Weekend Wrap-Up

Here are some fun links to explore:

1.  Education Reform Now (the 501c3 version of DFER) and the Education Equality Project teamed up to grade the 70-something gubernatorial candidates across the country.  They gave the Republican candidate a higher grade in 15 states, the Democrat a higher grade in 4 states, and the independent candidate received the highest grade in one state (candidates tied in the rest of the races - and keep in mind that many candidates did not respond to the ERN/EEP questionnaire).  Be sure to check out the criteria used.  It ain't pretty.  ERN/EEP gives, for instance, A's to AZ Governor Jan Brewer (!) and OR Republican candidate Chris Dudley.

2.  The Pennsylvania School Board Association's Education Research and Policy Center released a white paper about charter/cyber school funding.  I haven't had time to read it closely, but it looks like there's some interesting stuff in there.

3.  Richard Rothstein penned an excellent response to the Rhee/Klein manifesto.  It's a must-read.

The problem is poverty: Evidence from Gerald Bracey

The problem is poverty: Evidence from Gerald Bracey
Stephen Krashen

The entire basis for the national standards/testing movement is our low scores on international tests when compared to other countries. Our scores, however, are only low because we have such a high percentage of children in poverty, compared to other countries that participate in international tests. When we consider only middle-class children who attend well-funded schools, our math scores are near the top of the world (Payne and Biddle, 1999).

Here is another analysis, using reading test scores, that comes to the same conclusion. The PIRLS test was given to ten year olds in 35 countries in their own language. Bracey (2009) presented this data, along with relevant socio-economic data on the poverty level of the schools American children attended (defined as participating in free or reduced price lunch programs):

American students attending schools with
- less than 10 percent in poverty averaged 589 (14% of students).
- 10-24.9% in poverty averaged 567 (20% of students)
- 25 to 49.9% in poverty averaged 551 (30% of students)
- 50 to 74.5% in poverty averaged 519 (21% of students)
- 75% or more in poverty averaged 485 (15% of students)

Clearly, students in schools with lower levels of poverty did better. Of great interest to us is the fact that American children attending low poverty schools (25% or less) outscored the top scoring country, Sweden (561). Bracey also points out that "if the students in schools with 24-49.9% poverty constituted a nation, it would rank fourth among the 35 participating nations" (p. 155).

The problem is poverty, not our teachers, our unions, the parents, or the children. The solution is to protect our children from the disadvantages of poverty, through health care, nutrition, and access to books. Geoffrey Canada claims that his approach is to attempt to do just that in the Harlem Children's Zone schools (NY Times, October 12, 2010; but see Krashen, 2010a,b).

Thus far, the Arne Duncan department of education has chosen to ignore this route (while praising the Harlem Children's Zone), and spend billions on useless national standards and national tests, focusing on measuring rather than helping.


Bracey, G. 2009. Education Hell: Rhetoric Versus Reality. Alexandria, VA: Educational Research Service.
Payne, K. and Biddle, B. 1999. Poor school funding, child poverty, and mathematics achievement. Educational Researcher 28 (6): 4-13.
Krashen, S. 2010a. A suggestion for Geoffrey Canada. www.schoolsmatter.info. October 12, 2010.
Krashen, S. 2010b. Shocking revelations from Goeffrey Canada's autobiography. www.schoolsmatter.info. October 13, 2010.

Shocking revelations from Geoffrey Canada's autobiography

Sent to the New York Daily News, October 13

Geoffrey Canada says that a longer school day, increased accountability, and "data to drive instruction" can help children who have fallen behind ("The truth about our schools," October 13). But in his autobiography, Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun, he credits reading for his own school success, despite growing up in poverty: "I loved reading, and my mother, who read voraciously too, allowed me to have her novels after she finished them. My strong reading background allowed me to have an easier time of it in most of my classes."
There is no clear data supporting longer school days, increased accountability and data-driven instruction as a means of improving school performance. In contrast, there is overwhelming evidence showing that Mr. Canada's reading habit was indeed the basis for his school success: Many studies show that providing access to interesting and comprehensible reading substantially improves school performance.
I hope Mr. Canada applies the lessons he learned from his own experience to the Harlem Children's Zone.
Stephen Krashen


Sources:
Krashen, S. 2009. Eight-one generalizations about free voluntary reading. Children and Adolescents (Published by Young Learners (Children and Adolescents) Special Interest Group of the International Association of Teachers of English as a Foreign Language. 1/2009, pages 7-12. (Available at www.sdkrashen.com)

Lindsay, J. 2010. Children's Access to Print Material and Education-Related Outcomes: Findings from a Meta-Analytic Review. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. http://bit.ly/9lKPPa

The truth about our schools: Harlem Children's Zone CEO Geoffrey Canada on 'Waiting for Superman'
Geoffrey Canada
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2010/10/13/2010-10-13_the_truth_about_our_schools_harlem_childrens_zone_ceo_geoffrey_canada_on_waiting.html#ixzz12IKCPHbw

Is Deborah Gist Serious?

I need some help.  I had a mini-debate with someone on Twitter the other day, and one of us is likely very confused about the current education debate.

I've been under the impression that the Education Equality Project and the Broader, Bolder Approach to education are competing viewpoints in regards to how we should improve the public schools.  I was under this impression because both "camps" (if you want to call them that, and some people don't) have noted they're competing agendas; because writers across the political spectrum have commented on their varying viewpoints; and because a review of their policy documents, boards, and other available information suggests they have distinctly different - and often times conflicting - viewpoints on many significant issues. My informal mini-debate opponent claimed she didn't see them as competing agendas, just focused differently.  And my mini-debate opponent is on EEP's board, but also is also a BBA signatory.  If you haven't figured it out, my mini-debate opponent is RI's Deborah Gist.

Readers can check out Gist's full Twitter feed in order to see the full text of our brief little debate.  I'm actually going to give her some credit for a few things that she said: she doesn't buy into the notion that there are "reformers" and "defenders of the status quo"; she says she's concerned about testing (in light of this article); and I think she deserves credit for being willing to engage with people that criticize or question her on social media outlets.  Please don't assume that me giving her credit for those things means I think she's right on a lot of issues, that I approve of her work, or that she's won me over as some sort of convert; on the contrary, I'm even more concerned about her given her assertion that EEP and BBA are somehow not competing agendas and really just "focus" on separate areas.

Here are two concrete examples of her denying the competing agendas of EEP and BBA:

As I mentioned in my introduction, lots and lots of people see these as competing agendas.  For example, David Brooks noted it in a NY Times piece; BBA co-chairs shot back with their own response, which included this statement:

Our approach does not represent the “status quo,” as Mr. Brooks proclaims. The approach endorses “school improvement plus” and focuses on the three “plus” areas of early childhood, health, and after-school and summer programs, while the competing Education Equality Project promotes the “schools only” strategy that is the current policy.

And there's the Pat McGuinn piece from Rick Hess' blog (also posted on the EEP blog), the Paul Tough piece from Slate, and a whole lot of other folks who would agree there are some really big differences between these two groups.  In the above quote, the BBA co-chairs call EEP a "competing" project, and below you'll see a tweet from Marcus Hall, a (former?) Program Associate at EEP:

I finished my brief debate with Gist knowing that one of us was misunderstanding the differences (or lack of) between EEP/BBA.  I'm inclined to believe I'm right, and I've presented evidence - from BBA co-chairs, EEP, and a plethora of writers from across the political spectrum - to support my point of view.

Why does this matter?  As far as I'm concerned, we have a highly influential public official making statements that fail to acknowledge the gross difference between two competing reform agendas.  Of course, readers will know I strongly favor the Broader, Bolder Approach and I'm not a fan of DFER (which shares many characteristics - and board members - with EEP).  Suggesting there aren't really significant differences between the two agendas is highly misleading, and it really doesn't help the public understand the debate in the education policy arena.  It floors me that Gist can see these as agendas that are not competing with each other.

Is there something I'm missing here?  Fill me in...

Trading a Snarling TFA Know-Nothing Alum for a Smiling TFA Know-Nothing Alum

Looks as though Rhee's lieutenant, Kaya Henderson, could the interim pick to replace the poisonous Michelle Rhee, who is revving up her broom this morning for a quick departure following a news conference in DC. 

Having been assimilated through the same portal as her Corps member sister and boss, Henderson will no doubt pursue the same failed corporate policies for which they were both chosen to cram into the DC schools--thus demonstrating a perfect transition from blind hubris to willful ignorance.  Emerson's truth is worth recalling: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds . . ."

From WaPo:

. . . .In Henderson, Gray inherits someone in tune with Rhee on the fundamentals of education reform, especially the belief that teacher quality is the most important determinant of student success. Rhee and Henderson worked together at the New Teacher Project, a teacher recruiting nonprofit group that Rhee founded and ran before she was appointed by Fenty in June 2007. Henderson was a vice president for the group. 

She was Rhee's first appointment and was named her top deputy the day Rhee was introduced to the District. At the time, Rhee made it sound as if they had come to the District as a package.

"I told Kaya, 'I can't do this without you,'" Rhee said at the time. "She's everything you'd want in a leader. She has an ability to motivate people. She's a critical thinker, and she's an innovative thinker."

At the New Teacher Project, Henderson ran the organization's D.C. operation, which had contracts with D.C. public schools to supply teachers. Before that, Henderson worked for Teach for America - where Rhee began her educational career - teaching middle school Spanish in the South Bronx.

At a D.C. Council meeting last year, Henderson recounted her first impressions of the city's struggling school system and her aspirations to change it. "I was stunned at the lack of commitment to ensuring the highest-quality educational force in the country," Henderson said. "The District tolerated people and practices that other school systems would never accept."

At a meeting in August of school principals, Henderson offered a football coach-style motivational talk, reinforcing Rhee's core message: that poverty and other conditions outside the classroom are not an excuse for poor academic achievement.

"Our responsibility is to deliver the goods, no matter what the situations our students are in," she said. "The reform is in the schoolhouse. You are here because we believe you are the right people to deliver this reform. The election is not our concern; the election is not your concern. Go hard, or go home!"

As deputy chancellor for "human capital," Henderson was a key figure in the firing of 98 central office employees in 2008. She was also lead D.C. negotiator on the marathon contract talks with the Washington Teachers' Union, which led to a labor pact that establishes classroom performance - rather than traditional seniority - as the main factor driving job security.. . . .

A suggestion for Geoffrey Canada

A suggestion for Geoffry Canada
Sent to the NY Times, October 12

Geoffrey Canada is doing in Harlem should be done in all schools: Give all children the advantages middle-class children have ("Lauded Harlem Schools Have Their Own Problems," October 12).
Mr. Canada recognizes that poverty is the problem, a view supported by studies showing that American children from middle-class homes attending well-funded schools have among the highest test scores in the world.

Mr. Canada has identified some crucial factors: health care and safety. Here is another: Children of poverty have little access to books at home, in school, and in their communities, which means they do little reading on their own, which is a major reason their school achievement is low.

Test scores of Harlem Children's Zone schools have been disappointing. Improved school and classroom libraries with books children like to read, time set aside for free reading, and librarians who understand children and children's literature could change this dramatically.

Stephen Krashen

Stand for Children Member Talks Back

This is hardly the only upset Stand member in my area.  From the Oregonian:

Public schools
The film "Waiting for Superman" is big on hype and short on facts, yet Tyler Whitmire bought into the film's distortions when she wrote about the "good education" at charter schools ("Fixing our public schools: Being supermen (and superwomen) for our kids," In My Opinion, Oct. 8).

Charter schools typically hire many non-certified teachers and have small class sizes, yet there is no concrete evidence of their universal success. Even the film mentions that "only one out of five charter schools are amazing" -- whatever "amazing" means. And how many sick, hungry or emotionally disturbed children do charter schools serve?

As a member of Stand for Children, I am not "encouraged that the movie may serve as a catalyst of change." Instead, I fear that it will lead to simplistic assumptions about the "failure" of our public schools, rather than spur society and government to address inadequate school funding and the needs of those in poverty.

ALLEN KOSHEWA
Southeast Portland

Imagine and Others in NJ

Imagine is trying to join in on the Zuckerberg/Booker/Christie ed reform festivities; it was practically a given that KIPP would seek to expand.  From the NJ Spotlight:

NJ Charter Schools On the Fast Track to Approval

An expedited application and approval process is drawing out-of-state charter school networks to New Jersey 

By Jacob Mooney, October 12th  

As politicians trumpet them and philanthropists seem eager to help pay for them, New Jersey’s charter schools are about to draw a lot of new interest, including from private operators.

The state Department of Education is expected to receive a record number of applicants this week for its new fast-track approval process, said its spokesman, with at least three national networks jumping into the mix.

Among them would be the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), already an established veteran of Newark charter schools and looking for license to double its enrollment there. In addition, the Mastery Charter Schools out of Philadelphia and the multistate Imagine Schools are both expected to apply by this week’s expedited deadline, the spokesman said.

...

[Continued here]

Easy Money for Schools, No Strings Attached

Easy Money for California Schools, No Strings Attached
Sent to the Long Beach Star Telegram, October 11, 2010

I wonder if the new coalition to win Race to the Top funding knows what will happen if they succeed ("LBUSD joins other districts on education reform," Oct. 11).
Acceptance of the money gives the federal government a huge say in how schools are run. This will include a tremendous amount of unnecessary and unjustified testing, far more than we had with No Child Left Behind, at a time when children are already over-tested. It will also cost billions, at a time when schools are facing severe budget cuts. There is no scientific evidence showing that increasing testing increases student learning.
If California is interested in the $700 million Race to the Top money there is an easier way. Also, instead of a single payment, California would save $600 million dollars every year forever, a move that by itself would take care of about 5% of the total budget shortfall.
All we have to do is drop the high school exit exam: According to analyst Jo Ann Behm, the exit exam costs the state about $600 million per year. Studies of high school exit exams show that they are useless: They do not lead to higher employment, higher earnings, or improved academic achievement. In fact, researchers have yet to discover any benefits of having a high school exit exam.
Stephen Krashen

LBUSD joins other districts on education reform
http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_16311325
LOS ANGELES - Seven California school districts, including Long Beach, have formed a nonprofit organization to pursue education reforms promoted by the Obama administration.
District superintendents and high-level education officials on Monday announced the formation of the California Office of Education Reform, which will foster communication and collaboration among the seven districts.
"There has never been this type of collaboration among school districts," said Long Beach Unified Superintendent Chris Steinhauser. "It's never been done on this kind of scale."
Funded by more than $3 million in support from foundations, the organization will focus on reforms that the Obama administration promoted as part of the federal "Race to the Top" program.
States that agreed to pursue certain education reforms competed this year to claim a share of the $4.3 billion in funding available under the program. California applied, but it lost out to other states.
Despite missing out on the funds, the seven districts will continue to pursue the envisioned reforms, district leaders announced at a Monday press event at 122nd Street Elementary School, 405 E. 122nd Street, in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
In addition to Long Beach, the Los Angeles, Fresno, Clovis, Sacramento City, Sanger and San Francisco unified school districts are involved. Officials from the seven districts previously collaborated on California's unsuccessful "Race to the Top" application.
The district partners will work to implement English and math standards that are comparable with those used in high-performing countries. The districts also will study ways to improve low-performing schools and make better use of student performance data.
The districts have a lot to learn from each other, Steinhauser said. The nonprofit will make reform ideas available to all California school districts so they can benefit, too, he said.
For example, the LBUSD will share how it uses student performance data from its internal assessments to improve teaching, he said.
Any assessments developed by district partners could be posted on the Web for officials from other districts to view and use in classrooms, he added.
kevin.butler@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1308

The Corrupt Collapse of Education Reform's Wall Street Model

Uber capitalist, Michael Bloomberg, became the poster billionaire boy for corporate education reform when he was elected mayor and named Dictator of Schools in the City.  The Bloomberg-Klein model of test-punish-shut down-charterize became the urban model for the nation, and Klein has even been wined and dined in Australia and elsewhere as a distinguished expert in all matters educational.  Bloomberg was able to use his great educational success and $100 million to squeak out re-election against an unknown opponent in 2009. 

Had the public known, as Bloomberg and Klein did, that the entire educational empire was built on the same kind of fraud that made Enron and AIG household names, he would not be mayor today.

Here's the beginning and end of Jennifer Medina's piece in the NYTimes on the whole sordid matter:

When New York State made its standardized English and math tests tougher to pass this year, causing proficiency rates to plummet, it said it was relying on a new analysis showing that the tests had become too easy and that score inflation was rampant.

But evidence had been mounting for some time that the state’s tests, which have formed the basis of almost every school reform effort of the past decade, had serious flaws.

The fast rise and even faster fall of New York’s passing rates resulted from the effect of policies, decisions and missed red flags that stretched back more than 10 years and were laid out in correspondence and in interviews with city and state education officials, administrators and testing experts.

The process involved direct warnings from experts that went unheeded by the state, and a city administration that trumpeted gains in student performance despite its own reservations about how reliably the test gauged future student success.

It involved the state’s decision to create short, predictable exams and to release them publicly soon after they were given, making coaching easy and depriving test creators of a key tool: the ability to insert in each test questions for future exams. Next year, for the first time, the tests will not be released publicly.

It involved a national push for numbers-based accountability, begun under President George W. Bush and reinforced by President Obama. And it involved a mayor’s full embrace of testing as he sought to make his mark on the city, and then to get re-elected.

“They just kept upping the stakes with the scores, putting more pressure on the schools but not really looking at what it all means,” said Pedro Noguera, an education professor at New York University who has worked with the city’s Department of Education to help improve struggling schools.

New York has been a national model for how to carry out education reform, so its sudden decline in passing rates may be seen as a cautionary tale. The turnaround has also been a blow to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and his chancellor, Joel I. Klein, who despite warnings that a laserlike focus on raising scores could make them less and less reliable, lashed almost every aspect of its school system to them. Schools were graded on how much their scores rose and threatened with being closed if they did not. The scores dictated which students were promoted or left back, and which teachers and principals would receive bonuses.

Even now, the city believes that the way it uses the tests is valid. The mayor and the chancellor have forcefully defended their students’ performance, noting that even after the changes this year, student scores are still better than they were in 2002. They have argued that their students’ progress is more important than the change in the passing rate, and that years of gains cannot be washed away because of a decision in Albany to require more correct answers from every student this year.

The test scores were even used for a new purpose this year: to help determine which teachers should receive tenure.

“This mayor uses data and metrics to determine whether policies are failing or succeeding,” said Howard Wolfson, the deputy mayor for government affairs and communications. He also helped run Mr. Bloomberg’s re-election campaign in 2009, using the city’s historic rise in test scores to make the case for a third term. “We believe that testing is a key factor for determining the success of schools and teachers.”

“Under any standard you look at,” he added, “we have improved the schools.”

But given all the flaws of the test, said Prof. Howard T. Everson of the City University of New York’s Center for Advanced Study in Education, it is hard to tell what those rising scores really meant.

“Teachers began to know what was going to be on the tests,” said Professor Everson, who was a member of a state testing advisory panel and who warned the state in 2008 that it might have a problem with score inflation. “Then you have to wonder, and folks like me wonder, is that real learning or not?”
, , , ,

A Decisive Year
The city’s Department of Education constantly mines test score data for patterns to show where improvement is happening and where it is needed. In 2008, it noticed an incongruity: Eighth graders who scored at least a 3 on the state math exam had only a 50 percent chance of graduating from high school four years later with a Regents diploma, which requires a student to pass a certain number of tests in various subjects and is considered the minimum qualification for college readiness.

The city realized that the test results were not as reliable as the state was leading people to believe.
Mr. Klein and several of his deputies spoke by phone with Merryl H. Tisch, the vice chancellor of the Board of Regents, and Mr. Mills, trying to persuade them to create a statewide accountability system similar to the city’s, one that gave improvement at least as much weight as the score itself.

The state said it would consider moving to such a system, but would need more time.

Neither the city nor state publicly disclosed the concerns about the scores. By then, students across the state were preparing for the 2009 tests, filling in bubbles on mock answer sheets, using at least three years of previous state tests as guides.

The scores arrived in May, and with them, the bluntest warning yet.

Just before the results were released, a member of the Regents named Betty Rosa called Ms. Tisch, who had recently become chancellor.

Ms. Rosa, who had been a teacher, principal and superintendent in the Bronx for nearly three decades, said the unprecedented high scores simply seemed too good to be true. She suggested the unthinkable: the scores were so unbelievable, she said, that the state should not publicly release them.

“The question was really are we telling the public the truth,” Ms. Rosa said in a recent interview. Ms. Tisch, she said, relayed that she, too, found the scores suspicious, but that it would be impossible to withhold them. “It was like a train that was already in motion and no way to stop it,” Ms. Rosa said.
The English test scores showed 69 percent of city students passing. Mr. Bloomberg called the results “nothing short of amazing and exactly what this country needs.”

“We have improved the test scores in English,” he continued, “and we expect the same results in math in a couple of weeks, every single year for seven years.” Four weeks later, it was announced that 82 percent of city students had passed the math tests.

Because of the widespread improvement in the scores, 84 percent of all public schools received an A in the city’s grading system, something Mr. Klein said he later regretted. This year, the city limited the number of A’s to 25 percent of schools.

The 2009 numbers came out as the mayor was trying to accomplish two goals: to persuade the Legislature to give the mayor control of the schools for another seven years; and to convince city voters that he deserved a third term.

Mr. Bloomberg’s opponent, Comptroller William C. Thompson, had once been president of the Education Board.

“Mike Bloomberg changed that system,” said one of the mayor’s campaign advertisements. “Now, record graduation rates. Test scores up, violence down. So when you compare apples to apples, Thompson offers politics as usual. Mike Bloomberg offers progress.”

In his debates, Mr. Bloomberg hammered home the theme. “If anybody thinks that the schools were better when Bill ran them, they should vote for him,” he said in one face-off. “And if anybody thinks they’re better now, I’d be honored to have their vote.”

Indeed, according to exit polls, 57 percent of those who said education was their primary concern voted for Mr. Bloomberg, who won the election by a five-point margin.

Mr. Wolfson, the deputy mayor and 2009 campaign strategist, said the mayor had no regrets about focusing on the exams as a matter of policy, and during the election.

“What’s the converse?” he said. “The converse is that we don’t test and we have no way of judging success or failure. Either you believe in standards or tests, or you don’t — and life is not like that. There are tests all the time.”

Ms. Tisch, in releasing the 2009 test results, had not heeded Ms. Rosa’s radical request. But the very day she put out the English test results, she began openly acknowledging doubts about the scores, irking the mayor and chancellor, who privately seethed that she was seeking to undermine their success. “As a board, we will ask whether the test is getting harder or easier,” she said.. . . .

Robert Gebeloff and Elissa Gootman contributed reporting, and Jack Begg contributed research.