What A. Lincoln and D. Ravitch Have in Common

The recent interview with Trump's Chief of Staff, John Kelly, got me thinking about compromise, the status quo, and resistance to the status quo.  Kelly seems to think that the failure to compromise resulted in the Civil War, and so it might seem to those who believe there was some way to preserve slavery and democracy at the same time in the same place.

Kelly would like to suggest, of course, that there must be a way today to preserve segregation/white supremacy and the Union at the same time, and in the same place.  Some way to normalize Trump's most loyal supporters and to give their militant and lethal hate some equal place within American democracy as those who believe in equality.  

After all, honoring the rights of white supremacists and fighting for those rights is what fine men like Robert E. Lee did, according to Kelly, and his service to his slave state in that cause should be revered and preserved.  In short, Kelly would have us believe that duty and honor are not dependent upon moral conduct and ethical principles in any way.  Apparently, Mr. Kelly believes as much.

As a follow-up to an earlier piece in the Washington Post, an article today tells a bit of American history that Kelly should read, that we all should read, as I did today with open mouth.  As I read about the Constitutional Amendment that was passed by Congress and signed by Lincoln to block any federal effort to end slavery in the states, I was reminded of my own ignorance (stunned, I tell you!) regarding the debate and initiatives in 1861 to neutralize the hostile threats by slavery supporters and their secessionist political leaders.

The WaPo article is based on research that Daniel Croft offers in his book, and it presents in compact fashion the story of the efforts during the first days of the the Lincoln Administration to stem talk of secession and civil war.  Having refused to entertain the idea of expanding slavery to the Territories, Lincoln did, in fact, accept a constitutional amendment put together by Senator Seward that would disallow any federal effort to interfere with slavery as it was then practiced by the existing states:  

“No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of people held to labor or service by the laws of said State.”

The amendment was approved by both houses of Congress early in 1861, signed by Lincoln before the end of February, and sent to the states for ratification by state legislatures.  In fact, Kentucky was able to ratify the constitutional Amendment before the War broke out in April 1861, with Ohio and Rhode Island following suit in the first bloody weeks of the War.  

Compromise had not been enough, however.  

The more important lesson is that if it had been enough, we would likely be living a slave nation today, rather than a nation where a large minority of white supremacists look back longingly to the era when owning humans was legal.

The War reminds us that the realization of freedom and democracy carry a heavy cost that cannot be bargained down with cheap compromises.  Avoiding that heavy cost has always been the work of equivocators, cowards, and those who benefit from the status quo.  

In recent years, in my tiny corner of the freedom debate in education, I have listened to FairTest talk about opposing the "overuse" of inhumane and racist testing in schools, while ignoring the need to end finally, after a hundred years, any such testing at all.  

More recently, I have read NPE's statement that calls for a charter school moratorium, one that does not interfere with the current 7,800 charter schools that segregate and abuse children every school day.

I listened, amazed, a couple of years ago, when Diane Ravitch declared that ESSA was the best compromise that public school advocates could hope for as a replacement for NCLB, even though the law continues the policy of mandated and racist standardized tests for labeling and shutting down five percent of public schools each year.

As these "successful" compromises have been made and lucrative deals cut, I have emphasized the necessity for the resistance to dehumanizing and anti-democratic school corporatization to maintain the same unyielding and unwavering position as that of the abolitionists of the 19th Century, who opposed slavery in any form, in any place, for anyone, at any time.

Rather than working overtime to placate the corporate reformers with deadly compromises that enshrine the corporate education status quo and the dehumanizing schools thus created, we need NPE, FairTest and the other milquetoast liberal pretenders to become what Abraham Lincoln never dreamed he would become after years of compromise: an abolitionist.

That would mean the abolition of 1) standardized testing, 2) segregated classrooms of any kind, 3) corporate influence in public education policy.

 

The gift no one wanted–how digital learning came to MA & Fair Test finally woke up.

from Wrench in the Gears
December 15, 2016

The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education announced yesterday, the creation of a new statewide personalized-learning initiative called MAPLE (Massachusetts Personalized Learning EdTech) Consortium. It is important to note that educational technology is specifically called out in the name. This public-private partnership is being funded by the Barr Foundation and the Nellie Mae Foundation, one of the primary advocates for Competency Based Education in New England. There are currently twelve pilot districts, but the plan is to add an additional thirty districts over time.

Updates on the program were given to Massachusetts’ Digital Learning Advisory Council in January 2016: http://www.doe.mass.edu/boe/sac/dlac/2016-0106minutes.pdf

Digital Learning Advisory Council members for 2015-16 included representatives of the Harvard Graduate School of Education, MIT, The Clayton Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, The Virtual High School, The Center for Applied Special Technology, The American Federation of Teachers, and the Massachusetts Teachers Association. Full member list here.

According to the Council’s September 2016 minutes, the contract for the program had been awarded to Learn Launch as of that time. Ann Koufman-Frederick, the Chief Academic Officer of Learn Launch, appears to be the project contact. She has ties to districts across the state.

Within 24 hours of MAPLE’s announcement, Fair Test came out with a cautionary post on the potential for personalized learning to lead to constant online testing. And in a bit of irony, actually cited one of Wrench In The Gears’ blog posts as a reference.

A number of education activists who were aware that the structure of the ESSA was designed to expand privatization and data-mining by giving preference and support to online digital learning reached out to Fair Test in months leading up to the passage of this bill explaining the dangers and asking them to withdraw their support of the bill (see below for examples). The response received was that it was more important to address NCLB sanctions than what might happen with Competency Based Education and performance assessing.

Click here to read the whole article.

FairTest Fumes and Obfuscates

There was much disgust expressed when Diane Ravitch promoted FairTest's NEA-supported report, Assessment Matters: Constructing Model State Systems to Replace Testing Overkill.  In the report, FairTest managed to do some major league pimping for the New Hampshire competency-based child plug-in learning model and competency-based assessment pilot.  

Here is heart of Monty Neill's response, with my comments interspersed in italics.

First, there is no doubt that corporations backed by some foundations and politicians are promoting a version of schooling that is built around computerized packaged programs that combine curriculum, curricular materials, instruction and testing. The tests are in most cases multiple-choice and short-answer with occasional write-to-a-prompt items, to be machine graded. They seriously narrow and diminish education and should be exposed and stopped.

. . . . not one of the examples in FairTest’s report rely on these kinds of computerized packages. Each one is teacher controlled and very much teacher controlled. We clearly support and praise those that allow significant student voice and control over the learning and assessment processes. New Hampshire fought for a deal that has opened doors that have been nailed shut since the start of NCLB and thus deserve serious credit. As we point out, we can learn from and improve on what they have thus far done, and that ESSA makes it easier for that to happen.. . .

The New Hampshire example that FairTest studies is Rollinsford Grade School, which DOES NOT participate in the frenetic attempts in the other dozen or so NH assessment pilot venues, where Gates Foundation know-nothings are supervising the construction of a Rube Goldberg assessment system that tries to standardize the unique and to quantify the unquantifiable.  Why, pray tell, does Monty not examine a system that is plugged in to the NH pilot project, which is meant to look like this:

Monty Neill continues: "People can choose to believe the fight is over because corporations are trying to seize control of terms such as personalized and competency-based. We believe that is a mistake. It is not over, and one part of the battle is the fight to own the terms. The more important fight is the one to determine the shape of education, whether it is built on human relations among teachers and students, with parents and other community people also engaged; or it is based on computer algorithms and subordinating human relations to the computer packages.

FairTest fights for the former. We think that is clear in what we call for and the programs we highlight. If people have questions about that, they should read what we actually write and then follow it up, looking at the programs themselves."

The resistance to corporate education does not believe the fight is over, despite FairTest's surrender to the ESSA charter and CBE stimulus package passed last year.  If FairTest were fighting, why do we not see any outlined strategy to expose the hazardous and reckless advances of the child plug-in model for poor schools that is being advanced by Gates and Silicon Valley?  

While FairTest promotes its progressive boutique alternatives to the unhealthy and intrusive plug-in competency-based model, neither FairTest nor NEA/AFT has one word of warning or concern for parents, educators, or students who will be the victims of this miseducative money-making scheme if it goes forward.


FairTest is fighting for FairTest and the NEA agenda, which is the corporate agenda and the Clinton agenda and the Wall Street agenda.  Nothing will block their train until the tracks are removed.

Do ESSA Regulations Reflect ESSA Statute? Short Answer--Yes

Last update: June 26, 2016

Since the 192 pages of ESSA regulations were posted recently for public comment, FairTest, AFT/NEA, and Diane Ravitch have been pretending that the regulations do not uphold and, otherwise, overstep the intent of the 1000+ page federal statute that comprises ESSA.   No doubt all these parties who are complicit in supporting this awful legislation would like to pretend that the awful regulations somehow disguise the good intent of ESSA.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  The regulations are remarkably consistent with what the ESSA demands. 

FairTest is presently posting on numerous groups to urge individuals and organizations to comment on the ESSA regulations.  And if you don’t have time to read the regs, just use their comments. Right?

Well, I took the time to read the Regulations AND the ESSA, upon which the regs are based.  FairTest is simply trying to cover their ass for supporting ESSA’s continued assault on public schools. 

But, hey, what could they do?  After all, the corporate Democrats knew what kind of education policy they would support—the same one that Wall Street supports and that the Republicans support.  FairTest’s analysis is all smoke and mirrors.  See below FairTest recommendations in italics with my responses following.

The DoE must remove or thoroughly revise five draft regulations:

_DoE draft regulation 200.15_ would require states to lower the ranking of any school that does not test 95% of its students or to identify it as needing “targeted support.” No such mandate exists in ESSA. This provision violates statutory language that ESSA does not override “a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent to not have the parent’s child participate in the academic assessments.” This regulation appears designed primarily to undermine resistance to the overuse and misuse of standardized exams.

The federal requirement for 95 percent participation was clearly stated in ESSA multiple times.  Here is just one (p. 36):

‘‘(E) ANNUAL MEASUREMENT OF ACHIEVEMENT .—(i)

Annually measure the achievement of not less than 95

percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students

in each subgroup of students, who are enrolled in public

schools on the assessments described under subsection

(b)(2)(v)(I).

Here is what the ESSA says with regard to opting out: 

At the beginning of each school year, a local educational agency that receives funds under this part shall notify the parents of each student attending any school receiving funds under this part that the parents may request, and the local educational agency will provide the parents on request (and in a timely manner), information regarding any State or local educational agency policy regarding student participation in any assessments mandated by section 1111(b)(2) and by the State or local educational agency, which shall include a policy, procedure, or parental right to opt the child out of such assessment, where applicable (p. 56). 

Notice that there is nothing here that "permits" states to do anything other than to report information to parents about existing state law or local policy, and there is nothing here that allows state law or local regulations to overule or take precedent over the federal law, ESSA.

NPE and FairTest are stuck with the policy they supported, which doubles down for another generation on the same loser policies that have decimated public education in the U. S. No amount of wheedling or pretending is going change that, and no amount of appealing is going to change the next Clinton's priorities if elected. 

When ESSA became the law of the land, California and Utah were the only states with opt-out provisions in state statutes.

_Recommendation:_ DoE should simply restate ESSA language allowing the right to opt out as well as its requirements that states test 95% of students in identified grades and factor low participation rates into their accountability systems. Alternatively, DoE could write no regulation at all. In either case, states should decide how to implement this provision.

ESSA contains no such provision to opt out.  This is simply wishful thinking or a crass attempt to pretend that there is an opt out provision in ESSA.

_DoE draft regulation 200.18_ transforms ESSA’s requirement for “meaningful differentiation” among schools into a mandate that states create “at least three distinct levels of school performance” for each indicator. ESSA requires states to identify their lowest performing five percent of schools as well as those in which “subgroups” of students are doing particularly poorly. Neither provision necessitates creation of three or more levels. This proposal serves no educationally useful purpose. Several states have indicated they oppose this provision because it obscures rather than enhances their ability to precisely identify problems and misleads the public. This draft regulation would pressure schools to focus on tests to avoid being placed in a lower level. Performance levels are also another way to attack schools in which large numbers of parents opt out, as discussed above.

This is incorrect, period.  See pp. 22-23 of ESSA, which speaks clearly on the necessity of three levels of achievement for standards:

(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State, in the plan it files under

subsection (a), shall provide an assurance that the State

has adopted challenging academic content standards and

aligned academic achievement standards (referred to in

this Act as ‘challenging State academic standards’), which

achievement standards shall include not less than 3 levels

of achievement, that will be used by the State, its local

educational agencies, and its schools to carry out this part.

A State shall not be required to submit such challenging

State academic standards to the Secretary.

_DoE draft regulation 200.18_ also mandates that states combine multiple indicators into a single “summative” score for each school. As Rep. John Kline, chair of the House Education Committee, pointed out, ESSA includes no such requirement. Summative scores are simplistically reductive and opaque. They encourage the flawed school grading schemes promoted by diehard NCLB defenders.

_Recommendation:_ DoE should drop this draft regulation. It should allow states to decide how to use their indicators to identify schools and whether to report a single score. Even better, the DoE should encourage states to drop their use of levels.

John Kline is misinformed or lying or engaged in political posturing, and so FairTest.  On pp. 25-26 of ESSA, we find that states have two options: a single test or multiple assessments that result in “a single summative score:”

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS.—

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Each State plan shall demonstrate

that the State educational agency, in consultation with

local educational agencies, has implemented a set of high quality

student academic assessments in mathematics,

reading or language arts, and science. The State retains

the right to implement such assessments in any other

subject chosen by the State.

‘‘(B) REQUIREMENTS.—The assessments under subparagraph

(A) shall—

. . .

‘‘(viii) at the State’s discretion—

‘‘(I) be administered through a single

summative assessment; or

‘‘(II) be administered through multiple statewide

interim assessments during the course of the

academic year that result in a single summative

score that provides valid, reliable, and transparent

information on student achievement or growth;

_DoE draft regulation 200.18_ further proposes that a state’s academic indicators together carry “much greater” weight than its “school quality” (non-academic) indicators. Members of Congress differ as to the intent of the relevant ESSA passage. Some say it simply means more than 50%, while others claim it implies much more than 50%. The phrase “much greater” is likely to push states to minimize the weight of non-academic factors in order to win plan approval from DOE, especially since the overall tone of the draft regulations emphasizes testing.

_Recommendation: _The regulations should state that the academic indicators must count for more than 50% of the weighting in how a state identifies schools needing support.

No comment.

_DoE draft regulation 200.18_ also exceeds limits ESSA placed on DoE actions regarding state accountability plans.

Too vague for comment.

_DoE draft regulation 200.19_ would require states to use 2016-17 data to select schools for “support and improvement” in 2017-18. This leaves states barely a year for implementation, too little time to overhaul accountability systems. It will have the harmful consequence of encouraging states to keep using a narrow set of test-based indicators and to select only one additional “non-academic” indicator.

_Recommendation:_ The regulations should allow states to use 2017-18 data to identify schools for 2018-19. This change is entirely consistent with ESSA’s language.

On the contrary, the language of ESSA is clear as to when the first bottom 5 percent list of “failing schools” has to be submitted in 2017-2018.  From p. 36:

D) IDENTIFICATION OF SCHOOLS .—Based on the

system of meaningful differentiation described in subparagraph

(C), establish a State-determined methodology to

identify—

‘‘(i) beginning with school year 2017–2018, and

at least once every three school years thereafter, one

statewide category of schools for comprehensive support

and improvement, as described in subsection

(d)(1), which shall include—

‘‘(I) not less than the lowest-performing 5 percent

of all schools receiving funds under this part

in the State;

‘‘(II) all public high schools in the State failing

to graduate one third or more of their students;

and

‘‘(III) public schools in the State described

under subsection (d)(3)(A)(i)(II); and

‘‘(ii) at the discretion of  the State, additional statewide

categories of schools.

Lastly, we are concerned that an additional effect of these unwarranted regulations will be to unhelpfully constrain states that choose to participate in ESSA’s “innovative assessment” program.

ESSA allows up to 7 states to develop these “innovative assessments.”  FairTest would like to pretend that the Feds meant to give states the opportunity to embrace authentic assessments such as portfolios.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  Written as it was by the corporate foundations, ESSA wants any “innovative” assessments (and instruction) to be computer-based and online.  From p. 84:

‘‘(a) INNOVATIVE  ASSESSMENT  SYSTEM  DEFINED .—The term

‘innovative assessment system’ means a system of assessments

that may include—

‘‘(1) competency-based assessments, instructionally

embedded assessments, interim assessments, cumulative year-end

assessments, or performance-based assessments that combine

into an annual summative determination for a student,

which may be administered through computer adaptive assessments;

and

‘‘(2) assessments that validate when students are ready

to demonstrate mastery or proficiency and allow for differentiated

student support based on individual learning needs.

In Defending FairTest, Ravitch Inadvertantly Opens Door to the Truth

Diane Ravitch has posted a response by FairTest to recent commentary by Emily Talmage that shines a light on the close connections among FairTest, Citizens for Public Schools, the Center for Collorative Education, AFT/NEA, and corporate cash.  

I have pasted the post below, along with revealing comments by Mary Porter and others, who provide further details about the secretive connections that allow the corporate foundations and corporate unions to coopt, undercut, and neutralize honest efforts to reclaim public education to benefit children and what is left of our democracy.

You will note that it does not take Diane Ravitch but a moment to jump into the discussion to condemn anyone who criticizes her own willingness to include arsonists inside the anti-corporate reform tent.  

It must be noted that, while Ravitch prefers a big tent that includes corporate collaborators, she has been quick to exclude yours truly from her tent.  I was barred from commenting at her blog when it became evident to Ravitch and NPE that their complicity with AFT's pro-corporate agenda was no longer a secret.  It is good, finally, to see that others are reaching the the same conclusions and are unafraid to share them.

Read and understand.  From Diane Ravitch at the Ravitch blog:

Lisa Guisbond of Fairtest wrote to inform me that the opt out movement in Massachusetts is growing and has noconnection [sic] whatever to the Gates Foundation. As we know, state officials are terrified of a massive parent opt out; they threaten, they cajole, they will try anything to con parents into staying away from opt out. The most powerful tool that parents have is opt out. The state can’t force your child to take the test. Parents have the Power of No.

Fairtest released this statement.

“This Saturday’s opt-out meeting is sponsored by Citizens for Public Schools and the Less Testing, More Learning Campaign and will be at the office of Center for Collaborative Education (CCE), 33 Harrison Ave., Boston, 6th floor.

“Because the meeting is at CCE, a few people have attacked LTML, Citizens for Public Schools and the meeting itself in a blog and on Facebook. It will take a lot of focused, hard work to get a strong opt-out campaign going. We want to include as many interested people as possible and don’t want misguided attacks to undermine and confuse activists. But because such attacks are circulating (in MA and even in other states), and to avoid confusion and damage, we want to clarify a few things.
“First, the main basis for the attacks is the list of funders on the CCE website, which includes Gates, the Boston Foundation, Barr and Nellie Mae. Dan French from CCE (who is on the CPS board and has for decades battled against MCAS and for locally-controlled performance assessment) has been open about when CCE received specific grants and for what. The Gates and Boston Foundation grants are not current (e.g., a Gates grant in 2000 to develop pilot schools, a Boston Foundation grant to support pilot schools granted before Boston Foundation switched to boosting charters).

[As Emily Talmage pointed out in comments below, it is not true that Gates grants are only somewhere in the dusty past:

 But I digress.]

“At a minimum, attacking a meeting and a campaign because we are using an organization’s space is very misguided politics. Beyond that, CCE and Dan have been long-standing allies in the testing resistance and reform movement.

“These attacks are an unfortunate distraction. We’d rather use our energy and resources to build a strong opt-out campaign to stop the misuse and abuse of testing in our schools. We look forward to working with others who share these goals.”

1. Mary Porter

   January 20, 2016 at 4:19 pm

   CCE works at the state, district and school levels to create professional learning communities of educators who are deeply engaged in the work of continuous improvement. Data-based inquiry with an equity lens is at the heart of our work, with a particular focus on the challenges that most impact curriculum design, instruction, and assessment.”
   http://cce.org/about/data-driven-inquiry
   
   

   Reply
   • Mary Porter

     January 20, 2016 at 4:52 pm

     Dan French, Executive director of the Center for Collaborative Education, has in fact sat on the board of CPS for years. Lisa’s salary is split between Fairtest and CPE, and there is considerable other organizational overlap.
     
     French did indeed attend the Opt Out launch meeting personally, and attempted to take a leading role, pitching his organization’s data-driven embedded accountability products as part of the opt out movement.
     
     Other participants spoke out against French’s proposals. It actually took some courage, because as you can see, there is now a Fairtest campaign to discredit opponents. It’s those people Lisa is attacking in this letter.
     
     We are going forward full force with the Massachusetts Opt Out movement, and are determined to insulate it from exploitation by Fairtest and CPE’s data-driven partners.
     
     
   • dianeravitch

     January 20, 2016 at 5:03 pm

     Mary Porter,
     I think it is poisonous for supporters of opt out to make war on one another. Sectarian fights are the plague of progressive movements. The best hope for success is a big tent with many groups working together.
     
     
   • Mary Porter

     January 20, 2016 at 5:15 pm

     Diane, it is you and Fairtest who are attacking the honest people working in this movement.
     
     I’ve worked with CPS for years. I always though it was just their association with the “Teacher Union Reform Network”, that made them so limited. Lisa once told a conference workshop we couldn’t publicly support parent actions against the Boston public school closings, because we “couldn’t get out ahead of the unions”, which support CPS financially.
     
     This is sad but true. Please don’t attack Emily for her courage in following through on it, or the parents who spoke up at this meeting.
     
     The Boston Federation of Teachers, and the MTA under former presidents Toner and Waas, were major players in supporting the disastrous Massachusetts education reform legislation of 2010 and 2012.
     http://www.turnweb.org/about/
     
     
   • Christine Langhoff

     January 20, 2016 at 6:55 pm

     To my knowledge, there is no such organization as the Boston Federation of Teachers.
     
     
   • Mary Porter

     January 20, 2016 at 8:30 pm

     I’m sorry, Christine, I know it’s the Boston Teachers Union. I’m working hard to present these links cogently, and again I apologize. I had been working to support the Minneapolis effort for several hours.
     
     But you know I am raising a real issue. Unity behind corrupted insider influence doesn’t strengthen our movement. Please take a minute to open this this link and for once, somebody, please address the content. Defend it if you find it defensible, as apparently Diane does.
     
     We have to free our own organizations from this river of dark money, because it delivers our public schools again and again into their grip..
     
     Principal Member Union Locals
     
     The National Teacher Union Reform Network members represent a total of 30 AFT and NEA locals:
     
     Albuquerque Teachers Federation
     Boston Teachers Union
     Castaic Teachers Association
     Cincinnati Federation of Teachers
     Cleveland Teachers Union
     Columbus Education Association
     Decatur Education Association
     Denver Classroom Teachers Association
     Douglas County (CO) Federation of Teachers
     Elgin (IL) Education Association
     Fairfax (VA) Education Association
     Hart District Teachers Association
     Jefferson County Education Association
     Memphis Education Association
     Milwaukee Teachers’ Education Association
     Minneapolis Federation of Teachers
     Montgomery County (MD) Education Association
     Newhall Teachers Association
     Organization of DeKalb (GA) Educators
     Pittsburgh Federation of Teachers
     Portland (ME) Education Association
     Poway (CA) Federation of Teachers
     Prince George’s County Educators’ Association
     Providence Teachers Union
     Rochester Teachers Association
     San Diego Education Association
     San Juan (CA) Teachers Association
     Saugus Teachers Association
     Springfield Education Association
     Syracuse Teachers Association
     Toledo Federation of Teachers
     United Educators of San Francisco
     United Teachers of Dade
     Westerly Teachers Association
     http://www.turnweb.org/members/
     
     
2. Mary Porter

   January 20, 2016 at 4:25 pm

   Nellie Mae, current funder of the Centr for Collaborative Education, is a huge money laundering conduit for the Gates Foundation. Emily Talmage describes how she traced it.
   “within a very short time, it became unmistakably obvious that the Common Core Standards, our new Smarter Balanced test, and Maine’s one of a kind (but not for long if they have their way, so watch out!) proficiency-based diploma mandate were all linked like pieces of a puzzle to a corporate-driven agenda to transform our schools into “personalized” (digital!) learning environments. (If you’re not sure what I’m talking about, see here for more.)
   
   Quite literally sick to my stomach, I emailed a union rep to ask if he knew anything about the paper I had found.
   
   “It’s ghastly,” he replied, “but in Maine, it has been the Nellie Mae Education Foundation and the Great Schools Partnership that has been behind these policies.”
   
   “Just to be sure, I went to the “Awarded Grants” section of the Gates Foundation website, and typed in the words “Nellie Mae.”
   http://emilytalmage.com/2015/10/22/gates-undercover/
   
   

   Reply
3. Mary Porter

   January 20, 2016 at 4:29 pm

   Here is a direct quote from a paper Monty Neill co-authored, in case you wondered how you got fired when your school was turned around.
   
   May 14, 2010
   Common Elements of Successful School Turnarounds: Research and Experience
   Gary Ratner, Esq., Executive Director, Citizens for Effective Schools, with
   Monty Neill, Ed. D., Interim Executive Director, FairTest
   
   “D. Replacement Non-Participatory and Ineffective Teachers with Motivated, Capable Teachers –
   
   Principals closely observe teachers in their classrooms, help them improve their teaching and encourage them to collaborate with other teachers.
   
   Teachers who are not motivated to participate in the school‟s turnaround efforts frequently leave voluntarily to avoid close scrutiny; if not, and they are persistently ineffective, they must be removed.xv
   
   Schools seek capable teachers who want to participate in the school‟s reform.xvi”
   http://www.edaccountability.org/pdf/CommonElementsSuccessfulSchoolTurnarounds.pdf
   
   

   Reply
4. Mary Porter

   January 20, 2016 at 4:34 pm

   If you follow their web pages, you’ll see that Fairtest has become affiliated with an organization called The Forum on Educational Accountability, which is using it as a mouthpiece to promote turnaround models. These are the new participatory, personalized formative accountability products already rolled out for the new ESEA.
   
   THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE ALREADY DOING TO HOLYOKE AND LAWRENCE
   
   From Fairtest’s “Forum on Educational Accountability”
   “FEA Recommendations for Successful School Turnaround Efforts”
   “See the FEA statement, “A Research- and Experience-Based Turnaround Process,” that focuses on flexible local use of elements common to school improvement, and that Congress should include in ESEA/NCLB reauthorization.”
   “See Ratner and Neill, “Common Elements of Successful Turnarounds: Research and Experience,” for analysis and summary of research on successfully improving schools.”
   http://www.edaccountability.org/
   
   

   Reply
5. Mary Porter

   January 20, 2016 at 4:37 pm

   FairTest’s current projects include the following:
   
   Working with other groups in Testing Resistance and Reform Spring to help local activist builds their campaigns and link up with one another.
   
   Leading the national Forum on Educational Accountability, which seeks to overhaul the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act/No Child Left Behind and related programs.
   http://www.fairtest.org/about
   
   

   Reply
6. Christine

   January 20, 2016 at 7:36 pm

   Diane, I don’t understand the comments! Fairtest has been a reliable info source for me and one with great credibility.
   
   

   Reply
7. Duane Swacker

   January 20, 2016 at 7:50 pm

   By its name FairTest believes in educational standards and standardized testing. Bob S pooh pawed Wilson’s study both times I brought it up with him at the NPE conferences. My take is that the folks at fairtest are those who have benefited from those standardized tests and therefore the tests are valid and good (which we know they are not) I’ve gotten a very GAGA take on testing from them.
   
   

   Reply
   • Mary Porter

     January 21, 2016 at 2:33 am

     Thank you or being awake, Duane. Hi, I’m just chemtchr using my own name now.
     Fairtest’s argument in conferences and workshops has been that “accountability isn’t going away”, and we would expose ourselves to opposition if we argued against the concept. They promoted an accountability system of “locally-controlled performance assessment”, which has now merged with the corporate NextGen competency-based wraparound products Emily Talmage has seen implemented in Maine..
     
     This letter is part of an aggressive attack, against parents and teachers in Massachusetts and Maine who have been active and effective long before Fairtest’s sudden corporate-sponsored conversion to Opt Out.
     
     No, they were not transparent about their alliances or funding until Emily Talmage (and I) pointed it out. Shame on them for disrespecting that courage.
     
     Far from merely offering a nice office, “Center for Collaborative Education” tried to hijack the movement, and put forth a campaign to lobby the state for imposition of his data-driven embedded assessment by force of law, as part of Opt-Out!.
     
     Parents did have to stand up to Dan French at the Opt-Out launch meeting, where CCE and Fairtest tried to dominate and co-opt a much larger authentic popular movement.
     “a few people have attacked”
     “misguided attacks to undermine and confuse activists.”
     ” attacking a meeting and a campaign”
     “to avoid confusion and damage”
     “an unfortunate distraction”
     ” poisonous for supporters of opt out to make war ”
     ” Sectarian fights are the plague”
     
     Daring to follow their corporate money and challenge their corporate agenda is not “toxic”, as no less than Diane Ravitch now accuses on their behalf.
     
     Opt-Out Massachusetts is going to move forward without their control.
     
     An honest answer from Fairtest would be,
     
     “Okay, we will support this movement even if we can’t dominate it, and we promise will allow activists to assure that Opt Out listings are independently controlled, and will never be be diverted to lobbying for corporate “alternative assessment” legislation”.
     
     
8. Alison McDowell

   January 21, 2016 at 10:44 am

   Anyone whose eyes are open to where the next phase of education reform is headed knows why the end of year tests have to go. Folks like Tom Vander Ark cannot move ahead with competency-based education and constant data-mining with stealth assessments if states hold onto end of the year tests and Johnny is four months ahead of Sally. They want to be able to mine all of Johnny’s and Sally’s data in real time.Their own planning documents say as much.
   I have been active in Opt Out in Philadelphia for several years. I wondered through much of last year why our Broad superintendent didn’t try harder to squash us. In fact, District officials were very accommodating, almost like they wished us well in our endeavors. I simply couldn’t figure it out until Obama did his song and dance about high-stakes testing right after appointing King AND our District wanted to start an Assessment Task Force to look into these “bad” tests.
   About the same time I began to uncover the extensive groundwork that had been laid for CBE. It’s all throughout New England. I reached out to those I know at Fairtest to say that the work they were doing/had done was in the process of being co-opted. Sad to me, they did not seem very open to considering the implications of CBE as it related to what they were doing. They are very smart people. I can’t speak to why they chose not to hear or see it, but there it is. They can’t say they weren’t notified.
   
   CBE and Mass Customized Learning is being rolled out across New England right now. The end of the end-of-the-year big test is inextricably linked to CBE. Wake up people. Wake up. I am not going to stop talking about opt out with parents, because kids shouldn’t be taking these harmful tests, and they don’t have to. Plus, it is an easy entry point that empowers parents. But it is going to have to move way beyond that if we have any chance to stop the grand, scary plans that folks at Global Education Futures have planned for us.
   
   The powers that be, including it seems many familiar faces, are going to do what they want no matter what. Sure it would be convenient for them to be able to point to very high opt out numbers and say, see we knew those tests were “bad” and parents know it, too. Now, we are going to do “better” tests online with real time actionable data that measures the whole child including socio-emotional data and we’ll measure them ALL year, so they don’t have to stress about end of year tests.
   
   The players involved are too numerous to count. The wield great power. They’ve built some unexpected alliances. It’s all starting to come out now that the ESSA has passed and plans made in back rooms can roll out publicly. There is a lot of money in the mix. I think some people may think that they can influence these forces and mitigate the harm, but I honestly think that is entirely the wrong approach.
   
   I am helping facilitate an Inquiry to Action Group this spring in Philadelphia about reclaiming authentic assessment, but the first part will be understanding this new education landscape and the players involved. People ask me often, how did you find out all of this? My answer is that it isn’t hidden. These folks are very proud of what they are doing, and if you know the right words and who the players are, it’s all over the internet. Here’s my draft word list. Feel free to get in there and poke around and see what you find. I keep turning up amazing things. So many hands are in on this. This goodie if from this morning, a 2012 discussion document from the Future of Museums Initiative of the American Alliance of Museums. We are headed for dystopia if we don’t take the time to recognize their game and stop it. So many pieces are already in place: http://www.aam-us.org/docs/default-source/annual-meeting/exploring-the-educational-future.pdf?sfvrsn=0
   
   Terms:
   Competency / Proficiency Based Education
   Anytime Anywhere Any Pace Learning
   Student-Centered Learning
   Personalized Learning
   Stealth Assessment
   Digital Badging
   Big Data
   Extended / Expanded Learning Opportunities
   Non-Cognitive Assessment
   Adaptive Learning Systems
   Learning Relationship Management System
   Mass Customized Learning
   Data Dashboard
   Pathways to…education…higher education…training…careers
   21st Century Community Learning Centers
   Learning is Constant, Time is Variable
   School-Level Autonomy
   NeuroWeb
   Transhuman
   Community Based
   Cradle to Career
   Players
   Nellie Mae Foundation
   Lumina Foundation
   Tom Vander Ark
   Center for Secondary School Redesign
   Global Education Futures
   Christensen Institute
   McArthur Foundation
   iNACOL
   
   Emily Talmage
   

   January 21, 2016 at 11:21 am

   I realize I am implicated in all of this. As a teacher, mother, and staunch opt-out advocate, I assure readers that I have no intention of harming this authentic grassroots effort – only to bring more clarity to what is a far more complex movement than many realize. For now, I just want to point out the following: The defense above is not accurate. It claims that CCE grants from Gates are not current, but this is untrue. A quick search of the Gates Foundation’s awarded grants section reveals a grant of 350k made in 2014. Also, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, which has served as a funnel for Gates money and is part of the corporate push toward competency-based education, awarded FairTest 5k for a “performance assessment” event.
   
   

   Reply

   Emily Talmage

   January 21, 2016 at 11:25 am

   My thesis: assessment reform is corporate reform.

The NPE/Fairtest Machine: Culpability High, Credibility Low, Part 1

The last minute flip-flop is a tactic favored by politicians whose allegiances and/or debts cannot be shared among supporters who have been led to believe a narrative that is anything but true.

When Hillary Clinton, for instance, was Secretary of State and even months after, she remained ostensibly on the fence about the TPP, which will likely to become this generation's equivalent to the toxic NAFTA.  When TPP negotiations were completed and passage was inevitable, Clinton came out strongly against it, thus satisfying her multinational corporate donors while pretending to side with workers here and abroad.  She played the same game with the Keystone pipeline.

On a much smaller scale, Ravitch and her NPE have done something very similar around the ESEA/ESSA/ECCA issue.

It started back in April of this year, when Ravitch offered her unequivocal support for the Senate version with this:

One may quibble with details, but the bottom line is that this bill defangs the U.S. Department of Education; it no longer will exert control over every school with mandates. This bill strips the status quo of federal power to ruin schools and the lives of children and educators. . . .This is a far better bill than I had hoped or feared.

Of course, none of that was true, except for the fact that Ravitch was on board the Lamar Alexander privatization train barreling toward passage of a more damaging version of NCLB. Lamar has been at it for so long that anyone with Ravitch's history knows where his priorities are.

Defanging of ED?  I think not. What the Feds have done is allow the charter industry to write most of this ESEA update and the corporate foundations to write the rest. The result is a states rights version of ESEA, which, as Gary Orfield has noted, will "set the country back by more than a half century." 

Meanwhile, the Feds, who have spent $3.3 billion on charters over the past two decades, will escalate the handouts to the segregating charter industry for new and established "no excuses" charters to buy everything from real estate to scantron machines:

Along with incentivizing more charters comes an ECAA treasure chest of discretionary grant opportunities that will now be open to states, municipalities, and other "state entities."  Under the new ECAA, federal money will go directly from Congress to the states or to another "state entity," which now may include a "state charter school board" or even a "charter school support organization."

The new ESEA, if approved, will further erase the boundaries between corporations and government, and the main job of the USDOE will be to service the applications for assistance for charter school expansion, charter school facilities, training of charter school teachers and administrators, incentivizing test-heavy merit pay plans, and other corporate "innovations" aimed to privatize public schools and to further diminish the profession of teaching. 

Even without passage of the Escalating Charter Compensation Act (ECCA) the new ESEA, ED will increase its funding to charter schools by 48 percent in 2016--to a whopping $375 million per year.  Even so, the charter industry is pressing for $500 million per year next year.  If ESEA passes, that number will look look small potatoes.

So while the Feds at ED have been de-fanged in terms of regulation and oversight for segregated charters and the corporate teacher education that they will fund over the coming years, the budgets at ED, with the passage of ESEA, will remain overflowing with education privatization dollars that will go to any outfit waving a charter school flag.

But surely, at least, Ravitch must be right that the new ESEA will strip "federal power to ruin schools and the lives of children and educators."  Yes?  Once again, not true.

In fact, annual mandated testing will continue unabated.  Even though Monty Neill, now acting as front man for Ravitch, argues that AYP and sanctions have been eliminated, this is not accurate.  

The 5 percent rule, however, remains a central privatization tool in the new ESEA, which means that the bottom five percent of test-scoring schools, i. e., the poorest schools, must be targeted for turnaround each year.  And with a new bottom 5 percent guaranteed in perpetuity (or until all schools have been privatized), tell me again that sanctions have been eliminated.  

Obfuscation, dissembling, and lies.

Stay tuned for Part 2.