years of performance improvements, even if the general trend is positive.

If the general trend is negative, there is no provision for returning a school to its home district. An individual learning management organization may lose its contract, but another will take its place. In other words, if Transformation Zone schools do not turn out to be better than their traditional public school predecessors, there is nothing a local community can do about it.

Transformation Zone schools have to hold meetings with parent advisory groups, but there is no locally elected school board or other mechanism to give these meetings any teeth.

After 5 years, there will be a minimum of 50 schools in the transformation zone district, or the equivalent of one district the size of Tacoma. (The third largest in the state) Most schools will likely stay there for quite some time.

There are many things that I find alarming about this piece of legislation, but the above are the highlights. I hope you will take the time to read the bill yourself and come to your own decisions about it, independent of your general feelings about charter schools.

Jennifer Boutell

Member, PAA-Tacoma

Post Script:

Please contact your legislators today and let them know about the real issues with this bill. Time is of the essence:

On the house side, the committee on education contact information is:

santos.sharontomiko@leg.wa.gov;

kristine.lytton@leg.wa.gov;

fred.finn@leg.wa.gov;

andy.billig@leg.wa.gov;

sam.hunt@leg.wa.gov;

connie.ladenburg@leg.wa.gov;

maxwell.marcie@leg.wa.gov;

john.mccoy@leg.wa.gov;

probst.tim@leg.wa.gov

And for the Republicans, who do not publish their e-mail addresses, you can call Julia Kwon and leave a message,             360.786.7292

The Washington State Senate Committee on Early Learning and K-12 Education:

Chair

Rosemary.McAuliffe@leg.wa.gov;

Vice Chair

Christine.Rolfes@leg.wa.gov;

Committee Members

Steve.Litzow@leg.wa.gov;

Tracey.Eide@leg.wa.gov;

joe.fain@leg.wa.gov;

Nick.Harper@leg.wa.gov;

andy.hill@leg.wa.gov;

Steve.Hobbs@leg.wa.gov;

king.curtis@leg.wa.gov;

sharon.nelson@leg.wa.gov;

Rodney.Tom@leg.wa.gov

Dora

According to NAEP, Our Students Are Improving

One final thought regarding test scores and teacher evaluations before I move back to the  proposed charter school bill in our state.

From the Economic Policy Institute blog,  ‘Reformers’ playbook on failing schools fails a fact check, an excerpt:

Education “reformers” have a common playbook. First, assert without evidence that regular public schools are “failing” and that large numbers of regular (unionized) public school teachers are incompetent. Provide no documentation for this claim other than that the test score gap between minority and white children remains large. Then propose so-called reforms to address the unproven problem – charter schools to escape teacher unionization and the mechanistic use of student scores on low-quality and corrupted tests to identify teachers who should be fired.

The mantra has been endlessly repeated by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, and by “reform” leaders like former Washington and New York schools chancellors Michelle Rhee and Joel Klein. Bill Gates’ foundation gives generous grants to school systems and private education advocates who adopt the analysis. In Chicago, Mayor Rahm Emmanuel makes the argument, and in New York, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has frequently sung the same tune.

And now, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has joined in. On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday last week, the governor cast attacks on unionized teachers as a defense of minority students against the adult bureaucracy. “It’s about the children,” Mr. Cuomo said. Because of failing public schools, “the great equalizer that was supposed to be the public education system can now be the great discriminator.”

And now, New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has joined in. On Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday last week, the governor cast attacks on unionized teachers as a defense of minority students against the adult bureaucracy. “It’s about the children,” Mr. Cuomo said. Because of failing public schools, “the great equalizer that was supposed to be the public education system can now be the great discriminator.”

But this applause line about school failure is an “urban myth.” The governor, mayor and other policymakers have neglected to check facts they assume to be true. As a result, they may be obsessed with the wrong challenges, while exacerbating real, but overlooked problems.

Careful examination discloses that disadvantaged students have made spectacular progress in the last generation, in regular public schools, with ordinary teachers. Not only have regular public schools not been “the great discriminator” – they continue to make remarkable gains for minority children at a time when our increasingly unequal social and economic systems seem determined to abandon them.

We have only one accurate performance measure. The government administers periodic reading and math tests to samples of fourth, eighth and 12th graders. Called the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, pronounced “nape”), it is less subject to corruption than standardized tests now legally required of all schoolchildren.

NAEP samples are only large enough to produce reliable national and (for fourth and eighth graders) state estimates, but not for classrooms or schools. Thus, principals or teachers suffer no consequences for poor NAEP scores, giving them no incentive to steal time from instruction to drill on NAEP-type questions.

Not every selected student gets identical NAEP questions. Scores aggregate answers from different students’ booklets, covering different topics from the math and reading curriculums. In contrast, state and city standardized tests change little each year; teachers can predict which of many topics will likely appear, and focus instruction on those.

Here’s what NAEP shows: Average black fourth graders’ math performance in regular public schools has improved so much that it now exceeds average white performance as recently as 1992. The improvement has been greatest for the lowest achievers, those in the bottom 10 percent. Eighth graders show similar, though less dramatic trends. The black-white gap has narrowed little because whites have also improved.

These irrefutable facts characterize both the nation as a whole, and New York State specifically. In fact, New York State’s black children made enormous gains in the 1990′s, and much slower gains once the federal No Child Left Behind, and Mayor Bloomberg’s and Chancellor Klein’s test-based reforms kicked in. From 1992 to 2003, for example, black fourth graders’ math performance jumped 22 scale points (about two-thirds of a standard deviation). From 2003 to 2011, the gain was only 5 scale points.

To read the article in full, go to ‘Reformers’ playbook on failing schools fails a fact check.

Part 3: Washington State Bill Proposals HB 2427/SB 6203 and HB 2451: Teacher evaluations based on test scores: The Washington Education Association responds

It looks like my query went out far and wide. I have received responses from all over the country on teacher evaluations particularly as it pertains to the Washington State House and Senate bills regarding teacher evaluations based on test scores.

For information regarding these bills, please see Washington State Bill Proposals HB 2427/SB 6203 and HB 2451: Teacher evaluations based on test scores. Parents around the country respond with their own experiences and Part 2: Washington State Bill Proposals HB 2427/SB 6203 and HB 2451: Teacher evaluations based on test scores: The studies.

One of the responses that I received was from the Washington Education Association. They provided me with a link to the Washington’s Teacher/Principal Evaluation Pilot program, a PowerPoint of the program, and a short paper on the subject, A System of Evaluation. To follow is their response regarding teacher evaluations based on test scores.

Is Connecting State-wide Student Test Scores

with Teacher Evaluation an Educationally Sound Solution?

 Linking teacher evaluation with student achievement is a controversial idea in educational circles.  Part of the controversy arises when we explore if a teacher’s job security should be partially determined by how well their students learn?  Teachers recognize that their primary responsibility is to help students learn.  As a result, it’s not unrealistic to expect that a teacher should be able to demonstrate that students in their classroom have grown in both knowledge and skills.  Let’s be clear, teachers are not afraid of linking student achievement with part of the evaluation process, they will, however, become incensed if the achievement data is unreliable and not valid for the purposes of evaluation.

When most people think about this idea, they default to state-wide test scores for this purpose.  It’s not hard to understand why people tend to go in this direction when you have President Obama, Secretary of Education Arne Duncan,  and a multitude of other agencies making claim that this is the solution that will bring around improved teacher quality in our schools.  This wave of trendy conversation, fashionable opinion, and political posturing has taken hold across the nation.  Tethering state level assessment scores with teacher evaluation is now proposed by policy makers, administrators and other stakeholders on a daily basis.  It appears that the main reason for moving in this direction is not to develop an evaluation system that promotes improved instructional practice but rather a strategy to get rid of teachers.

We cannot deny that there exists a misinformed chorus somewhere chanting “identify the weak and throw them to the lions.”  But, we have to speak up and point out that this makes no more sense than setting the grading curve to ensure that the bottom 10% always fail. This doesn’t aid in teaching or learning; it merely builds a cannibalistic feeding frenzy for those perceived to always be near the bottom of the bell shaped curve.

The primary point of a good evaluation system is to develop human growth and capacity and motivate staff to improve the skills, knowledge and craft of good teaching and in turn, improved student learning.  Hiring and firing are only a very small part of the whole aim of evaluation in the realm of developing human capacity.  We are focusing 90% of our energy around 5% or less of the teaching staff.  Shouldn’t we develop an evaluation system that actually focuses on improving teacher quality?    Unfortunately, the initiative of connecting student test scores with teacher evaluation is being touted without reflective thought or a deep understanding of the inherent flaws.

We need to take a step back and ask ourselves if connecting state-wide assessment data with teacher evaluation in Washington State is an educationally sound solution.  We also need to ask if making this connection is even logistically possible given the current assessment system.

The answer to those two questions is a resounding no and here’s why:

Using state-wide test scores is not an educationally sound solution

• Reliable and Valid Data: The Washington State Institute of Public Policy (an independent research center) conducted a study of Washington’s state assessment system and concluded that the strand level data was so unreliable that it shouldn’t be used for even large scale building level program decisions.  If test data shouldn’t be used for program level decisions, it shouldn’t be used for individual teacher evaluation.
• Test Scores Show Patterns Over Time:  While 3-4 or more years of test scores might reliably show student growth or lost educational ground against a particular standard, a single year of scores – which often is suggested as the yardstick in teacher evaluations, is not a reliable measure of teacher effectiveness.
• Calibration for Growth:  In order for 3-4 years of test scores to be viewed, the assessment itself needs to be calibrated so educators can compare one year to the next.  Washington’s assessment is not calibrated for this purpose.  In other words, the assessment is not designed to show student growth from year to year.  Until our state assessment is appropriately calibrated, using state test scores for this purpose is an invalid and a reckless use of data marked by defiant disregard to what is educationally sound.
• Context Matters. Many factors influence student achievement and, therefore, affect student test scores. These include home support, school attendance, family income level, and parents’ level of education. The result is that teachers in wealthier communities are likely to “look” better because their students are likely to score higher on tests. But this is often more a measure of students’ home environments than of teachers’ instructional effectiveness.
• Multiple points of Data:  Test scores do not speak for themselves. The judgment must take a variety of factors into consideration. Richard Rothstein’s latest book “Teachers, Performance Pay, and Accountability” examines the myth that quantitative measures are widely used for performance evaluation in the private sector and he finds that they are not. When educators designed a rigorous evaluation system in Montgomery County, Maryland, they specifically avoided the test scores appearing on a teacher’s evaluation. The scores must not speak for themselves because there are too many factors that impact the data other than the teacher, and too much that the teacher does to produce outcomes that are not reflected in the data.
• Value Added Models:  Though value added systems are touted as a valid way to demonstrate student improvement, recent research has called into question whether these models can sufficiently generate causal estimates of teacher performance and accurate student growth.  Questions remain about how well they account for uneven student learning trajectories and the nonrandom assignment of students into classrooms. In practice, such measurements fluctuate too much from year to year, scores are neither precise nor accurate, they require testing in every grade, and they exceed the capacity of most districts to carry them out.

Using state-wide test scores is not a logistically possible solution

• Limited Tested Grades:  The state level assessment is given in grades 3-8 and 10.  How is it logistically possible to connect state assessment scores with educators who teach kindergarten, first grade, second grade, ninth grade, eleventh grade, and twelfth grade?  How can state-level assessment results be attached to teachers who have never administered the assessment?
• Limited Tested Subjects: The state assessment addresses selected subject areas and does not cover many areas in the school curriculum.  Reading, mathematics, science, and writing are the only subject areas assessed on the state-wide tests and even they are not consistently assessed in every grade.  For example, students in grade 3 are only tested in reading and math.  Science is only tested in 5^th, 8^th, and grade 10.  How do you assign test scores to educators who teach social studies, health, physical education, visual art, choir, band, orchestra, technology, career and technical education courses, etc?  What do you do with librarians, counselors, occupational therapists, physical therapists, certificated school nurses, etc?  Connecting state assessments to teacher evaluation is a disjointed, non systems approach to determine teacher effectiveness.
• Over 70% of Teaching Staff are Not Connected to State Assessments:  Combining the grades where the state assessments are not tested and the non-tested subject areas, over 70% of certificated teachers are not even connected with state-wide test scores making a comprehensive system using state test scores for teacher evaluations logistically impossible.

Possible ramifications

• Teaching to the Assessment – If student test scores on a single assessment becomes the basis for teacher evaluation then the test will become the major focus, crowding out broader learning to an even greater extent than it already has.
• The Campbell Effect:  Generally speaking, the Campbell effect states that when test scores become the goal of the teaching process, they lose their value as indicators of educational status and distorts the educational process in undesirable ways.   In other words, the pressure to have students score well on a single test for teacher evaluation becomes so intense that it leads to perverse and unscrupulous practices including:
  • Cheating on the test by both students and teachers
  • Data manipulation (think about the fuzzy math from the previous state assessment reports)
  • Distorts education by narrowing the curriculum
  • Distorts education by teaching to the test

The Campbell effect has been demonstrated in public and private sectors demoralizing the workforce charged with carrying out the assessments.

• Less Collaboration and More Competition:  If teachers are being evaluated based on state test scores, they are less likely to collaborate and help their colleagues.  More and more research is mounting that suggests that teacher collaboration is one of the best forms of professional development.  Why would we want an educational system that doesn’t promote collaboration?

 What are Some Possible Solutions?   

In designing a way to measure teacher effectiveness, it is important to keep a couple of things in mind. First, the goal of a new evaluation model is growth and improvement. Yes, good teacher evaluation systems should weed out the small number of teachers who shouldn’t be in the classroom but the main goal of evaluation is pointing out areas of strength and areas where teachers need improvement and then providing support so they can become more effective.  We all have things we can improve on and developing a system that promotes growth is an educationally sound solution to increasing teacher quality across the state.  It is supported by research and connected to good practice.

Second, a comprehensive teacher evaluation system includes multiple forms of data and information to determine teacher effectiveness.  Measures such as observations, artifacts, reflective practice, self-assessment goal setting, professional contributions, and the impact on student learning are some examples of those measures.   Multiple measures provide opportunities for triangulation of data and provide a much stronger holistic representation of teacher effectiveness.  Other considerations in a good teacher evaluation system may include:

• A strong evaluator training system and professional development component.  Certifying evaluators may be an option to strengthen the process.
  • A comprehensive beginning teacher support program
  • A comprehensive mentoring system
  • Mentor release time for collaboration with mentees
  • Ongoing professional development focused on improving instructional practice and student learning
  • Focused professional development and training on the analysis and use of student achievement data to improve instruction
  • Transparent access to data
  • Multiple opportunities for classroom observations by administrators
  • Opportunities for teachers to observe instructional practice in other classes
  • Peer collaborative observation protocols focused on growth, improvement, and teacher quality
  • Collaboration time with colleagues and principal focused on instructional practice and student achievement
  • Release time for employees to observe mentor(s) and other accomplished colleagues
  • Clear standards used in the evaluation criteria
  • Consideration of a differentiated evaluation rubric that measures growth of teaching practices against teaching standards
  • Additional administrator support to help implement a growth oriented evaluation system.

A Look Back at the League of Education Voters

I’ve been following issues in education since 2009 when my daughter entered the Seattle Public School system and therefore don’t have any previous history with the League of Education Voters (LEV) before that time. I can only tell you what I have observed in the last few years.

LEV is an education advocacy group. They do not have members and rely on funding from individuals to keep going. In 2007, they began to receive generous donations from the Gates Foundation. Bill Gates is a great proponent of charter schools, larger class sizes and putting kids in front of computers. He and the other venture philanthropists who have been pushing their notion of “education” on us are also no big supporters of the teacher’s union or any other union for that matter. Did his generous donations affect how LEV “advocates” these days? I’ll let you be the judge. Are they attempting to break the back of the teachers’ union over time as I stated recently on the PTA list serv? I’ll let you decide.

In 2007, LEV started to receive serious money from Gates, $835K “to support capacity building for education advocacy programs”. In October of 2009 LEV received $1.5M “to support the research, public engagement, policy development and coalition work in early learning, college ready and postsecondary”.

In June of 2010, the Gates Foundation gave $40,000 to the League of Education Voters “to support a series of education-related speakers in Seattle” and the same year received another $105K “to support raising awareness of educational attainment issues in King County”. In 2011 LEV received a total of $215K from the Gates Foundation. All of this information can be found at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website.

In the fall of  2010 the League of Education Voters offered up a who’s who of charter school franchise CEO’s  to speak as part of LEV’s imaginary “revolution”, “Voices from the Education Revolution Speakers Series“ featuring:

Richard Barth, CEO of the KIPP Foundation which does not hire union teachers, Steve Barr, Founder & Emeritus Chair of Green Dot charter Schools another charter franchise that does not hire union teachers and moderated by Don Shalvey, former CEO and founder of Aspire Charter Schools and Board member of the Greendot charter franchise neither of which hires union teachers.

Also arriving in town that year complements of LEV was Kevin Johnson, Sacramento mayor and backer of a charter school in his state.

As Sue stated in a post regarding that “Charterfest”:

 Here’s a revealing tidbit that LEV boasts in one of its blog posts about the forum:

“In 2007, Steve Barr sought to take over a failing high school in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). When the district said no, Steve took a page out of a Wall Street playbook and became the first charter school organization to conduct a hostile takeover.”

So there you have it, spelled out quite plainly, the ed reformers’ MO: apply predatory Wall Street techniques to our public schools. A hostile takeover is indeed what they appear to be trying to do to our entire public school system. Apparently the folks over at the League of Education Voters think this is a good thing.

Back to this loose use of “innovative”: What’s innovative about slapping kids into uniforms, and regimenting them? Why, that’s as old as British boarding school or the military.

In August of 2010, Sue and I posted The Fallacy of “Merit” and “Performance Pay” as Teacher Incentives — they don’t SERVE anyone well. In the post we stated:

In an article in the April 6 Seattle Times “Schools group urges contract changes”, the Alliance and LEV claim to have formed yet another group, “Our Schools Coalition”, and are trying to convince the media that it represents people like us and we all want “merit pay.”

None of us know what this is or how it came about. And it doesn’t represent any parents or public education supporters I know. It is clearly another faux grassroots (aka Astroturf) organization and an effort by billionaire education “reformers” to influence the upcoming teachers’ contract negotiations here in Seattle, and to weaken the teachers’ union.

As for the poll that the “Coalition”/Alliance/LEV/Gates/Broad paid for that allegedly claims parents and community want “merit pay,” by all accounts it started off as a highly questionable and biased “teacher quality” survey, which was withdrawn when genuine school community members protested, and reemerged as a very slanted push-poll taken of a curious cross section of community members (including some teachers via their private cell phone numbers).

 In a follow-up post we noted an announcement on the LEV website:

From the League of Education Voters website:

Give Me a “V”: Way down yonder in Tacoma way, folks aren’t waiting around for the legislature or policy makers or Superman to make change, the people are doing it for themselves. The new Vibrant Schools Tacoma went “live” last week to much fan fare. The coalition is rallying around the Tacoma teachers contract negotiations. The diverse group is focused on  academic achievement, supporting teachers and putting a community voice into the negotiations. Modeled in part after the Our Schools Coalition that worked for change to the Seattle teachers contract, Vibrant Schools represents a new way forward in community engagement.

The tactics used in Tacoma were from the same playbook that was used by LEV in creating Our Schools Coalition to push the contract negotiations but in Tacoma it backfired. The teachers went on strike.

In a follow up Seattle Education post in May, 2011, Strategies 360/DMA Marketing Caught Red Handed in Tacoma describing the LEV strategy that worked in Seattle but failed in Tacoma and with additional information on Our Schools Coalition, the bold typeface was our own:

Our Schools Coalition has not been active since September of 2010 after congratulating themselves on being a part of the bargaining process between the teacher’s union and the superintendent.

According to their website:

The coalition formed here strongly supports the following changes to the Seattle Public School teacher contract, to be renegotiated beginning April 2010 for agreement by the start of the 2010-2011 school year. We advocate that all reforms outlined below be fully implemented in time for the 2011-2012 school year.

Our Schools Coalition proposed changes to the teacher contract*: (This is when they used their push poll to justify their argument by putting polling numbers next to each of their reform items.)

To follow are excerpts from their website:

5. Student academic growth should be used as a significant factor in teacher evaluations. (…polling shows 66% of taxpayers, 59% of parents and 21% of teachers agree.) (By “student academic growth” they meant measuring a teacher’s performance based on test scores and specifically in Seattle, the MAP test.)

6. Teacher performance, as opposed to seniority, should be a significant factor in staffing decisions, including placement, transfers and layoffs. (Polling shows 83% of taxpayers, 79% of parents and 40% of teachers agree.)(Test scores, test scores and more test scores should determine the fate of a teacher in our school system.)

7. Currently, the process to remove ineffective teachers can take 18 months or longer. Instead, the lowest performing teachers should be removed in less than 12 months.(Polling shows 82% of taxpayers, 82% of parents and 63% of teachers agree.) (If specific guidelines are not followed, a company or a school district can be sued for unlawful discharge.)

8. There should be opportunities for increased compensation for teachers based on performance, additional responsibilities, subject-matter expertise in hard-to-staff areas, and placement in high-need schools. (Polling shows 88% of taxpayers, 90% of parents and 58% of teachers agree.) (This is basically merit pay based on test scores.)

9. The teaching profession in Seattle should be opened up to attract additional talent, including through programs such as Teach for America. (Polling shows 72% of taxpayers, 60% of parents and 51% of teachers agree.) (Ah yes, Teach for America, Inc.)

I would love to know what 72% of taxpayers and 60% of parents they are referring to when asked about Teach for America, Inc. because many people didn’t know until very recently who TFA, Inc. was and most people still don’t know.

These inaccurate numbers were used to convince the union leaders and teachers that the majority of citizens in Seattle were for the edicts of corporate reform.

In February, 2011 LEV brought into town Teach for America, Inc. founder Wendy Kopp.

Then there was the big push for TFA, Inc. by LEV. Many charter schools are populated with TFA, Inc. recruits. They are less expensive than unionized teachers and because they have less experience, they are not paid the going salary of a more seasoned professional. Here is what Seattle Citizen had to say about LEV on the Save Seattle Schools blog:

seattle citizen said…

It’s not the Seattle Foundation (SF), it’s SF and the League of Education Voters who want to bring TFA to Seattle. SF is working with/for LEV. Here’s all the info from the SF website on this:

” OVERVIEW: Teacher quality has a greater effect on student achievement than any other factor. Yet, as a nation and as a region, we have not found a way to ensure that our strongest teachers are working with the students who need them the most. Only 34 percent of low-income 6th graders in the Puget Sound region are achieving at grade level in math (compared to 70 percent of non-low-income students). Sixty-one percent of low-income 6th graders are reading at grade level, compared to 84 percent of their more affluent peers.

“Teach For America (TFA) is a national leader in the movement to end educational inequity by enlisting the country’s most promising future leaders in teaching, leading and advocating for schools that serve high numbers of low-income students. TFA recruits and trains top college graduates who commit to teaching in urban and rural public schools, and who ultimately become lifelong advocates of high-quality education for all students. Since 1990, TFA has grown to include more than 24,000 corps members (teachers) and alumni who have taught more than 3 million students across 35 regions nationwide.

“There are a number of donors and funders who are supporting this effort, including the following:: The Seattle Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, The Raikes Foundation, The Bezos Family Foundation, Intelius Inc.

“ACTIVITIES AND RESULTS: TFA plans to bring 150 Teach for America teachers to the Puget Sound over three years, beginning in Fall 2011. In order to do so, TFA must achieve three key milestones by August 1, 2010:

Secure partnerships (and commitments totaling $1 million over 3 years) with 3-5 school districts

Develop an agreement with a partner—most typically a local university—to certify TFA teachers

Secure $5.2 million in private sector funding

“RECENT GRANTS: In order to bring TFA to the Puget Sound region, TFA must secure $5.2 million in private funds. The Seattle Foundation will dedicate $250,000 to this effort, and is committed to raising an additional $250,000 from TSF donors and contributors (for a total of $500,000).

“GET INVOLVED: Make a contribution: Help us bring the important work of Teach for America to the Puget Sound region by making a contribution to this important initiative. Give online or call (206) 622-2294. Learn more: Become involved with the League of Education Voters and support their work to bring Teach For America to Puget Sound area schools. Contact Caroline Maillard, Education Element Lead at The Seattle Foundation, at (206) 622-2294 or c.maillard [at] seattlefoundation.org to learn more about Teach For America and other efforts to support high quality public schools and give children the skills they need to succeed in school and life.”

And then in another post that we wrote on Seattle Education:

Also just in time for the onslaught of corporate driven pressure on our state legislators in the coming session to allow charter schools in our state, Chris Eide, a former Teacher for America, Inc. recruit who worked in charter schools throughout his career before coming to Seattle where he taught within the Seattle Public School system for a year, decided recently to opt out of teaching  to focus on his new group, Teachers United. His new organization has predictably been featured on the League of Education Voters website. The first words out of his mouth are “seniority” and “last in, first out” which is the argument used to justify breaking up unions, specifically teachers’ unions.

Last year Sue and I posted this on our blog:

The Broad backed, Gates funded League of Education Voters is at it again with another one of their spam e-mails. So far they have backed both bills that propose to determine teacher layoff’s by student performance, basically test scores, and permanently fire teachers if there is a school closing, Senate Bill 5399 and House Bill 1609. They desperately want folks, under the guise that it’s all about the children and not their salaries, to call their representatives in support of Bill 5399.

And this year LEV was at it again with their “megabills” as Kelly Munn with LEV proclaimed them to be referring to the teacher evaluation bill and the charter school bill. Ms. Munn tooted her own horn on the LEV list serv providing the inside scoop on the upcoming bills by providing a summary of the charter school bill. See the post The League of Education Voters Charter School Proposal Annotated.

And now what are they up to? Pushing their megabills, one for charter schools and the other for teacher evaluations based on test scores.

This is WSSDA’s description of these teacher evaluation bills:

• HB 2427/SB 6203 would make student growth data a significant factor in the evaluation process and would allow for student input (for teachers) or building input (for principals) to be included. OSPI would be required to establish common components of the teacher evaluation systems for school districts to use in the 2013-14 school year. Beginning September 1, 2014, any employee who received an unsatisfactory under the old system or the lowest rating under the new system in two consecutive years would revert to provisional status. By this date, districts would be required to update policies and collective bargaining agreements to consider performance evaluations before other factors, such as seniority, when making reductions in force decisions due to enrollment decline or loss of revenue, or for recall decisions.

• HB 2451 does not address the entire evaluation process, but would change only school district policies and collective bargaining agreements to provide that contracts of classroom teachers who received comparatively lower evaluation ratings would be nonrenewed before contracts of classroom teachers who received comparatively higher evaluation ratings. The bill would apply to new contracts after the effective date of the bill and on collective bargaining agreements renewed or extended after the effective date.

LEV has created three bills that basically determine the fate of a teacher’s professional life on their student’s test scores.

So who is LEV listening to? Certainly not the people of the state of Washington who have voted three times against having charter schools in our state, they’re not paying LEV’s rent, and certainly not the rest of us when it comes to the devastating effects of high stakes testing.

I’ll let you decide.

Dora

Stop ACTA NOW

I have not been paying attention to ACTA until yesterday when my daughter brought it to my attention and helped me understand the seriousness of this issue. Yes, this blog is about education but it is also about my freedom to say what I believe to be the truth. It’s  a small example of truth to power and I am grateful that I am able to share my views and information freely with others.

We have watched how individuals, countries and now corporations have been able to take control over people’s lives, one incremental step at a time. It happens sometimes without people even noticing it until it’s too late. I don’t want to see that happen in terms of the freedom that we now enjoy and take full advantage of in the use of the internet.

First a little history on this subject. Japan and the United States held basically secret talks starting in 2006 to develop ACTA, then other countries were invited to join the discussion. According to Wikipedia:

ACTA first came to public attention in May 2008 after a discussion paper was uploaded to Wikileaks. After more leaks in 2009 and 2010 and denied requests for disclosure by groups such as Doctors without Borders, IP Justice, the Canadian Library Association, and the Consumers Union of Japan, the negotiating parties published an official version of the then current draft on 20 April 2010. In June 2010, a conference with “over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents” concluded “that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.” A group of 75+ law professors signed a letter to President Obama demanding that ACTA be halted and changed.

Opponents have argued that the treaty will restrict fundamental civil and digital rights, including freedom of expression and communication privacy.”The bulk of the WTO’s 153 members” have raised concerns that the treaty could distort trade and goes beyond the existing Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.Opponents also criticize ACTA’s removal of “legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers” in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions.According to an analysis by the Free Software Foundation, ACTA would require that existing ISPs no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media, and DRM-protected media would not be legally playable with free or open source software.

Nate Anderson with Ars Technica pointed out that ACTA encourages service providers to collect and provide information about suspected infringers by giving them “safe harbor from certain legal threats”. Similarly, it provides for criminalization of copyright infringement on a commercial scale,granting law enforcement the powers to perform criminal investigation, arrests and pursue criminal citations or prosecution of suspects who may have infringed on copyright on a commercial scale. It also allows criminal investigations and invasive searches to be performed against individuals for whom there is no probable cause, and in that regard weakens the presumption of innocence and allows what would in the past have been considered unlawful searches.

From 16–18 June 2010, a conference was held at the Washington College of Law, attended by “over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents”. Their conclusions were published on 23 June 2010 on the American University Washington College of Law website. They found “that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.” A group of 75+ law professors has signed a letter to President Obama demanding a host of changes to the agreement. The letter alleges that no meaningful transparency has been in evidence.

As you can see, there are some very serious issues involved that have not received adequate public attention.

Out of the conference that was held at the American University Washington College of Law came the following conclusions.

Text of Urgent ACTA Communique

International Experts Find that Pending Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement Threatens Public Interests

June 23, 2010

American University Washington College of Law

Washington, D.C.

This statement reflects the conclusions reached at a meeting of over 90 academics, practitioners and public interest organizations from six continents gathered at American University Washington College of Law, June 16-18, 2010. The meeting, convened by American University’s Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, was called to analyze the official text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), released for the first time in April, 2010. Negotiating parties released the text only after public criticism of the unusually closed process and widespread disquiet over the negotiations’ presumed substance. (See Wellington Declaration, EU Resolution on Transparency and State of Play of the ACTA Negotiations).

We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.

• Negotiators claim ACTA will not interfere with citizens’ fundamental rights and liberties; it will.
• They claim ACTA is consistent with the WTO Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS); it is not.
• They claim ACTA will not increase border searches or interfere with cross-border transit of legitimate generic medicines; it will.
• And they claim that ACTA does not require “graduated response” disconnections of people from the internet; however, the agreement strongly encourages such policies.

ACTA is the predictably deficient product of a deeply flawed process. What started as a relatively simple proposal to coordinate customs enforcement has transformed into a sweeping and complex new international intellectual property and internet regulation with grave consequences for the global economy and governments’ ability to promote and protect the public interest.

Any agreement of this scope and consequence must be based on a broad and meaningful consultative process, in public, on the record and with open on-going access to proposed negotiating text and must reflect a full range of public interest concerns. As detailed below, this text fails to meet these standards.

Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under further closed-door negotiation over a text we do not have access to, a fair reading of the April 2010 draft leads to our conclusion that ACTA is hostile to the public interest in at least seven critical areas of global public policy:fundamental rights and freedoms; internet governance; access to medicines; scope and nature of intellectual property law; international trade; international law and institutions; and democratic process.

The following specific comments are based on a review of the publicly released text which is highly bracketed and the conclusions are therefore tentative.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

ACTA would authorize or encourage private and government enforcement measures that would:

• curtail enjoyment of fundamental rights and liberties, including domestic and internationally protected human rights to health, privacy and the protection of personal data, free expression, education, cultural participation, and right to a fair legal process, including fair trial and presumptions of innocence.

THE INTERNET

ACTA would

• Encourage internet service providers to police the activities of internet users by holding internet providers responsible for the actions of subscribers, conditioning safe harbors on adopting policing policies, and by requiring parties to encourage cooperation between service providers and rights holders;
• Encourage this surveillance, and the potential for punitive disconnections by private actors, without adequate court oversight or due process;
• Globalize ‘anti-circumvention’ provisions which threaten innovation, competition, free (freedom-respecting) software, open access business models, interoperability, the enjoyment of user rights, and user choice;

SCOPE AND NATURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW

ACTA would distort fundamental balances between the rights and interests of proprietors and users, including by

• introducing highly specific rights and remedies for rights holders without detailing correlative exceptions, limitations, and procedural safeguards for users;
• shifting enforcement burdens to public authorities and private intermediaries in ways that are likely to be more sensitive to proprietary concerns;
• requiring formula-driven assessment of damages, potentially unrelated to any proven harm or gain;
• omitting strong disincentives to abuse of enforcement processes by right holders;
• including rigid injunction, damages and heightened civil and criminal enforcement  requirements that will restrict government flexibility, impede innovation and slow the development and diffusion of green technology;
• threaten the continuation or development of innovative public interest exceptions, such as common law approaches to permitting copies of works by “authorization.”

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

ACTA would raise barriers to the trade in knowledge imbedded goods, disproportionately harming developing countries dependent on imports and exports of essential goods. Specifically, ACTA will

• Extend ‘ex officio’ and in transit border search and seizures to a broad range of “suspected” intellectual property infringements, even including alleged patent infringements involving complex questions of law and fact that are impossible to judge by custom authorities.

DEMOCRATIC PROCESS

ACTA alters traditional and constitutionally mandated law making processes by:

• Exporting and locking in controversial and problematic enforcement practices, foreclosing future legislative improvements in response to changes in technology or policy;

• Requiring substantive changes to laws of many countries without legislative process;

The process of ACTA’s negotiation is fundamentally flawed. Specifically, the negotiations:

• Have not been conducted in public as are many multilateral negotiations;
• Have not been accompanied by evidence demonstrating the public policy problems sought to be addressed;
• Have proceeded under conditions that restrict public input to select stakeholders, held off-the-record and without access to the latest version of the rapidly changing text;
• Lack a balanced representation of stakeholders, especially from civil society.

This article was published in the Washington Post on January 27, 2012, European parliament’s ACTA monitor quits in protest. To follow is an excerpt. I have put in bold portions of the text:

The European Parliament’s independent monitor for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) resigned Friday in protest after 22 European Union member states signed the anti-piracy treaty Thursday.According to the BBC,Kader Arif said that he condemns “the whole process which led to the signature of this agreement: no consultation of the civil society, lack of transparency since the beginning of negotiations, repeated delays of the signature of the text without any explanation give, reject of Parliament’s recommendations as given in several resolutions of our assembly.”Protests in Poland and Ireland sprung up over the treaty as critics warned that the treaty could lead to online censorship by extending existing intellectual property laws to the Internet. Several drew parallels between ACTA and two U.S. bills being considered in Congress, the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect IP (Intellectual Property) Act. Rep. Darell Issa (R-Calif.) said in remarks at the World Economic Forum that he believes ACTA is “more dangerous” than SOPA.

Scholars have said that the treaty has implications for the United States, as well. The Obama administration has already agreed to ACTA through an executive agreement, an act that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) challenged in October. Wyden said that ACTA is a treaty that has implications for U.S. intellectual property law and should have been ratified by the House and Senate. For it’s part, the Obama administration has said that it does not believe ACTA’s implementation would have any effect on U.S. law.

Wyden disagrees, saying in his letter this past fall that, “ACTA’s subject matter — including foreign commerce and intellectual property — appear to me and other to relate to Article I powers of Congress, not issues lying within the President’s sole constitutional authority .”

As attention paid to SOPA and PIPA have turned to ACTA, Wyden has gotten more allies. As of Friday, over 3,800 people have signed a petition to the White House to have ACTA submitted to the Senate.

In Poland thousands of people took to the streets in protests of ACTA when it came to a vote in Parliament this week. According to the Washington Post article ACTA protests erupt in Poland:

It’s not every day parliamentary members identify themselves with a subversive Internet group. But that’s just what happened in Poland when lawmakers from the leftist party Palikot’s Movement covered their faces with Guy Fawkes masks, the look that has become shorthand for Anonymous. A contentious fight broke out in parliament — and in the streets — over Poland’s plans to sign the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

For additional information on ACTA see Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement What is ACTA?

For the most up to the minute news on ACTA actions I would recommend RT.

To sign the petition, go to  End ACTA and Protect our right to privacy on the Internet.

Dora

A List Serv Conversation

I am very fortunate to be a part of several list servs with people participating from all walks of life, with different viewpoints and much to offer.

This week someone posted to the Parents Across America statewide list serv that we all appreciated. I asked John if I could share what he wrote on this blog and he gave his consent.

John Cummings is a parent, a teacher and a member of Parents Across America, Seattle.

Hey,

I might be in the minority but I feel that conversations such as the conversation on this thread, are really important for our group. The reason why I think this way is because (to allude to a very tired and old cliché) it helps us shape our ‘forest’. Right now, we are fighting for the very survival of our Public Education System. I truly believe that and the thought of losing this fight scares the hell out of me. Because of this, some might feel that we need to focus on what is most pressing today (the tree that is about to be cut down or topped), and not be distracted by debating the ideas or ideals that we have about what our Public Education System would look like if we were in charge and could direct policy (the forest). I mean there are only 36 hours in a day, right?

But that’s a trap, because the forces aligned against us have their idea of what the forest should look like and every move they make is calculated to achieve that end. Which is why they sometimes surprise us by supporting something that is laudable. For instance LEV is pushing for universal pre-k and full funding of education. Who could be against that? I mean besides Libertarians.

Governments, political parties, corporations, activist groups, labor unions, religious institutions and individuals who understand this and act accordingly are the ones that, more often than not, have a lasting impact. They shape the forest.

In my perfect world (where chocolate was handed out free of charge and nobody was lactose intolerant), the Public School System would be set up in such a way that every single child reaches their potential. It would be a place where we recognize that none of us are ‘typical’ and our uniqueness is celebrated. There would be no reason to make the hard decisions about what should be funded or not because the importance of the Public School System to our collective well-being would be understood by everyone, even Darth Gates. Schools would be human-sized with well-trained and well-respected educators teaching small classes of kids. There would be some classes that are mixed skill-wise and some that are homogenous. We would celebrate the academically skilled along with the artistically skilled, athletically skilled, mechanically skilled and socially skilled. We would work hard to reduce the negative impacts of poverty and chaos. Programs like APP, Spectrum, and NOVA (among others) would simply be called ‘school’ because the amazing things they do would be what is done for every child.

In a perfect world right? Why dream about a perfect world when we won’t ever get there? Because, as Vince Lombardi said, “Perfection is not attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.”

I used to not believe in giftedness. I worked with too many kids whose gifts went undiscovered because they came from the wrong socio-economic group, or ethnic group, or because they couldn’t sit at a desk for 45 minutes, or because they had trouble memorizing facts, learning how to read or do the math that was pushed on them. They were victims of a society’s ruling elite that doesn’t give a shit about them because they were someone else’s child.

I was wrong in my thinking, because like most everyone, I believed in the finiteness that is implied in the word ‘giftedness’. If some are gifted than some are not. But my experience showed me something else.

A few years ago I worked with a student who drew as well or better than our most ‘gifted’ artists. I mean she was amazing and prolific. Every surface was a canvas for her. Desks, notebooks, textbooks, all were covered with her art. If I had thought to do so I could have taken her math notebook and submitted it to the Art Institute as her portfolio. and she would have been accepted.

But she was a poor, African-American girl. Her family was homeless for half of the year I worked with her because their house burned down, they had no money and so she stayed with this relative or that relative or at a friend’s house or on the street. She couldn’t test past Level 1 on the WASL, MSP, or MAP. She was functionally illiterate. But she certainly wasn’t stupid. She knew she didn’t stand a chance in hell. And she was so angry. Wouldn’t you be? She acted out her anger one day at school, was suspended long-term, and we lost her.

She is now 17. I found out that after she dropped out (in 8th grade!), she started hanging out with gang bangers, was partying a lot and had just given birth to a baby girl. How different would her life be if her gift had been noticed and encouraged?

There are too many kids like her.

Albert Einstein is the poster child for ‘genius’. He was the Michael Jordan, or Jimi Hendrix, of math and Physics. Anyone who believes that some of us are just plain smarter than most others has him to hold up to prove their point. I mean he was a Super Genius (sorry Wiley Coyote). So, what did Albert the brainiac have to say about ‘genius’? He said,

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”

He’s right.

As parents, our children are more important to us than anything and I don’t begrudge any parent who fights tooth and nail to do right by their kids whether that means getting them into APP or forcing the district to honor the child’s IEP, or even getting rid of a teacher (or superintendent) who sucks. No, that’s our job, right? But I contend that when we look at every child as our own and fight tooth and nail for all of them, then all children benefit.

So, that’s my forest. Now I gotta go feed my saplings lunch.

Weekly Update, January 27, 2012: In Tucson racism is alive and well, Rahm bus(ted) in Chicago and other stories in education

This has not been a slow news week so I’ll get started with all the news that fits.

First up, the teachers and students in Tucson. If you haven’t been following this story, I would recommend that you begin by watching Debating Tucson School District’s Book Ban After Suspension of Mexican American Studies Program on Democracy Now.

This story has a history to it. To read about it in detail, check out Save Ethnic Studies.org and read about an action that was taken last year by students at a school board meeting when the board members were to vote on making the ethnic studies classes basically non-credit courses.

The powers that be thought that all they had to do was ban a few books and close the Ethnic Studies program in Tucson and that would be the end of it. They just dusted their hands off and went home. Because of  their actions, which were so severe, the story has gained national attention. They have found themselves in the eye of the storm and they’re not handling things very well.

In this clip, Cholla High School students staged a walkout to protest the Mexican American Studies (MAS) ban. As they arrived at Tucson Unified School District  headquarters this is what  the Ethnic Studies supervisor Lupita Garcia had to say:

For the most recent information on this struggle for a people to maintain their ethnic identity, check out the Common Dreams article Students Step Up Tucson Walkouts. Here is an excerpt:

In recent days, administrators and board members have issued a series of conflicting and inaccurate statements and carried out the extreme actions of confiscating books in front of children. Last week, a recently hired assistant superintendent from Texas made a troubling call for the deeply rooted Tucson students–many of whom trace their ancestors to the town founders– to “go to Mexico” to study their history.

To find out about actions around the country regarding the banishment of the Ethnic Studies program in Tucson, see Arizona Unbound: National Actions on Mexican American Studies Banishment.

Never a dull moment in the world of education.

Now on to Chicago. In the last Weekly Update I had mentioned Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel’s rent a preacher scam. Well that story got legs as well.

As I like to say, Rahm got bus(ted) on this one. There’s even a photo of the bus that was used to take the hired “counter-protestors” to a hearing regarding a school closing from the St. Stephens church in Chicago!

From Mike Klonsky’s post Rahm’s Army:

Scott and other recruits say they didn’t realize until the last minute that they were supposed to support school closings. One said he was promised $50 to speak at a rally “for schools,” but was stiffed $25 after Watkins complained he had publicly revealed at the hearing he was “compensated” for speaking. Many of the recruits end up switching sides and join the community protests in speaking out against the closings. Others earn their money by trying to start a brawl and disrupt the legitimate protests.

And from WGN TV a great film clip Paid to Protest?

And now there is to be a probe regarding this action. According to the Chicago Sun Times:

The Chicago Public Schools inspector general said Wednesday he is investigating reports that bused protesters were paid to carry signs or read scripts at school closing hearings.

News of the probe came as Mayor Rahm Emanuel sloughed off questions about whether the practice was appropriate.

Meanwhile, Ald. Robert Fioretti (2nd) blasted “paid protesters” he said showed up on three buses at Jan. 6 hearings on whether to phase out Crane High School. He urged Chicago Public School officials to omit their comments from the hearing’s record.

Their appearance was “embarrassing” and “subverts our public process … wherever the money came from,” Fioretti said during the school board’s monthly meeting.

We’ll see where that goes. Stay tuned.

It reminds me of last year when the Seattle school board was to vote on an ed-reform issue and the League of Education Voters (LEV) or was it (Stand for Children?) brought over students from Bellevue, Youth Ambassadors, donned them in orange shirts and had them waving signs during the hearing. I asked one of the students after the hearing what school he was from and why he was there. He told me that some LEV reps (not his words) had brought over students from Bellevue. He was there to support education. He had no idea what the issue was about. His heart was in the right place but LEV’s wasn’t. That they used children to further their cause is reprehensible and speaks volumes to where that organization has gone in our state.

Speaking of Stand for Children, check out Education Radio for an in-depth look at the organization, Stand for Children or Stand for Profit. Here is a description of this broadcast:

We hear stories from two Massachusetts school committee members who were former Stand members, but who left when they saw a significant shift in Stand’s approach: Roger Garberg (Gloucester) and Tracy O’Connell Novick (Worcester). We hear from the president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, Paul Toner, on a controversial ballot initiative that Stand is pushing in the state. We also share a clip of Jonah Edelman, Stand co-founder and CEO, candidly speaking at the Aspen Institute about Stand’s true agenda to destroy the power of teachers unions. Then, we talked with the president of the Chicago Teachers Union, Karen Lewis, about her reaction to this clip and to Stand for Children.

Speaking of organizations, I discovered what looks to be a great one, ParentPrep.  It was developed by the Washington State Office of the Education Ombudsman (OEO), a small office that does a lot for so many students and parents in need, to assist parents in finding their voice when advocating for their children. And no, it does not receive Gates, Broad or Walton money. Just taxpayer dollars.

Again, I will leave  you with Chris Hedges, a person who always helps me take a step back to see the big picture. This is a three-hour interview with the author and activist on BookTV where he discusses his nine books that have been published as well as a brief description of his tenth book. This is a good weekend watch.

Dora

Part 2: Washington State Bill Proposals HB 2427/SB 6203 and HB 2451: Teacher evaluations based on test scores: The studies

Teacher evaluations based on test scores: Part 2

I received so much information in response to my query about teacher evaluations based on test scores that I decided to provide the information in three posts. The first post can be found at Washington State Bill Proposals HB 2427/SB 6203 and HB 2451: Teacher evaluations based on test scores. Parents around the country respond with their own experiences.

In this post, we will look at what researchers have to say on the subject.

Linda-Darling Hammond at Stanford University responded to my query with a paper titled Getting Teacher Evaluation Right: A Background Paper for Policy Makers which she had researched and written along with Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at Arizona State University, Edward H. Haertel at Stanford University and Jesse Rothstein at the University of California, Berkeley. The Executive Summary states:

Consensus that current teacher evaluation systems often do little to help teachers improve or to support personnel decision making has led to a range of new approaches to teacher evaluation. This brief looks at the available research about teacher evaluation strategies and their impacts on teaching and learning.

Prominent among these new approaches are value-added models (VAM) for examining changes in student test scores over time. These models control for prior scores and some student characteristics known to be related to achievement when looking at score gains. When linked to individual teachers, they are sometimes promoted as measuring teacher ―effectiveness.

Drawing this conclusion, however, assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent of other aspects of the classroom context.

Because these assumptions are problematic, researchers have documented problems with value-added models as measures of teachers‘ effectiveness. These include the facts that:

1. Value-Added Models of Teacher Effectiveness Are Highly Unstable: Teachers‘ ratings differ substantially from class to class and from year to year, as well as from one test to the next.

2. Teachers’ Value-Added Ratings Are Significantly Affected by Differences in the Students Who Are Assigned to Them: Even when models try to control for prior achievement and student demographic variables, teachers are advantaged or disadvantaged based on the students they teach. In particular, teachers with large numbers of new English learners and others with special needs have been found to show lower gains than the same teachers when they are teaching other students.

3. Value-Added Ratings Cannot Disentangle the Many Influences on Student Progress: Many other home, school, and student factors influence student learning gains, and these matter more than the individual teacher in explaining changes in scores.

Other tools have been found to be more stable. Some have been found both to predict teacher effectiveness and to help improve teachers’ practice. These include:

• Performance assessments for licensure and advanced certification that are based on professional teaching standards, such as National Board Certification and beginning teacher performance assessments in states like California and Connecticut.

• On-the-job evaluation tools that include structured observations, classroom artifacts, analysis of student learning, and frequent feedback based on professional standards.

In addition to the use of well-grounded instruments, research has found benefits of systems that recognize teacher collaboration, which supports greater student learning.

Finally, systems are found to be more effective when they ensure that evaluators are well-trained, evaluation and feedback are frequent, mentoring and coaching are available, and processes, such as Peer Assistance and Review systems, are in place to support due process and timely decision making by an appropriate body.

And an excerpt from the final summary:

With respect to value-added measures of student achievement tied to individual teachers, current research suggests that high-stakes, individual-level decisions, as well as comparisons across highly dissimilar schools or student populations, should be avoided. Valid interpretations require aggregate-level data and should ensure that background factors, including overall classroom.

And this from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) Problems with the Use of
Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers, an excerpt from the summary:

While those who evaluate teachers could take student test scores over time into account, they should be fully aware of their limitations, and such scores should be only one element among many considered in teacher profiles.

Some states are now considering plans that would give as much as 50% of the weight in teacher evaluation and compensation decisions to scores on existing poor-quality tests of basic skills in math and reading. Based on the evidence we have reviewed above, we consider this unwise.

If the quality, coverage, and design of standardized tests

were to improve, some concerns would be addressed, but the serious problems of attribution and nonrandom assignment of students, as well as the practical problems described above, would still argue for serious limits on the use of test scores for teacher evaluation.

And in the Review of “Learning About Teaching” by Jesse Rothstein for the National Education Policy Center (NEPC):

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s “Measures of Effective Teaching” (MET) Project seeks to validate the use of a teacher’s estimated “value-added”—computed from the year-on-year test score gains of her students—as a measure of teaching effectiveness. Using data from six school districts, the initial report examines correlations between student survey responses and value-added scores computed both from state tests and from higher-order tests of conceptual understanding. The study finds that the measures are related, but only modestly. The report interprets this as support for the use of value-added as the basis for teacher evaluations. This conclusion is unsupported, as the data in fact indicate that a teachers’ value-added for the state test is not strongly related to her effectiveness in a broader sense. Most notably, value-added for state assessments is correlated 0.5 or less with that for the alternative assessments, meaning that many teachers whose value-added for one test is low are in fact quite effective when judged by the other. As there is every reason to think that the problems with value-added measures apparent in the MET data would be worse in a high-stakes environment, the MET results are sobering about the value of student achievement data as a significant component of teacher evaluations.

I will end this look at research and policy papers with two personal views.

First from a bookstore owner,  Picture Books No Longer a Staple for Children:

The economic downturn is certainly a major factor, but many in the industry see an additional reason for the slump. Parents have begun pressing their kindergartners and first graders to leave the picture book behind and move on to more text-heavy chapter books. Publishers cite pressures from parents who are mindful of increasingly rigorous standardized testing in schools.

“Parents are saying, ‘My kid doesn’t need books with pictures anymore,’ ” said Justin Chanda, the publisher of Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers. “There’s a real push with parents and schools to have kids start reading big-kid books earlier. We’ve accelerated the graduation rate out of picture books.”

And from a teacher’s point of view in, Why I Will Not Teach to the Test, to follow is an excerpt:

In the midst of controversy surrounding “value added” teacher assessment, which flared recently following the Los Angeles Times’ public teacher rankings, the real issue is often overlooked: The state tests being used to evaluate student progress—and, in turn, the effectiveness of teachers—virtually ensure mediocrity.

Consider the following California 10th-grade-history standard: “Relate the moral and ethical principles in ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, in Judaism, and in Christianity to the development of Western political thought.” How long do you think it would take to teach this standard before a classroom of 16-year-olds reached a thorough understanding? Weeks? Months? Consider another social studies standard: “Compare and contrast the Glorious Revolution of England, the American Revolution, and the French Revolution and their enduring effects worldwide on the political expectations for self-government and individual liberty.” How much time for this unit? A semester? A year? I am sure that history teachers would love to have the opportunity to delve deeply into these standards, but the state test does not permit deeper instruction. Why? Because these two standards come from a much longer list of standards that will be measured on the exam. Teachers in California know the results of this exam may now be used as a factor in their evaluations, so they are forced to accelerate their instruction into “sprint and cover” mode.

My highest priority is to design lessons that enable my kids to think critically and to give them the skills they will need to live productive lives. I want my students to grow up to be problem-solvers, not test-takers. I want them to be innovators, not automatons.

What harm comes from a sprint-and-cover approach? A study published in the journal Science Education in December 2008 looked at two sets of high school science students. One set “sprinted”; the other set had teachers who slowed down, went deeper, and did not cover as much material. The results? The first group of students actually scored higher on the state tests at the end of the year. This is not surprising, as their teachers covered more of the test material. I am sure it made their parents, teachers, and administrators happy. What is more interesting, however, is that the students who learned through the slower, in-depth approach actually earned higher grades once they made it to college. This, too, is not surprising. These students were taught to think critically.

Dora

Parents Across America Tacoma: We can innovate without charters in our state.

Press Release:

New Parents Group Supports Innovation in Schools

Parents Across America Tacoma (PAAT), a community group dedicated to strengthening our public education system, will hold its first public meeting on Wednesday, February 15, 2011. The meeting will take place at Kings Books, 218 St. Helens Ave, Tacoma, 98402.  Doors will open at 6:30pm, followed by a presentation and discussion.  An overview of the group’s mission and information on proposed education legislation will be shared.  PAAT’s priorities include: supporting Tacoma schools and building on our successes, encouraging data-proven innovation, and ensuring a just and equitable distribution of resources for all Tacoma students. The evening will focus on answering questions and discussing ways community members can get involved.

This year, charter school legislation has moved front and center in the state legislature.  This important topic deserves immediate public attention and deliberation.  PAAT believes that innovation can be achieved within our schools without inviting the risks that accompany charters.   Tacoma’s public schools have been leading the way with innovative programs which are the envy of many other districts in this state.   PAAT believes Tacoma can build on these successes and become a model for other school districts.

PAAT will provide a forum for South Sound parents, education advocates and community members who feel disillusioned with current education reform debates.  “All across the country I see the parent’s voice getting lost in this sweeping tide of education reform,” says public school parent Catherine Feeney, “we don’t need corporations coming in and telling us what is best for our kids.  WE know what is best for our kids, so why isn’t anyone asking us?” Sandi Strong explains “For the last several years, I had been looking for a group to join that is working to support and improve our public schools. I was recruited by one that came to town a few years ago claiming they were grassroots. I was excited to join, but found they were a top-down organization focused on national issues and on bringing products and services to our state. This was not what I was looking for.”

PAAT is an autonomous affiliate of Parents Across America, a nationwide network of parent-led organizations dedicated to supporting and strengthening America’s schools.  For more information about Parents Across America Tacoma, visit http://paatacoma.org.

Congratulations Tacoma.

Dora