John King's decision on teacher evaluation: voodoo or wake-up call for "bad" teachers?

UPDATE: the DOE says the evaluation system will require new assessments in K-2 and subjects like art and gym.  This puts them on a collision course with the growing opt out movement, with parents already sick and tired of all the testing.

Also, King's full plan -- with all 240 pages -- is posted, and is shown to be a bureaucratic nightmare.  I noticed on the press release his reiterated judgment that "Teachers rated ineffective on student performance based on objective assessments must be rated ineffective overall."  This means despite the claim that there are multiple measures, one year's worth of unreliable and inherently volatile test scores will trump all.

___
Lots of news and commentary this morning on Commissioner John King’s

From the front page of today's NY Post

decision on a new NYC teacher evaluation system. 

Here's the one I like best:  Jersey Jazzman's Exclusive!  First look at NY Student surveys for Teacher evaluation (based on the the fact that starting in 3rd grade, the results of student surveys will be part of the formula.)  See also NYC Educator:  Highlights of Reformy John's New Decree.

NYC Doenuts points out that the 20% that was supposed to be based upon "locally-determined measures" to allow for flexibility will have to be selected from a pre-determined menu selected by John King: Making Sense Of the New Eval System.

Before we get to the mainstream media, which is mainly limited to repeating the pronouncements of Cuomo, Bloomberg, King, Walcott and Mulgrew about how much this system will benefit NYC children,  let us recall the celebration of these folks at City Hall in 2010, when NY state was awarded Race to the Top funds.  What have we gotten from the collective efforts of these men to win these funds?

Double the number of charters taking space and resources from our NYC public schools (since the charter cap was lifted to win more points ), the adoption of untested Common Core standards along with quotas that require 50% informational text assigned to students starting in Kindergarten, 70% in 6^th grade and thereafter, the privacy invading, Big Brother data cloud that is called  inBloom Inc. (which is now apparently the state longitudinal data system required by RTTT), and this year's Common Core-aligned state exams, that were full of ambiguous questions, product placements, and overly long reading passages, causing children to vomit, cry and get asthma attacks.  Not to mention the loss of $250 million in state education funds when the city and the DOE failed to agree on a teacher evaluation deal by the deadline earlier this year.

What will we get in the future? More Common Core tests, to be given on computers that will be time-consuming and expensive; and most likely, more teachers dismissed based on a formula that few educators and no reputable statistician supports.  In the future, I predict, the slogan "Race to the Top" will be held in even lower regard than "No Child Left Behind" is today,  as a grab-bag of some of the most absurd, ideologically-driven education programs ever foisted on the American people.

Here is the uncritical round-up from the mainstream media:  

Daily News:  City’s new evaluation system makes firing underperforming teachers easier;

CBS: City, Teachers' Union Praise State-Imposed Teacher Evaluation System 

NY Times: New York to Evaluate Teachers With New System 

NYPost:  New evaluations finally hold New York City teachers accountable ... -    

Bonus: the NY Post article quotes Arthur Goldstein, the only critic cited in any of these pieces, who calls the new system "voodoo."   

Shameless plug: Arthur, along with another prominent critic of the junk science of teacher evaluation, Gary Rubinstein,  will be honored at our annual "Skinny" award dinner on June 18; be there or be square.

What should be done instead of pushing our kids off the "fiscal cliff"

Update: Please sign our petition to the President and the Congress NOW!

I know; the words “fiscal cliff” probably fills you with the same mixture of dread and ennui as it does me.  But let’s take a moment and focus on the decisions the President and Congress have to make in the next few weeks to address the yawning deficit. Unless they make the right choices by January 2, huge across-the-board cuts to critical education and other domestic programs will be automatically triggered, causing irreversible harm to our nation’s children, and putting our slowly recovering economy into a massive tailspin.

What would these automatic cuts mean for our public schools?  $5 billion would be slashed from the federal education budget; which would plunge to pre-2003 levels, despite the fact that there are now 5.4 million more public school students.   This would lead to sharply increased class sizes and fewer services for children who are already suffering from some of the largest classes in decades.

New York City would lose nearly $75 million from its education budget, mostly from Title One programs that go our highest-poverty schools, Title II, which helps keep class sizes as small as possible, Title III, which subsidizes programs for immigrant youth and English language learners, and IDEA (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) which provides funding for special education services.

At the same time as class sizes have already sharply risen, there are also more economically disadvantaged children than before, who desperately rely on this funding to even out inequities in local and state funding and provide them a better opportunity to learn. Our national child poverty rate has risen to a stunning 23 percent.  

No one should consider cutting any of these programs; and even Mitt Romney during the third Presidential debate said he wouldn’t consider cuts to education if elected.  But this is the future we’re facing unless the President and Congress make the right choices now.

If our elected officials are truly dedicated to cutting fat out of our education budget, they should first target some of the Department of Education discretionary grant programs that amount to more than $2 billion.  These programs, designed to persuade states and districts to adopt more standardized testing and expand merit pay and online learning, are increasingly opposed by voters on the left and the right, who rejected them at the polls last week in several states.

Yet under the administration’s proposed budget, funding for its controversial “Race to the Top” program would actually grow, as well as other competitive grant programs.    If Congress wants to save money, let them start with these programs first, contained in the administration’s proposed education budget:

·         Cut the $850 million that the administration wants to spend on yet another round of “Race to the Top” grants,  which promotes more high-stakes testing, unreliable teacher evaluation schemes based on test scores, and privatization at the expense of improving classroom conditions. Even the National Academy of Sciences opposed “Race to the Top”, pointing out how tying teacher evaluation to test scores was inherently risky and unreliable. 

·        Eliminate $400 million for the Teacher Incentive Fund, which expands merit pay and other unproven compensation schemes that teachers themselves overwhelmingly oppose and have never been shown to improve schools.

·         Subtract $150 million to be spent on the Investing in Innovation (i3) program, and $383 million from the district “Race to the Top” grants,  primarily focused on yet more testing, merit pay, and online learning.   Online learning has been touted by the administration and private industry as a way to “personalize education,” though putting students on computers emphasizes rote learning and denies them the opportunity to debate and exercise the critical thinking skills that only interaction with a teacher and other students can provide.  

·         Cancel or radically reform the School Improvement Grants (now renamed School Turnaround Grants), funded at $536 million, which impose the same rigid and punitive models that have sparked vehement protests from parents, students and teachers in communities throughout the country.  These include mandating school closings, conversion to charter schools, outsourcing management to private consulting companies, and/or firing half of the teaching staff, which have led to more chaos and "churn" in schools serving our most at-risk children. 

What else should the President and Congress do, to prevent damaging cuts to education and other domestic programs? The wealthiest Americans and private equity should be required to pay their fair share, of course.  This, plus ending corporate loopholes that allow companies like GE and Verizon to get away with paying no federal taxes, would raise approximately $1.5 trillion.  

There is no doubt that we need a  more equitable tax system in this nation, and these measures might also moderate the widening income gap and level the playing field that is undermining our democracy.  Raising taxes on corporations, hedge funds, and upper income individuals would not only create more revenue, but would also help restrain the ability of the richest Americans to use their private wealth to impose even more corporate-style policies on our schools.  

Last week in Washington State, for example, ten billionaires spent nearly eleven million dollars to get a charter school initiative approved, despite the fervent opposition of the State PTA, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, the State School Board Association, and many other good government and civil rights groups.  These organizations pointed out that instituting charter schools would divert millions of dollars from the state’s public schools, which are already constitutionally underfunded according to the courts, and would put public dollars into private hands, with less oversight and accountability. 

Unfortunately, these billionaires were able to get their way by outspending the opposition by more than 16 to one, and the charter school initiative was approved by less than two percentage points.

If we are going to strengthen our public schools, we need to fund them properly and implement proven reforms. Encouraging democracy to flourish through a more equitable tax structure would  help us achieve these goals.

Dan Wasserman on Readin,' Writin' and the Rich guys

Click on the cartoon to see what he has to say about Bill Gates and the Wall St. privateers.

For more cartoons from Wasserman on the charter schools and Race to the Top, check out his website here.

23 states change their policies because of Race to the Top

Amazing what a discretionary grant program can accomplish in terms of changing state educational policies, with no research backing, as the National Academy of Sciences warned, to be doled out from a $4 billion slush fund, without Congressional authorization and possibly illegal .

According Alexander Russo, a US Dept. of Education memo shows NY as one of 13 states changing laws on charters; and one of 16 states changing their laws on teacher evaluations, linking them to test scores or removing the firewall on doing so.

There are only seven states on both lists: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Tennessee, and of, course New York.

Delaware and Tennessee won in the first round of RTTT for their efforts; let’s see if Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana and NY are properly rewarded for adopting laws that were opposed by most public school parents, teachers, and independent experts.

Whether or not we get these funds, our public schools will be feeling the after-effects of these policies for years to come.


I'd like to see a political analysis of why these particular states succumbed while others did not; and an accounting of how much the Billionaire’s Boys Club and the hedge fund operators spent, lobbying legislators to change these laws, through their foundations, the “non-profits” and think tanks they control through their funding, direct contributions, and their allied political action committees.

Gotham Schools: Why the charter cap bill should not become law

Reportedly, Speaker Silver, the teachers union and Howard Wolfson, the mayor's political operative are right now negotiating the charter school cap.

Where are the parents? Nowheresville as usual.

But we're not keeping quiet.

Mona Davids of the NY Charter Parents Association and I published a piece in Gotham Schools today, exposing the lies and disinformation of the charter school lobby, Why the Charter Cap Bill Should Not Become Law:

As parents and advocates, we are convinced that the bill being promoted by the charter school lobby to raise the cap on charter schools would seriously harm the city’s children who attend both district and charter schools.

Check it out!

John Allen Paolos on Tweed's ongoing innumeracy

Check out John Allen Paulos in today’s NY Times, author of "Innumeracy", about how the current obsession with data often gives us the wrong answers; and steers us in the wrong direction:

Unless we know how things are counted, we don’t know if it’s wise to count on the numbers … Consider the plan to evaluate the progress of New York City public schools inaugurated by the city a few years ago. While several criteria were used, much of a school’s grade was determined by whether students’ performance on standardized state tests showed annual improvement. This approach risked putting too much weight on essentially random fluctuations and induced schools to focus primarily on the topics on the tests. It also meant that the better schools could receive mediocre grades because they were already performing well and had little room for improvement. Conversely, poor schools could receive high grades by improving just a bit.

We are now entering the fourth year of the Tweed’s inherently flawed school “progress reports” or grading system.

Each year the formula has been significantly revamped because of the absurdity of the previous year’s grades, including this year’s grade inflation, in which 84% of elementary and middle schools got "A’s". If the authors of this system were to receive a grade themselves, it would be an "F".

The school grades are based 85% on the previous year's state test scores, which themselves have been widely derided as unreliable. The formula used has also been shown to unfairly penalize schools with large number of high-need special education students, despite the DOE's claim to fully control for the student population.

And, as Paulos points out, they are essentially "random" as they are based on only one year's worth of test scores.

Yet, inexplicably, the DOE refuses to conform to reason and alter the formula so that it is based on more than one year’s data; despite the fact that Jim Liebman promised at their inception to base them on three years’ worth of test scores.

Other troubling problems related to the way in which the grades also rely in part on survey results from teachers and parents. Recent articles in the Daily News have shown how several principals have pushed teachers into giving them favorable reviews; with the threat that otherwise, DOE may close their schools based on low grades. Parents also commonly report the same sort of pressure, either externally or internally imposed.

The school grading system also ignores critical but highly variable factors that differ widely among schools and yet are largely outside the their control, such as class size or overcrowding, which can work against increases in achievement.

This omission is unjustifiable, given the fact that DOE’s “teacher data reports” that Klein says should be used in tenure decisions include class size as a key factor, showing that even Tweed educrats recognize that class size is an important contributor to teacher effectiveness, and their claims otherwise are so much hogwash.

Yet the teacher data reports are themselves problematic; and their formula has never been publicly released. I submitted a FOIL for the formula more than a year ago, as well as the identity of the “independent” panel that DOE had claimed had attested to its reliability, and have still not received anything in return.

As the National Academy of Sciences has pointed out, in its comments to Secretary Duncan’s misbegotten grant program “Race to the Top”, no system for evaluating teachers on the basis of test scores has yet been established that is ready for prime time, given all the inherently complex and imponderable factors that go into test scores, particularly at the classroom level. Any attempt to implement such a program, they urged, should be carefully tested and independently vetted, because it could very well have unfair and damaging consequences, not just to teachers but to our kids as well.

We have already seen how art, science and music and untested subjects have been minimized in our children’s schools since the over-emphasis on high-stakes tests has been imposed; with weeks more spent on test prep and less on learning.

All parents should closely watch the evolution of the recent agreement between the New York teachers union and the state, to base 25% of teacher evaluation on state test scores and another 15% on “locally selected measures of achievement that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms."

We must hope that whatever formula is used is independently and publicly vetted, does not result in even more unfair and unreliable measures of performance, and does not lead to more testing that will waste time and money, serving no purpose except to diminish the quality of education that our children receive.

You can comment on the US DOE blog about the fallibility of basing teacher evaluation on test scores here.

Times article on Klein's campaign to fire teachers regardless of seniority provokes more questions than it answers

In yesterday’s paper, the NY Times writes about Joel Klein's campaign to have the legislature pass a law that would allow principals to fire teachers, regardless of their seniority.

Excerpt: In 2008, New York City began evaluating about 11,500 teachers based on how much their students had improved on standardized state exams. A Times analysis of the first year of results showed that teachers with 6 to 10 years of experience were more likely to perform well, while teachers with 1 or 2 years’ experience were the least likely.

This article confirms what all research shows, that experience leads to more effective teaching. In fact, there are only two objective, measurable correlatives to effective instruction: smaller classes and more experienced teachers, and yet the administration has done everything it can to prevent either one from taking hold in NYC public schools.


Yet the article glosses over or omits much critical information.

Why does Klein want principals to be able to fire teachers with more seniority? It is not because of their quality, or lack thereof, but because they cost more money.

Why would principals tend to fire more experienced teachers if they get the chance? Not because they are less effective, but because of the “fair student funding” scheme imposed by Klein, principals now have to pay for their higher salaries out of their limited school budgets, meaning they are forced to choose between higher class sizes and experienced teachers.

Why is it that given the similar squeeze on the police and fire budgets, no one in the administration is recommending that either the Commissioner of Police or Fire Department be able to fire staff regardless of seniority? Indeed, there would be huge public outcry if the administration proposed firing senior police officers or firefighters; even though in their cases, there is far less research to show their increased effectiveness.


Of course, no one would dare put into place a system where police captains had total control over the staffing in their precincts, and had to pay for it out a limited budget, regardless of changes in local conditions and/or spikes in crime. Or for all the police officers to be fired in a precinct to be replaced with newbies if the crime rate rose.

No, this is part of the concerted attack on the whole notion of professionalism in the teaching force, and an attempt to destroy anything (read the union) that might interfere with the administration’s free-market, deregulatory, pro-privatization education policies.

One more question: how did the NY Times get a hold of the teacher data reports, based on value-added analysis of student test scores, to allow them to do the analysis mentioned above? Weren’t they supposed to be confidential?

According to an email from Jenny Medina, the reporter on the story, the Times submitted a FOIL request last year and received the teacher data reports on the district level, without names attached. It allowed them to “do some analysis, albeit fairly limited.”

Yet it is astonishing to me that there is a system in place for the last three years, in which these reports (see sample to the right) are distributed to principals and teachers, and now the Times as well, yet no member of the public has been allowed to see or vet the mathematical model on which they are based. This is especially the case, as given the chance, principals will likely refer to these reports to determine who to lay off.

More than a year ago, in February of 2009, I FOILed for the value-added formula embedded in the teacher data reports; as well as the identity of the supposedly expert (but still secret) panel that had approved of its validity and reliability, and the DOE has still not provided this information.

Every few weeks, I get the same canned response from the DOE, that “due to the volume and complexity” of the requests they receive, as well as the need to determine whether any redactions are needed, additional time is required, and I that should expect a substantive response within a month. And then I get the same exact email a month later. So much for transparency!

What's especially dangerous about all this, of course, is that through the "Race to the Top" fund, Arne Duncan and the US Department of Education is pushing states to adopt similar schemes, with teacher evaluation, pay and tenure based on student test scores, without any independent vetting of the reliability of such systems.

In fact, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report last October, warning that these systems are not ready for prime time, and might do more harm than good if implemented on a broad scale. From their press release:

"Too little research has been done on these methods' validity to base high-stakes decisions about teachers on them. A student's scores may be affected by many factors other than a teacher -- his or her motivation, for example, or the amount of parental support -- and value-added techniques have not yet found a good way to account for these other elements...

From the NAS report itself:

In sum, value-added methodologies should be used only after careful consideration of their appropriateness for the data that are available, and if used, should be subjected to rigorous evaluation. At present, the best use of VAM techniques is in closely studied pilot projects. Even in pilot projects, VAM estimates of teacher effectiveness should not be used as the sole or primary basis for making operational decisions because the extent to which the measures reflect the contribution of teachers themselves, rather than other factors, is not understood. ....such estimates are far too unstable to be considered fair or reliable.

And yet little attention was given these vehement warnings of the nation's top academic experts in testing and statistics; with no mention in the NY Times or other national media, and no acknowledgement by the administration that their efforts to impose these models on the nation's school districts might be off track.

No, the motto of Joel Klein and Arne Duncan as well as their sponsors in the business community and the Gates Foundation continues to be: full speed ahead! And the reckless high-speed train of experimentation that threatens to run over our children's schools hurtles forward, without any end in sight.

Bob Hughes, announced as member of NY's "Race to the Top" team and criticized by the EEOC the same day

According to Gotham Schools, Bob Hughes of New Visions will be part of the NY State team to appear before the panel of judges to determine the federal “Race to the Top” awards.

As EdWeek puts it, "How a state’s delegation performs in a 30-minute presentation and a 60-minute question-and-answer session with a panel of judges could make or break its chances in round one of the competition.”

This dog and pony show, which might be likened to “American Idol”, is a function of the politicization of these grants, which should be honestly won or lost on the basis of substance alone.

Unmentioned in the Gotham Schools are Hughes’ close ties to the Gates Foundation, which financed many of the small schools in NYC through his organization as an intermediary.

Some have said that the Gates Foundation is really the power behind the throne in determining who wins these awards – as well as many of the pro-privatization policies being pushed by the US Dept. of Education; the foundation also helped states write their RTTT applications.

The woman who head’s the RTTT program at the US Dept of Ed, Joanne Weiss, is former COO of New Schools Venture fund, which finances charter school expansion with large infusions of Gates money; accordingly, states can win “points” on their applications depending on how charter-friendly they are.

Other members of the NY State RTTT team are Laura Smith, formerly chief of staff under former deputy Chancellor Chris Cerf, and before that, an employee of the NYC Charter School Center, and deputy Commissioner John King, formerly head of the Uncommon Schools charter chain.

According to Gotham Schools, New Visions has a financial interest in NY State’s winning the funds:

Hughes has also said that New Visions would be a likely applicant for a program, proposed by the Regents, to allow alternative organizations to bypass education schools to certify teachers. [Merryl] Tisch also cited Hughes as an expert on how schools can effectively use data to guide their work with students and on launching high schools, an area that will become key as the state attempts to replace its lowest-performing schools. “Bob has a track record on this, and he is respected in every corner on this subject,” Tisch said. “I trust him, I trust his judgment.”

Hughes was also cited in the just-issued decision of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about the discriminatory dismissal of Debbie Almontaser as the principal of Khalil Gibran school: New Visions "concurred in DOE's judgment that she should resign and acted as agent in advising her to do so . . . . In the course of its advisory services to the Community Superintendent in the selection process, it concurred in DOE's conclusion that the circumstances of her resignation were such that continuing her candidacy was not desirable." (The EEOC decision is here.)

Hughes tried to get Almontaser to resign, but she refused until she could meet with the Chancellor, who was conveniently"unavailable." Instead, Deputy mayor Walcott acted as the designated hit-man, and threatened her that the school might be cancelled if she did not resign.

As David Bloomfield, expert on education law, pointed out, “Thus, while New Visions was found not liable since it was not in an employment relationship with Almontaser, it served as willing handmaiden to her illegal discriminatory dismissal 'on account of her race, religion, and national origin.'”

Our day of rage at City Hall

Today, NYC's education "day of rage" was observed by angry parents, teachers, students, elected officials and community members at a rally organized by the Coalition for Public Education at City Hall.

All of those present expressed fury and disgust at how are schools are being closed, dismantled, privatized and destroyed. Joel Shatzky reports on the event at the Huffington Post.

This photo shows Muba Yarofulani, parent leader, speaking to reporters representing media outlets from throughout the world, from Harlem to Russia.

While I was speaking to the crowd about the recklessness of the men who who are shuttering our schools to put charter schools in their place, and who say they want to expand parent choice but who are taking away the most basic choice of all, the right to send our children to a high quality neighborhood public school, Chancellor Klein scurried past us into City Hall, and the crowd started to jeer and boo him.

This incident is also described on the Daily News blog, which relates how Bloomberg is using the fact that NY State made the finalist list for the Arne Duncan slush fund known as "Race to the Top" to complain once again that the cap on charters must be raised.

Yet the administration blocked a bill that would do that earlier this year, because it would allow the state comptroller to audit the charter school managers use of public funds, and would give parents a voice as to where those charters would be sited.

As many of us observed today, the tide is turning and it is time to take our schools back!

More photos of the rally here.

Charter school expansion without parent input blocked

Yesterday, the NY State Legislature refused to pass the governor’s proposed doubling of the charter school cap, without including a condition that no charter school could be forced into a school building without the approval of parents whose children already attend school in the building. The mayor and the charter school lobby refused to accept this condition, so the charter school expansion was not approved.

This expansion was proposed, not so that public education in this city would be improved, but so that NY State's chance for federal "Race to the Top" funding might be enhanced. (For our earlier coverage of the flaws of the Race to the Top, including how it ignores the findings of research and the priorities of parents, see here , here and here.)

As Speaker Silver said, “Unfortunately, Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein were willing to sacrifice the creation of 200 more charter schools rather than accept any limitation on their unchecked power to ignore the voices of parents and displace traditional public schools from existing classroom space.”

Thanks to all of you who called your legislators; NYC parents won a big one yesterday!

Juan Gonzalez writes about why having parent input in charter school sitings is so important, in today’s Daily News. In case you’re keeping track, the only Democratic State Senators who signed onto the governor’s bill for charter school expansion with no parent input allowed were Ruben Diaz Sr. of the Bronx and Craig Johnson from Long Island.

For more on what happened yesterday, see Gotham Schools and Times.

Susan Neuman's comments on Race to the Top, and mine

Here is an excerpt from Susan Neuman's comments on Race to the Top. Neuman, now a Professor at the University of Michigan was formerly the Asst. Secretary of Education under George W. Bush:

Teachers work on the basis of incentives, rather than disincentives. It would be wiser to focus on guidelines that ensured teacher decision-making; quality professional development; smaller classes; smaller teacher-child ratios in hard to staff schools; and quality improvements in facilities. Compensation might be appreciated but even more important are the conditions of schooling which allow teachers to be successful or not. These guidelines place undue emphasis on teachers as the agent of change without any regard for what might make teachers more effective. As documented in numerous papers and research, it becomes difficult to do the job when there are no books, no desks, no paper, and no pencils.

These guidelines, to date, seem like a grand and very expensive experiment, with little research or experiential evidence to suggest that it will work. Having experienced the last eight years in attempting to improve quality teaching without evidence, we need to support innovation and research before resorting to these new federal efforts.

It is striking that we now have a US Department of Education with apparently no sane, rational voice like hers. My full comments are posted here. They are similar, but perhaps not so artfully expressed. Here is the conclusion:

Rather than focus our efforts on encouraging the proliferation of charter schools, and/ or tying teacher pay to standardized test scores, both of which could have the unintended negative consequences of worsening the supply of experienced, effective teachers, research suggests that it would be far better to directly address the substandard conditions in our large urban districts that lead to high teacher attrition and low student achievement, namely their overcrowded classes, full of students who badly need the attention that only a smaller class can provide.

Not only would improving classroom conditions by reducing class size work directly to narrow the achievement gap, by providing at-risk children with a better opportunity to learn, but in the long run, this would also likely lead to a more effective, experienced workforce. Instead of the chronic frustration that too often causes teachers to flee, they would now be offered a real chance to experience the job satisfaction that can only come from success at their chosen profession.

Finally, as a public school parent and head of a parent advocacy group, I strongly object to the following statement in the proposed regulations: that states should be rewarded with these funds to the extent that they show support from the following stakeholder groups:

“The State’s teachers’ union(s) and charter school authorizers; Other State and local leaders (e.g., business, community, civil rights, and education association leaders); Grant-making foundations and other funding sources; and LEAs, including public charter schools identified as LEAs under State law.”

This list egregiously leaves out public school parents, the most important stakeholder group of all.

Race to the Top or to the Bottom? Make your voice heard!

Patrick has posted his comments on the proposed regulations for the US Dept. of Education’s Race to the Top grants – check them out!

The deadline for comments is Aug. 29 – please, even if you just write a sentence or two, make your voices heard, if only to protest the way they have left parents out of their list of “key stakeholders,” as Patrick was the first to point out. Among those cited instead are charter school operators and private foundations. Remind you of anyone?

Here is a link to the proposed regs on how this $4.3 billion funding should be divvied up, where you can also post comments.

The federal government wants to use the promise of these funds to bribe states to lift their caps on charter schools, despite any research showing that charter schools deliver superior results. Currently NY State has a cap of 200 for charter schools, which will soon be reached. Without a cap, the Bloomberg administration will be able to start hundreds more charter schools over the next few years. The DOE has publicly stated that they want to reserve 100,000 school seats in NYC for charter school students – which will require the closing of many more neighborhood public schools. No community, no matter where you live, will remain free from this threat.

The US Dept. of Education is also proposing that states be required to develop data systems that will allow tenure decisions and teacher pay to be linked to student standardized test scores, and closing a lot more schools, while reopening them with new staff. Their agenda is almost identical to that of Joel Klein, which has wreaked such havoc here in NYC.

As of this morning there were over 500 comments, most of them highly critical of the proposed regs, all of which you can access on the govt. website here.

Some of the best are from Diane Ravitch, Julie Woestehoff of PURE, a parent organization in Chicago, Helen Ladd of Duke University, Paul Barton, education researcher and consultant, Sean Corcoran of NYU and the Economic Policy Institute, and many others, including several classroom teachers. See also these letters to the NY Times, uniformly critical of Duncan's proposals. Here are comments from Charles Finn of California:

Yet again we have a system designed by bureaucrats, not educators. It gives classroom teachers virtually all of the responsibility for improving education (it's their salaries on the line, not those of principals and other administrators) while giving them no power whatsoever. Super-high-stakes testing is one of the major problems with education today -it is not the solution! Our current tests are inappropriate, and improperly used. Even the people who created them are appalled by the way scores are being used. It's time to stop the madness and actually talk with parents, teachers, and students about what is working and what is not in our schools. Politicians have their own agenda, and it's not about kids. "Race To The Top" will likely go down as President Obama's biggest blunder.

Together, the responses make a very compelling case that these proposed regulations are not only unsupported by research and experience, but will also likely lead to even worse conditions in our neediest schools.

The deadline for comments is Aug. 29 – please, even if you just write a few words let the US Dept. of Education hear from you by clicking here. Let them know that parents are the most important stakeholders of all. And please share your comments with the rest of us.

Comments on Race to the Top Proposal

The Obama Administration has provided a proposal for spending $ 4.5 billion in Federal funds to push their education agenda. The full proposal and a form to submit comments can be found here. I submitted the following comment:

Comments on Obama Administration’s Race to the Top Proposal.

Patrick J. Sullivan, Manhattan Member, Panel for Educational Policy, NYC Board of Education

The proposal emphasizes increased uses of standardized testing and expansion of charter schools, two strategies for improving student performance that do not have a research base supporting their efficacy.

In contrast evidence-based strategies such as class size reduction are not anywhere supported by the proposal. Beyond small class size, attributes of high performing public and private schools – enrichment programs, arts, foreign language, and sports – are nowhere to be found in the proposal despite the fact that these programs are always found in schools already at “the top”.

The definition of effective teacher and student growth are too narrowly dependent on standardized tests. Application of these definitions as proposed for teacher tenure, compensation and termination decisions will have negative consequences for teaching and learning.

The “effective teacher” and “very effective teacher” are defined as those who demonstrate “student growth” which is itself defined to be changes in “student achievement”. “Student achievement” is defined as changes in state standardized test scores. Once enshrined as criteria for making tenure decisions, rating and termination decisions as suggested by the proposal (Reform plan criteria C2), this approach will lead to narrowing of the curriculum and teaching to the test. Only tested subjects will be emphasized. There is also significant risk that educators will avoid schools where factors outside of a teacher’s control such as overcrowding, underfunding, poverty, crime, weak administration and lack of parental support create a more difficult environment for teaching. Rather than seeking to define effective teaching, the RttT proposals should focus on proven tactics for improving teaching effectiveness such as lower class size or innovative solutions for addressing the challenges teachers face.

Proposed interventions for underperforming schools lack vision and emphasize measures that, in practice, will be punitive toward educators.

The interventions required in “Turning Around Struggling Schools” (Reform Plan Criteria D3) include closing schools, elimination of the majority of staff and forced conversion to charter or private management. The emphasis of these tactics will cause talented teachers to avoid low performing schools likely to lead to situations where teachers will be terminated or otherwise stigmatized as failing.

The proposal systematically excludes parents as stakeholders in the education of their children.

One factor considered in awarding the grants to each state is the extent to which support and commitment of key stakeholders is enlisted (Overall Selection Criteria E3). While the administration has a long list of stakeholders, parents are not on it. Charter schools, teachers unions and foundations are deemed to be important stakeholders but not parents. These criteria should be extended to explicitly include parents, parent groups and Parent Associations as stakeholders. There is only one place where parents are even mentioned in the proposal, as consumers of reports produced by the proposed data systems. The proposal’s exclusion of parents and the rejection of their role in the education of their children are inappropriate and will undermine any genuine reform effort. Reform efforts must engage parents as they play an essential role in maintaining a supportive environment for learning and must set expectations for their children. This type of thinking appears to be alien to the drafters of the proposal who appear to seek only to hold teachers accountable to the exclusion of all other factors or stakeholders.

"Effective Teacher" as Defined By the Obama Dept of Ed

The proposal for allocating Race to the Top Funds is worth reading for its insights into how educational policy in the Obama administration is evolving. There is much discussion of "effective teachers and principals" and the use of "effectiveness information" for granting tenure and dismissing teachers is suggested. But what do these words mean? Fortunately, there is a list of definitions at the end of the document (use the pdf -- it's the easiest to read)

First, the "effective teacher":

Effective teacher means a teacher
whose students achieve acceptable rates
(e.g., at least one grade level in an
academic year) of student growth (as
defined in this notice). States may
supplement this definition as they see
fit so long as teacher effectiveness is
judged, in significant measure, by
student growth (as defined in this
notice).

What then, is "student growth". Also in the definitions section:

Student growth means the change in
achievement data for an individual
student between two points in time.
Growth may be measured by a variety of
approaches, but any approach used
must be statistically rigorous and based
on student achievement (as defined in
this notice) data, and may also include
other measures of student learning in
order to increase the construct validity
and generalizability of the information.

Of course, "student achievement". That's what we're all after. But not surprisingly it's nothing more than our old friends, the ELA and Math tests.

Student achievement means, at a
minimum—
(a) For tested grades and subjects: A
student’s score on the State’s assessment
under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA;
and
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects:
...

Is that all there is?

Comments are being taken on the Race to the Top Fund proposal through August 29th. Cliick here for the comment form.

Obama Education Grant Criteria Excludes Parents as Stakeholders

The Obama administration has issued proposed rules and guidelines for the Race to the Top education grants. One factor considered in awarding the grants to each state is the extent to which support and commitment of key stakeholders is enlisted. While the administration has a long list of stakeholders (see below), parents are not on it. Charter schools, teachers unions and the foundations are deemed to be important stakeholders but not parents.

Submit your comments online through August 29th.

(E)(3) Enlisting statewide support and commitment: The extent to
which the State has demonstrated commitment, support, and/or funding from the following key stakeholders:

(i) The State's teachers' union(s) and charter school authorizers;
(ii) Other State and local leaders (e.g., business, community,
civil rights, and education association leaders);
(iii) Grant-making foundations and other funding sources; and
(iv) LEAs, including public charter schools identified as LEAs
under State law, with special emphasis on the following: High-need LEAs (as defined in this notice); participation by LEAs, schools, students, and students in poverty; and the strength of the Memoranda of Understanding between LEAs and the State, which must at a minimum be signed by the LEA superintendent (or equivalent), the president of the local school board (if relevant), and the local teachers' union leader (if relevant).

Is Arne Duncan Destroying the Obama Brand?

Education blogs today were transfixed by US Education Secretary Arne Duncan's gushing appreciation for the New York Post's contribution to the mayoral control debate here in NYC.

From the Post's story:

Arne Duncan, the US secretary of education, lauded The Post's coverage.

"I appreciate your paper's leadership. I appreciate the thoughtfulness. You guys did a lot of work on [the mayoral-control issue]," Duncan said.

Gotham Schools has a genuinely thoughtful analysis entitled "The Fruitful Alliance of Arne Duncan and Rupert Murdoch" including some great quotes from incredulous education and journalism insiders.

NYC Educator's scathing commentary dismisses Duncan as "cheerleader for the Bloomberg PR machine".

The President ought to watch his back. The Post's circulation dropped 21% this year. With his own numbers headed south as well, he might want to suggest his Education Secretary find some new friends.