"A child's learning is the function more of the characteristics of his classmates than those of the teacher." James Coleman, 1972

Friday, June 11, 2010

Massachusetts to Deny 2,933 Students Diplomas: 69% Are Special Ed, 12% ELL

The final test numbers are in for graduation, and four percent of Massachusetts seniors will not get diplomas this year because they did not pass a high school science exam.  Despite the cruel reality that would indicate otherwise, Commissioner Mitchell Chester has declared that he is "not going to give up on these students." Let's see what the Commissioner has in mind besides re-testing and re-testing and re-testing again.  Does that make the no excuses and high standards idiots sleep better at night?

So remember boys and girls, if you have a learning disability or mental impairment, that's no excuse when it comes to the MCAS or the exit exams.  And if you are just learning English, that's not an excuse, either.  And if your schools don't have science labs or textbooks or a real science teacher, same deal--no excuses. Tell me how this can happen in a civilized state.

From the Globe:
. . .The 2,933 students unable to earn diplomas represent about 4 percent of this year’s senior classes, according to data requested by the Globe from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. More than half of these students also have not passed at least one of the other MCAS exams, in English and math, that are necessary for graduation.

Mitchell Chester, the department’s commissioner, called the failure rate alarming. He said that school districts have pledged to work diligently to help these students pass future testing sessions and that some districts have created summer school opportunities for these students.

“I know our schools are going the extra mile,’’ Chester said in an interview. “We are not going to give up on these students.’’

. . . .
But some educators and school advocates say requiring that students pass a science test for graduation goes too far. Some students, they say, are not adept at the sciences, and some schools struggle to offer rigorous science programs because of difficulty in finding qualified teachers or a lack of modern science labs and other resources.

Of those who have not passed the science exam, 69 percent receive special education services and 12 percent are learning to speak English. . .

Imagine and 501(c)(3) Status

The commentary below comes from Marc Dean Millot. Millot's experience setting up a complicated nonprofit corporation may help shed some light on why Imagine is still waiting for 501(c)(3) status. I've added a brief comment at the end.
Imagine Schools is as a nonprofit corporation under Virginia state law. That only exempts the organization from the state's income tax. Five years ago the national charter school operator applied for exemption from federal income taxes under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). They have yet to receive a determination. Why?

In "Failure of Imagination", Pittsburgh City Paper reporter Chris Young passes on Imagine executive vice president Sam Howard's explanation: "The IRS takes forever to do anything."

This issue has been bugging me for a long while. As it happens, circa 1999, leveraging the expertise of nationally recognized leaders, I set up a fairly complicated nonprofit operating in the boundary territory between public education and business. Based on that experience, Howard's explanation strikes me as glib.

The Education Entrepreneurs Fund was a subsidiary nonprofit of New American Schools, both incorporated in VA as nonprofit corporations. The Fund loaned money at low interest to for- and nonprofit CSR providers, made equity investments in for-profits, entered into joint ventures with for-profits in the school improvement space, and started a nonprofit business activity in grant research that ultimately became one of my current competitors (Red Rocks). In round numbers, we started with $1.5 million of NAS money, $3 million from a USED grant to build the capacity of CSR providers, and a $10 million, 10-year, low interest loan from Prudential Insurance.

At the time I was still a pretty new lawyer, but knew exactly what I wanted by way of business operations - a "virtual bank." The Fund's "back office" - processing loan repayments, keeping the books, doing the nightly investments of excess cash etc - was managed by Riggs National Bank trust department under contract. Loan and other investment documentation was drafted by O'Melveney & Meyers. BDO Seidman were our accountants. Education Capital served as independent investment advisors. A subset of the NAS board's executive committee was the Funds board and inverstment committee. I was the President. Two young ex-banker/educator colleagues and I handled the substantive investment issues.

For the better part of a year, I spent much of my time negotiating the various legal elements (corporate formation, loans, grant terms, outsourcing of support functions, etc) required to get this done. I worked closely with some incredibly competent banking attorneys at O&M and the head of BDOs nonprofit practice. Setting up this entity broke a lot of new legal ground, including compliance with ED and banking regulations - and in seeking 501(c)(3) status for the Fund from the IRS. I remember two lengthy meetings of our team at BDO Seidman where we reviewed the pros and cons of various options offered in the IRS application form, argued them out, and decided on an application strategy. Our preparation paid off. As I recall we were granted 501(c)(3) status as a "supporting entity" of NAS within a few months - and without incident.

Now, Imagine is a different entity with a different mission, history and context. Still, my experience suggests that the IRS' nonprofit staff is able to handle complicated structures. And I'm sure Imagine has access to the nations best advice in accounting and law. This is why the lengthy delay strikes me as odd. The basic set of facts the IRS was presented with in the Imagine application seem to be pretty much the same as five years ago. The bulk of Imagine's school operations were acquired from Chancellor-Beacon, Schoolhouse Finance has been in place a long time. The interlocking board structure is unchanged. Moreover, the IRS has had guidelines to determine the federal tax status of charter schools and charter operators for several years, and has revised those guidelines, implying they have travelled some ways along a learning curve.

So what gives? What aspect of the fact pattern presented by Imagine five years ago is so complex or what part of the law surrounding 501(c)(3) determinations so vague that the IRS can't or doesn't want to make a ruling? Its not like they are generally shy about making tax status decisions or reticent about going to court. Has the fact pattern changed in some important way, sending the IRS back to the drawing board? Has IRS experience with charters thrown the staff into a state of confusion? Does the IRS want some change in operations or structure to the Imagine network that Imagine won't give? I don't know. In any case, there's a substantive reason the IRS has not granted Imagine 501(c)(3) status, and its not "we haven't gone through the file yet."

The IRS may be under a legal obligation to refrain from discussing pending applications. Nothing prevents Imagine from offering the public or the independent charter school boards it partners with a substantive explanation for the delay. Indeed - given the sometimes bright line between for- and nonprofit operators in state charter statutes law - it is quite surprising that chartering agencies in the jurisdictions with Imagine Schools' schools have not insisted on a public clarification to support their chartering decisions. (But that is another story.)
Another interesting fact: let's say Imagine has applied for 501(c)(3) status (as they claim in multiple articles/sites). And let's say their application was denied by the IRS (again, this is just a thought exercise - we don't know if they've been denied). Imagine does not have to make this information public and the IRS, under Section 6103 of U.S.C., cannot comment on the application's denial. In other words, Imagine could continue to claim they're eagerly awaiting approval from the IRS even though they've been denied. However, this information would be made public if Imagine fought the denial in court - but there's little incentive for them to make any moves if Imagine doesn't think they could win a court case.

Putting Some Weight Against the Neck

Thernstrom's Anti-Racism Racism


Harvard University’s Winthrop Research Professor of History, Stephan Thernstrom has his underwear in a wad, as they say down South, over the W. K. Kellogg Foundation’s spending of $75 million in a national anti-racist campaign called "America Healing Initiative." The Foundation seems to have serious intentions to make amends for the Kellogg family’s documented history as backers of the eugenics movement in the early  20th Century.  For example, Dr. J. H. Kellogg, brother of W. K., was instrumental in founding the Race Betterment Foundation.

Here are a few of the projects currently being funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation:

      People’s Grocery, a community organization building a local food system in West Oakland, Calif., will use the America Healing grant to support the new Community Hands program, which recruits local “ambassadors” to organize healthy food demonstrations and communicate the needs of the local residents.
   
      The Foundation for the Mid-South, which works to improve the quality of life for people in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, will involve residents of 30 small towns in promoting citizens’ health, especially related to obesity and related diseases. The project, Reducing Health Disparities in Small Southern Towns, will reach out to those not involved in making decisions and who don’t have access to the resources that support a healthy lifestyle.
   
      The Little Black Pearl Art and Design Center, a Chicago-based non-profit arts organization serving neighborhoods on the South Side, will focus America Healing funds on its “Collateral Damage: Creating Legacies of Boundless Peace” project. Participants, including Chicago Public School students, will explore the lives of young people lost because of gun violence in the city and learn research skills with which to document the issues of violence and discrimination in their communities.
   
      Lifelink’s Beyond Cultural “Competency” project is an effort to develop culturally appropriate approaches to serving the mental and behavioral health needs of the Native American youth and families in McKinley County, New Mexico. The initiative is a response to a 2008 research report indicating that many young people and their families are not receiving the help they need because of their mistrust of western behavioral health services and providers.

While it may be hard for most people to argue with these worthwhile demonstrations of societal uplift, Prof. Thernstrom remains, nonetheless, skeptical and even dismissive in his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed:
It is difficult to tell exactly what many of the grantees will be doing. Alongside language about building "inter- and intra-ethnic trust" their purpose statements tend to echo the grantor's vague language about healing and the like. Not many appear to have been as explicit in their aims as the applicant that proposed working "to achieve policy change in the grocery industry in low-income neighborhoods in Los Angeles."
It becomes clear pretty quickly that the good professor’s skepticism goes even deeper:
The foundation sees minorities as constantly victimized by pervasive racism. "Cultural, policy, and institutional forms of racism" are ubiquitous in our society, doing immense damage to innocent youths, its "Fact Sheet" asserts.
Appalling—if true. But what evidence convinced Kellogg that racism is such a clear-and-present danger to the children of America today? Foundation officials point to racial and ethnic disparities: Hispanics and blacks, for example, have much higher poverty rates than whites, and are far less likely to have completed college.
Prof. Thernstrom is quick to point out that if so many poorly educated Latinos weren’t coming to the U. S., then there wouldn’t be so many poor, uneducated Latinos.  Simple. As for the economic deprivation of so many African-Americans, Prof. Thernstrom has this to say:
One obvious cause of the sharp disparities is the overwhelming preponderance of black single-parent families, a pattern that would not magically disappear if every scintilla of remaining racism vanished overnight.

You see, Prof. Thernstrom does not want to draw attention to racism and poverty; he wants to draw attention away from racism and poverty by shifting the focus to "educational attainment," which is not, according to the illustrious Harvard historian, a racism or poverty issue, but rather a cultural one.  For the good professor and his wife, Abigail, are the proud authors of 2003 bible of new blame-the-victims penal pedagogy, No Excuses: Closing the Racial Gap in Learning.  For the Thernstroms and their disciples, to fix the education problem means to fix the defective minority cultures responsible for single-parent households, which are at the heart of the race problem and at the nub of the education solution:

The process of connecting black students to the world of academic achievement isn’t easy in the best of educational settings—and such settings are today few and far between.  But that only means that in order to “counter and transform” African-American “cultural patterns,” . . . fundamental change in American education will be necessary—change much more radical than that contemplated by the most visionary of today’s public school officials.  Recognizing the problem is the first step down that long and difficult road (p. 147).

Radical, yes.  This “difficult road” is being forged by the psychological manipulation of impoverished children to behave like the modern day white middle class view of what black middle class children should be, i. e., obsequious, contented, obedient, hard-working, and compliant in every way.  Work hard, be nice.  A couple of paragraphs from a book, out later this year:
The Thernstroms and the other white (and black) privileged “no excuses” fans view race as defined by culture, which they claim exerts twice as much influence on academic achievement than family income, accumulated wealth, and skin color. Culture defines race, then, for good or bad, in much the same way that genetic inheritance was believed to defined race by eugenicists at the beginning of the 20th Century.  Cultural characteristics, according to the “no excuses” creed, are racial characteristics, and they can be separated out from economic or class characteristics.  The Thernstroms preach that two-thirds of the achievement gap between black and white children is attributable, then, to culture, whereas one-third is shaped largely by poverty, parental education, and the environment (p.147).
Richard Rothstein’s research, however, clearly demonstrates how social class functions as the primary contributor to achievement differences, with family income, accumulated wealth, skin color, and culture comprising the elements that make up social class.  Rothstein concludes in Class and Schools . . . “the debate about whether the low achievement of black students is rooted in culture or economics is largely fruitless because socioeconomic status and culture cannot be separated” (p. 51). According to Rothstein, then, the neat separation of elements that is achieved by the Thernstroms (2003), with the larger chunk of achievement influence reserved for the role of culture, misses the larger point that culture, too, cannot escape the systemic influence of poverty, or lack thereof, in the formation and activity of culture.
        In the KIPP schools and the charter school knockoffs that continue to be inspired by KIPP, this forced separation between culture and socioeconomic class is required in order to draw attention away from the effects of poverty, which, in turn, exacerbates the kinds of callous cruelty by KIPP personnel acting with little oversight, while under unrelenting pressure to achieve the higher test scores that are the KIPP brand’s signature accomplishment. The “no excuses” ideology, then, not only ignores the documented and substantive effects of poverty on the poor, but it becomes the all-pervasive, blinding excuse for justifying dangerous, damaging, and morally-repugnant acts that, otherwise, would not be entertained in a society grounded by humane values and ethical rules of conduct.
In a journal article by Dennis Durst that traces the links between evangelism and the early eugenics movement, he has this:
In Dr. Kellogg's remarks to the second Race Betterment Conference in 1915, the emphasis in human procreation had become the efficiency of the animal breeder. Critics of the efforts of eugenicists to arrange marriage unions according to eugenic criteria had argued that such endeavors omitted love from the equation. In a sharp rejoinder, Kellogg reveled in his role as defender of scientific efficiency: "One newspaper said Dr. Kellogg and Dr. Burbank were trying to make the United States into a great stock farm, by breeding for human efficiency. I wish," Kellogg retorted, "we had the power to do that very thing. It would not be such a bad idea," he continued, "it certainly would be a great deal better than to have the United States a great stock farm, breeding mongrels-which is what we are doing now.13 Human uniqueness, once enshrined in the treasured biblical doctrine of the imago Dei, took second place to the greater good of society, as defined by Anglo-Saxon elites such as John Harvey Kellogg. Anyone who did not measure up to his physiological or moral ideal was not fit for the kingdom, or, more precisely, for the forward march of a scientifically efficient and modern civilization.
So in calling for a cultural purging among poor minority children through the process of schoolhouse KIPP-notizing, Dr. Thernstrom continues the perverted legacy of the early Kellogg Foundation work, for which the modern day Kelloggs would like to make amends. In fact, Thernstrom calls on the Kellogg Foundation to forsake their funding of programs like the ones noted above, which are aimed at racial healing, and to pitch their millions in with the hundreds of millions collected from other corporate foundations to fund more “no excuses” charter chain gangs:

It [the Kellogg Foundation] could have supported the further expansion of charter school networks that have proven results—KIPP and Uncommon Schools, among them.

If Kellogg wants to do something constructive for disadvantaged children, it should back such innovative efforts to improve their cognitive skills. The foundation cannot see that point, alas, because it has bought into the simplistic notion that all disparities in educational achievement are attributable to continuing racism—and thus is financing antiracist programs devoted to publicizing "past wrongs and group suffering." Nothing good is likely to come from this.

Dr. Thernstrom, finally then, will have no part of the kind of the racial healing that the Kelloggs are trying to make possible.  In fact, he urges the current Kellogg Foundation to continue to old legacy of behavioral and cultural sterilization among the most vulnerable children of the poor.  And just like a hundred years ago, those who don’t measure up are simply not “fit for the kingdom” or “for the forward march of a scientifically efficient and modern civilization.”  There are other institutions awaiting those who fail to measure up to Professor Thernstrom's standard.

Thursday, June 10, 2010

Wake County's Gang of Five: 19th Century Pols in a 21st Century Community

Not only have these teabaggers on the school board destroyed the most successful school integration program in the nation, but now they are going after the books.  All the books.  Read this great feature from IndyWeek:
About Deborah Westmoreland. She called me a couple of weeks ago to ask if I knew that the Wake school board was laying off 40 librarians — media specialists these days — as of the end of the 2009-10 school year. I did not know that. I remembered Deborah from her involvement in the first Sparkcon a few years ago. Since then, she'd taken a job with the Wake schools as media specialist at Moore Square Magnet Middle School. Now, she was one of those being laid off.

Her call prompted me to write a column in the Indy this week about two related subjects. One is the fact that, with all the attention being given to the new school board majority's anti-diversity policy, and its plan to carve the county into "assignment zones" that will inevitably, I think, result in high-poverty schools in Raleigh and East Wake, too little attention has been paid to the new majority's very inadequate budget.

The Republican Five — the members in the 5-4 board majority — are "starving the beast" with a budget which, on the surface, seems reasonable given parlous times, but which is in fact far short of what's needed to keep a good system going. State aid is tanking, and the Wake system continues to grow with four new schools opening this fall and a projected enrollment increase of 3,800 students. Yet the school board asked the county commissioners for the same amount of money for next year as it received this year. Obviously, something will have to give. . . .
Do read on.

Let's read. Let's move. Let's support libraries.

Let's Read. Let's Move. Let's Support Public Libraries
Sent to the Christian Science Monitor, June 10, 2010

As part of a program called "Let's read. Let's Move," First Lady Michelle Obama is calling for children to read five books over the summer to prevent summer reading loss: Some children lose about two months of reading progress over the summer ("Michelle Obama's next childhood obesity target: summer break," June 8). But it makes no sense to require or encourage reading when there is little access to books.

The children who show reading loss over the summer are children of poverty. Research shows that children of poverty have little access to books at home, at school and in their communities. Public libraries in high-poverty areas are not well-funded, and have fewer materials and are open fewer hours than those in low-poverty areas. Studies also show that when children have access to interesting and comprehensible reading material, the children really do read.

The first step in dealing with the summer slump is the most obvious: Better funding of public libraries, especially in high-poverty areas, and more support for librarians who understand what children really like to read.

Stephen Krashen
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Education/2010/0608/Michelle-Obama-s-next-childhood-obesity-target-summer-break

Wednesday, June 09, 2010

Pearson Turns Montgomery County Into Corporate Curriculum Showroom

There was good reason for educational publishing and testing corporations to celebrate Bush's arrival in Washington. After looking over the NCLB plan, Chief executive of Pearson Education, Peter Jovanovich, quipped to Education Week in February, 2001: "This almost reads like our business plan."  

Now some might think that Pearson would be nervous with a new Administration (D), but we know that money is entirely bipartisan, so there is nothing to worry about for Pearson stockholders.  In fact, one of the authors of NCLB, Sandy Kress, is an avowed "Democrat," and he now lobbies for Pearson.  The other connections between Pearson and the Obamaites await the investigative reporting that the education media is entirely immune to.

The connections to today's ED are already producing results.  Last year, for instance, Pearson's profits were up by 46 percent, and this year things will only get better for Pearson.  I have not seen the details, but I suspect the new deal that they have signed with the whores prostisuits who run Montgomery County Schools will include something like the "Bright Beginnings" curriculum and testing for PreK and K, which was developed by former Bush ED appointee, Dr. Susan Neuman.

And with the new curriculum aligned, somehow simultaneously, with the new national standards that have just been announced, too, this will make Pearson the frontrunner for developing the national test to go with the national curriculum, both of which will surely make all American children in the corporate welfare schools equally stupid prepared to compete in the global economy.

Some details here from Valerie Strauss on the new sweet deal between Pearson and MCPS:
Some may call Project North Star a pretty smart deal. I would use less flattering words to describe the deal into which Montgomery County Public Schools just entered with the world’s largest for-profit educational publishing company to nationally “brand” a newly created K-5 curriculum.

Under the arrangement
, the school district will effectively turn its classrooms into Pearson Education Inc. showrooms, and sell to a private company the right to trade on the system’s high-achieving reputation, built over years with public funds, to enrich itself.

Other than that, there’s nothing wrong with the contract.

Oh, wait. Yes, there is.

Under the contract, Pearson will provide the county with up to $4.5 million in development funds -- one half of which will be “considered an advance against future royalties.” So the total is really something like $2.25 million to hire people to collaborate on a new curriculum to be aligned with the newly released Common Core standards for math and English language arts.

The school system, which has applied for a federal grant to obtain public money for this enterprise, would get a maximum 3 percent of royalties on domestic sales beyond that amount, my colleague Michael Birnbaum wrote in a Post news article.

The contract hails the arrangement as an easy way for the cash-strapped school system to make money, especially since it was already planning to revamp its curriculum and now will get outside funding.

With the enormous budget cuts school districts are facing, a desperate desire to find a funding source somewhere, anywhere, is understandable. Almost.

Selling its name and reputation to a for-profit company has serious, unfortunate consequences. It allows business concerns to dictate the two-year curriculum development schedule; being the first, or one of the first, to market a curriculum aligned with new standards adopted by many states could be quite a lucrative business move.

And it gives Pearson customers the right to come into MCPS classrooms to look at the product in action - effectively making staff and students salespeople. Lovely.

Meanwhile, the contract gives Pearson the right to change some of the materials for its national edition of the curriculum (the county is allowed to object, but only so long as its objections are not unreasonable, according to the contract). But it would still be marketed as a MCPS curriculum.

Nobody but Pearson and Montgomery County would know the difference, which is a problem only when you consider that buyers presumably want a curriculum used in one of the highest-achieving districts in the country, not a Pearson-altered strain. . . .

"We're at the mercy of the testing company."

For a bit of history on these corporate bloodsuckers, see this piece by Bloomberg News called How Testing Companies Fail Your Kids.

The most recent failure from the St. Augustine Record:
A month-long delay in getting test results from the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test will hold up everything from hiring teachers to placing students to determining courses offered in St. Johns County schools.

"There's nothing we can do. We're at the mercy of the testing company," Superintendent Joe Joyner said Monday. "We can't do anything until they provide us with results."

The testing company is NCS Pearson, which received a $254 million contract, good through 2013, from the Florida Department of Education. Pearson is administering and scoring the exams on paper and piloting the state's new computer-based testing.

According to an Associated Press story, the firm has had problems with exams in other states including South Carolina, Arkansas and Wyoming. They settled a class action lawsuit with the College Board after 4,400 students were underscored on the SAT in 2006.

Late Friday, Florida school districts were told there would be a delay in the delivery of the scores.

Scores were already running late, but until Friday districts expected them before the end of the school year. Now they won't get them until sometime around the end of June, according to state education officials. . . .

Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Is there a US science education crisis?

Sent to Science News (June 8) in response to "Confronting a third crisis in US science education," by S. James Gates - http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58930/title/Comment__Confronting_a_third_crisis_in_U.S._science_education_

Is there a US science education crisis?

"Confronting a third crisis in US science education" (May 22) assumes that there is a real crisis. There are several reasons to doubt this:

- Our science and math test scores are unspectacular, but the problem is not science and math education. Studies show that American students from well-funded schools who come from high-income families outscore all or nearly all other countries on international tests. Only our children in high poverty schools score below the international average. (Payne and Biddle, 1999; Bracey, 2009; Martin, 2009). The US has the highest percentage of children in poverty of all industrialized countries (25%, compared to Denmark's 3%). Our educational system has been successful; the problem is poverty.

- The US ranks at or near the top of the world on all categories related to science and math education, availability of expertise, and creativity: According to the World Economic Federation, the US ranks 5th out of 133 countries in "availability of scientists & engineers," second in "quality of scientific research institutions" and first in "university-industry research collaboration." The US also ranks sixth out of 133 countries in "capacity for innovation," and third in the number of patents for new inventions per capita, slightly behind Taiwan and Japan. (In contrast, China ranks 50th.)

- There is no shortage of science and technology-trained professionals in the United States. In fact, there is a surplus (Teitelbaum, 2007; Toppo and Vergano, 2009; Bracey, 2009). Gerald Bracey, in fact, concluded that "… the impending shortage of scientists and engineers is one of the longest running hoaxes in the country."

According to Dr. Gates, a major rationale for "fixing" science education is that it's "connected to our country's future economy." According to the World Economic Foundation, the US economy is doing quite well: The US ranks second in the world (out of 133 countries) in "global competitiveness," outranked only by Switzerland.

Stephen Krashen
University of Southern California, Los Angeles

Sources:

Bracey, G. 2009. Education Hell: Rhetoric Vs. Reality. Alexandra, VA: Educational Research Service.
Martin, M. 2009. Eggs or eggheads: Which does the U.S. economy really need? Arizona School Boards Journal, Winter. Available at: http://www.susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=688
Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13.
Teitelbaum, M. 2007. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Technology and Innovation. Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC, November 6, 2007
Toppo, G. and Vergano, D. 2009. Scientist shortage? Maybe not. USA Today, August 9, 2009

Let's Have Performance Pay for Economists Who Muck Around in Education Issues

The NYTimes blog, Economix, has a posting by Harvard economist, Edward Glaeser, on a recent conference in Cambridge to air some of the research on teacher pay based on test scores.  The conference brought together the customary lineup of pro-corporate and pro-privatization forces, those described by Dr. Paul Peterson as the good against the evil (see Bush v. Holmes (Fl. Sup. Ct.) for some background on Peterson's self-described "small band of Jedi attackers, using their intellectual powers to fight the unified Death Star forces led by Darth Vader, whose intellectual capacity has been corrupted by the urge for complete hegemony”(p. 3).

This illustrious group of Jedi warriors are now ensconced at Harvard within The Program on Policy and Governance (PEPG), whose Advisory Committee is headed by Jeb Bush and whose members include the Who's Who of research chefs and ideologues who earn their bread by manufacturing reports to support the corporate vision of schooling.

Since there was no U. S.  research presented at the conference to support the current plan to base tenure and pay on test scores, Glaeser focuses on a rehash of a study done ten years ago in Israel and a more recent one done in India, both of which show some evidence to support performance based pay. 

Glaeser also focuses on a study by Jedi warriors, Jay Greene and Scott Buck, that found that local administrators and teachers often subvert the intent of pay per score plans.  Glaeser also fumes that teachers will probably cheat to make their increase their pay, since they hate the performance pay plan, anyway.  While there is good reason to believe that teacher cheating will indeed occur when money for test scores comes to town, Glaeser offers no such warning when he presented the Israeli and Indian studies mentioned earlier.  Obviously, cheating is only a problem in the U. S. and in systems where pay per score is unpopular.

What Glaeser does not mention at all is the research presented at HIS conference by Goodman and Turner from Columbia that shows the New York pay for performance plan has not worked.  Valerie Strauss has a rundown that includes other recent evidence that would make any sane national policymaker change course from the full speed ahead that Arne's Oligarchs have chosen:
Just the other day we heard that a program in Chicago that attempted to link teacher pay with student standardized test scores wasn’t working, at least not in the first two years.

A 2009 analysis of a major program in Texas that also linked teacher pay to student achievement gains on tests showed no evidence of success. The multi-year Texas Educator Excellence Grant involved teachers at about 1,000 campuses, with a total of more than 140,000 students in lower-income neighborhoods. It was discontinued because of “design problems.”

Now, a paper prepared by two Columbia University researchers for a recent education conference at Harvard University said that the New York City Bonus Program, which attempts to raise student achievement by paying teachers for it, was -- you guessed -- also unsuccessful.

The researchers, Sarena Goodman and Lesley Turner, investigated the impacts of group-based incentive pay over two academic years (2007-2008 and 2008-2009) on a range of outcomes that included teacher effort, student performance in math and reading, and classroom activities. Also evaluated were impacts on the market for teachers by examining teacher turnover and the qualifications of newly hired teachers.

“Overall, we find the bonus program had little impact on any of these outcomes,” the researchers concluded.
In each of these reports, the authors noted that the design of the program was flawed in some way. Teachers weren’t paid enough or they were not paid individually or some other part was not well conceived.

The Goodman/Turner study says, for example, “We argue that the lack of bonus program impacts can be explained by the structure of the bonus program. Group bonuses led to free-riding, which significantly reduced the program’s incentives.”

Maybe. But maybe not. And this is our problem: Nobody yet knows.

That hasn’t stopped performance-based pay from becoming the new mantras in school reform. It was, in fact, a key part of the new teachers' contract negotiated in Washington, D.C., by Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee and just ratified by members of the Washington Teachers' Union. It is also part of a number of school reform laws recently passed in various states to win favor -- and federal Race to the Top dollars -- from Education Secretary Arne Duncan. . . .