KIPP Admin Resigns After Charges of Bruising 7 and 5 Year Olds

On November 14, I posted on an investigation underway in St. Louis involving a KIPP administrator accused of bruising a 5 year old boy.  Since then, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported that a 7 year old girl was reported bruised by the same administrator, Andrew Sears, a white 20-something year old male.  

The State of Missouri's investigation remains open.  From Elisa Crouch at the Post-Dispatch:

. . . .Police and the state Department of Social Services were contacted Oct. 8 and Nov. 10 for alleged physical abuse at the school, 955 Arcade Avenue. Sears was accused of bruising a girl, 7, and a boy, 5. He was put on leave, pending the outcome of investigations by police, the state and KIPP.

Tammy Howard said she became alarmed Nov. 10 when she went to the school to pick up her kindergarten son and he had bruises on his face and chest. He told her Sears had grabbed his face with one hand and squeezed hard. She brought it to the attention of school officials, and then she called police.

Hope Whitehead, an attorney for the families of both children, said state social services workers first dismissed the girl’s claims as unsubstantiated, but those concerns were reinvigorated by the second accusation involving the boy. The kindergartner had been disciplined at school the day his mother saw his bruises, the attorney said.

Howard said she was glad Sears was no longer at the school. She removed her son from KIPP the week of Nov. 10. He now attends a city district school.

Yah Ammi, the father of the girl, said his daughter also went to a different school.

“My daughter’s been traumatized,” he said.

The NPE/Fairtest Machine: Culpability High, Credibility Low, Part 2

The Flip-Flop
 
In Part 1, I pointed out that Ravitch and NPE have been pushing for passage of the updated NCLB.  It wasn't until last week, however, when Congressional action to pass this awful bill was imminent, that NPE took to Hillary's tactic to produce a statement of opposition to two elements of the new bill that Ravitch been supporting since April.  

Both of the concerns with the updated NCLB, which were expressed in an NPE fund-raising ad, were with specific elements, one having to do with siphoning Title II money for "social impact bonds" to benefit corporations, and the other concerned with federal proficiency and growth demands based on test scores.

NPE expressed no concern about any of the other bill's multitude of shortcomings, profiteering opportunities, segregative influences, damaging directives, privatizing incentives, or corporate welfare initiatives.

As of today, Ravitch's specific reservations regarding the ESSA passed by the House  have been reduced to the one having to do with social impact bonds.  Gone is her earlier concern over test based proficiency and growth demands, even though that problem remains in the House passed version of HR 5 (pp. 26-27):

(2) 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.—Such assessments shall—
‘‘(i) in the case of mathematics and reading or language arts, be used in determining the performance of each local educational agency and public school in the State in accordance with the State’s accountability system under paragraph (3);
‘‘(ii) be the same academic assessments used to measure the academic achievement of all public school students in the State;

‘‘(iii) be aligned with the State’s academic standards and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards;
‘‘(iv) be used for purposes for which such assessments are valid and reliable, be of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under this Act, and be consistent with relevant, nationally recognized professional and technical standards;
‘‘(v)(I) in the case of mathematics and reading or language arts, be administered in each of grades 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 9 through 12;
‘‘(II) in the case of science, be administered not less than one time during—
‘‘(aa) grades 3 through 5;
‘‘(bb) grades 6 through 9; and ‘‘(cc) grades 10 through 12; and
‘‘(III) in the case of any other subject chosen by the State, be administered at the discretion of the State;
‘‘(vi) measure individual student academic proficiency and, at the State’s discretion, growth; 

Oh well. 

Does Ending the Disease Require Killing the Patient?

The toxicity of NCLB has led NPE and Fairtest to conclude that anything that may bring an end to some of the suffering caused by the NCLB poison must be a good thing.  Regardless.  No matter that the remedy that promises temporary relief is going to kill us in the near term.  

It seems to have never occurred to those embracing this kind of dispirited masochism that there may be a cure to the disease that does not kill the patients. Ravitch posted today a commentary by Jeff Bryant, whose work I normally respect but in this case argues unconvincingly that getting rid of AYP, dumping Arne Duncan, and damping the malicious incompetence at ED are enough to call the new version of NCLB a "modest step forward."  

Bryant cites Monty Neill at Fairtest as his inspiration in believing that this bill, the same one that sets education back to an era of states right segregation, can be a positive move.  How can it be?  

Another thing that bothers me about Bryant's analysis is that he points to criticism of the new ESEA by the NAACP and the Southern Poverty Law Center as coming from "outliers" on the leftist fringe.   Just how far has the Right pushed our consciousness when these mainstream organizations like NAACP and SPLC can be labeled as outliers?  

Does that really preserve the rational mainstream only for those who will accept this corporate states rights version of ESEA, which is the Orwellian antithesis of the ESEA conceived fifty years ago as a tool for achieving educational justice and social equality?  How haywire has the moral and political compasses become?

Why is it that we cannot take the time, and it will not take years, to develop legislation that will cure this problem, rather than pretending that doubling down on corporate education control and failed accountability systems provides the only option we have? 

There is a major social thought disorder at work here, mixed with a lethal form of corruption.

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.

DC KIPP School Suspension Rate for Special Education Children: 48.2%

Did a 50 percent suspension rate for special ed kids affect KIPP's application for a charter renewal?  Not in the least.

. . . .According to new data from the Office of the State Superintendent of Education, only about 10 percent of all district students received an out-of-school suspension for one day or more during the 2014-2015 school year – a decrease from 11 percent in the prior year. Yet, the data shows, at several KIPP schools, the suspension rates are higher than the D.C. Public Schools (DCPS) average.

At KIPP DC AIM Academy – a middle school in Ward 8 – special education students were suspended at a rate of 48.2 percent, significantly higher than the 28.2 percent average for DCPS. Woodruff expressed concern that suspended students would end up in what has come to be known as the “school-to-prison” pipeline. - See more at: http://afro.com/kipp-d-c-s-high-suspension-rates-raise-alarms/#sthash.Jn498jNA.dpuf

What Schools Can Learn From Hospitals

Over the past five months I have had two open-heart surgeries and as a result have spent three weeks in one of the most prestigious hospitals in the United States. I have had two of the world’s best cardiothoracic surgeons do incredible work on my heart.  I have had some of the best nursing care one can imagine, and I am on my way to healing the second time. That is the good news.

What I did find troublesome was what I found when it came to prescribing medicines. Whereas the surgeons were creative problem solvers who had to assess what they saw on the spot and react accordingly, like good teachers, successfully deviating from a plan because of what they discovered were my individual needs and situation, the medical doctors were, more often than not, following a set of “standards," a Common Core of medicinal prescriptions with no regard for my individual needs.

During each hospital stay and for the weeks following “release,” because of the data, I was overprescribed drugs for precautionary reasons, for conditions that either I didn’t have or that the side effects were unwarranted, thus slowing my healing process.

This second time was far more complicated. I had a blood infection that led to the second operation. The situation was also complicated by a blood clot in my leg I had previously developed.  I knew I needed a long course of strong antibiotics and blood thinners. That was based on my individual needs. A highly competent infectious disease fellow who explained the individualization of my medication saw me.  I also understood the necessary side effects or consequences of these necessary drugs.

However, a merry-go-round of cardiologists, who often did not seem as familiar with my individual case as they should have been, prescribed things based on general “standards,” rather than on my particular needs and physical condition. On one occasion I had to confront one of these doctors about two things he recommended to me. I refused. The next day, he came back and said, “If I knew yesterday what I know today, I never would have recommended those.  Sorry.”  What?

I fought, but lost, against the next set of  “one size fits all” prescribed  “standard” recommendations for heart medications, including Lipitor, used to control high cholesterol levels, and Metoprolol, a beta blocker that treats high blood pressure. I have neither high cholesterol nor high blood pressure. I am, however now suffering from some of the side effects of these two drugs, things like tiredness, shortness of breath and heartburn.

So now I have to continue my fight against these and increase my healing and recovery rate.

It dawned on me that if I, a knowledgeable and assertive 66-year-old man, has trouble getting my individual needs met and avoiding the negative side effects (consequences) of these “standardized, one size fits all” medicinal prescriptions, what chance does a third grader have when faced with the parallel education-prescribed standardization in his or her school?

The side effects are killing him.

KIPP's Investigation of KIPP Finds KIPP Did Nothing Wrong

On November 16, photos taken at a New Orleans KIPP school showed a dean of students lifting a female student off the ground in a choke hold and then dragging the girl down the sidewalk. 

A few days later, the principal of the school concluded the dean of students had done nothing wrong.  From the Times-Picayune:

KIPP Leadership Academy in New Orleans has cleared and reinstated a staff member who was accused of choking a student. Principal Herneshia Dukes emailed parents Friday (Nov. 27) to share the decision.

"Our investigation revealed that the school administrator acted in good faith to de-escalate a physical altercation between two students and prevent them from harming one another," she wrote. "The school administrator will return to school Monday, November 30."  

The incident took place Nov. 16 as two girls got off the school bus at the elementary-middle school on St. Claude Avenue. KIPP has not identified the staffer, but Rebecca Solomon, the mother who charged that her daughter had been choked, said it was dean of students Wilfred Wright. The school put him on leave during its investigation.

Dukes initially told Solomon that Wright restrained her seventh-grade daughter using appropriate techniques, Solomon said. But after Solomon saw photos and a video of the incident, she pushed for an investigation. One photo shows Wright with his arm around the girl's neck as she clutches at it with both hands, her mouth open. Solomon did not have the video.

KIPP spokesman Jonathan Bertsch shared Dukes' email with NOLA.com | The Times-Picayune. He would not comment further.

Solomon said Monday she "already kind of figured it would go this way. ... I think they're standing up for each other."

She said she has retained a lawyer and plans to file a complaint with the KIPP New Orleans governing board while pursuing the complaint she filed with the Louisiana Education Department. Solomon also is trying to transfer her children to another school.

"The truth will out," she said. "I don't agree with (KIPP's decision), and I think any real mom who's seen what I've seen wouldn't agree with it either."

NO!

Call!

Gates Moves to Take Over Teacher Education, Part 1

The 2011 video below tells much of the story about the insignificance attached to research and scholarship by the corporate foundations that are trying to buy up university teacher preparation programs.  The woman on the left (in more ways than one) is respected scholar, Deborah Ball, whose scholarship and leadership as Dean of Education at University of Michigan adds the policymaker patina and research-vetted veneer to get the required respectability that the Gates Foundation is seeking to institute nationwide.

Watch the five minute clip below, and you will see Ball providing a rational, detailed overview of the work to be done on teacher improvement, and watch as she gets shut down when the Education Sector questioner steps over her to hear from the corrupt Kate Walsh, who, on cue, is there to promote the solution from the three states that were already in 2011 using value-added test scores to evaluate teachers.

You might say, Walsh was focused on the pre-determined outcome, even though Ball was pretending that the process that she was trying to initiate would somehow have an effect on that outcome.



Now four years later, Ball has completed her lengthy research, even though those same models used in Tennessee, Louisiana, and North Carolina remain the systems that CorpEd in Michigan seeks to emulate.  Even so, the elaborate plan was hijacked by a state senator last summer, who had the audacity to insist that teacher evaluation remain a local issue, rather than a state or federal one.

Undeterred, however, corporate foundation money continues to pour into Dr. Ball's operation at U of M.  This time, however, the focus is on revamping teacher preparation.  That will be the focus of Part 2.

ECAA "would set the country back more than a half century"

Civil Rights champion, Gary Orfield, posted this on Facebook this evening.  For those who think, or pretend to think, that this bill is the best we can do, take note:

Congress seems about to enact a massive education law that would set the country back more than a half century ending the focus adopted in l965 of focusing federal aid on the schools of concentrated poverty. It's more progressive supporters are relying on the Secretary's authority to approve state plans but that authority is full of loopholes and there is no real accounting about what happens with federal funds which can be merged with state and local funds in ways that make it impossible to evaluate. 

It is a state's rights bill that would allow states to do pretty much whatever they wish and giving the federal government extremely limited authority to enforce any equity provisions or even prevent transfer of substantial federal funds to private contractors and schools. 

The threat is that this will become law and the president will sign it before almost any of the decisionmakers have the chance to carefully read and understand the implications of the key provisions in a package of hundreds of pages that was just revealed this week and could become law in two more weeks if it is rushed through. It is pretty much what conservatives have fought for since the l960s. They have given the progressives lots of wonderful language about things that the states could decide to do but almost none of it is truly enforceable and there is very little to keep states from doing things that would harm the schools that need the most help. 

Because of serious mistakes by the Bush and Obama administrations in excessive regulation we may well go to the other extreme, where we were back in the l950s. I hope that people concerned with education read the bill, or at least the key parts of the hundreds of pages and quickly make their views known, since we could be living with this for a decade or more as we did with No Child Left Behind.

The Good News: ECAA Will Bring an Era of Open Rebellion