Washington TU protest at WAPO - LInks to Kaplan Test Prep and Virtual Schools Push as Critical Blog Post is Rejected by WAPO

Updated, Monday, April 18, 10AM- This blog keeps changing every 10 minutes, so check it out again even if you read it.

mport84 Comment

The Post editorial board is not entirely separate and independent of Kaplan. Furthermore, Kaplan Educational Services in involved in something far more troubling than even their higher-education frauds. I will explain.  

In October, at Jay Mathews invitation, I wrote a guest blog for his Washington Post education column, Class Matters. I discussed Kaplan's stealthy expansion of its tax-funded, public K-12 for-profit virtual charter schools. I was concerned that the Kaplan website appeared to be hiding these ventures from the local communities whose education budgets are paying for them. Judge for yourself:  http://www.kaplanonlineschools.com/district/soluti...  

Mathews says his editors refused permission for him to print the blog, saying they would handle the Kaplan matter themselves. Ask him. Is that editorial independence?

I was contacted by teacher/blogger mport84 about the link between the protest at WAPO and their parent company, Kaplan Industries. I'm updating this post with information sent to me by mport84.

(There have been some calls from teachers to protest Murdoch's NY Post but other than Gotham Schools most people don't take the Post too seriously. WAPO is different with more of a NY Times-like rep.)

To be fair: It's not all one-sided at WAPO. They have ed deformer Jay Matthews balanced by the fabulous Valerie Strauss and good reporting from Bill Turque.

The WTU did mention the Washington Post's distorted and pro-ed deform policy to their ownership by testing and test prep giant Kaplan which makes so much profit from ed deform. Kaplan's new push is for virtual schools where the kids will never leave their house - think of it - no messy school building, or teacher salaries - all costs go directly into the hands of corps - see why Joel Klein pushed the idea and then left to join Rupert to get some of that business - reason enough for him to have fulfilled my failed prediction (so far) that one day he would be taken out of Tweed in cuffs. Mport84 also touched base with WTU President Nathan Saunders:

I spoke to Saunders, who said that while there was no direct connection between Kaplan and the DC public schools, Kaplan was part of a “testing culture” that had permeated the public school system, ruining the educational experience for both students and teachers."

Here are a bunch of reports on the protest. The first one is WAPO's own coverage:

Teachers’ union protests Post editorial board

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/teachers-union-protests-post-editorial-board/2011/04/15/AFVFJ2kD_story.html

 

"The D.C. teachers union staged a rally outside The Washington Post on Friday alleging that the paper’s editorial positions are influenced by Kaplan, the for-profit educational services division owned by The Post Co.

 

Dozens of teachers clad in red chanted “Down with The Post lies” during the midday protest. Union activists parked a giant inflatable rat near the entrance to The Post’s headquarters at 15th and L streets in Northwest Washington.

 

“Absent Kaplan, The Post would be out of business,” Washington Teachers’ Union President Nathan Saunders said. Saunders said The Post’s editorial board stakes out positions that are in keeping with the general business aims of Kaplan, which offers a range of services, including degree programs and standardized test preparation. Saunders pointed to a Post editorial supporting IMPACT, the D.C. teacher evaluation system, which is partly based on students’ performance on standardized tests. Kris Coratti, The Post’s communications director, said Kaplan is not involved in The Post’s editorial decision-making."

 Now one from Politico:  On Media: Teachers union protests Washington

http://www.politico.com/blogs/onmedia/0411/Teachers_union_protests_Washington_Post.html

 

"But the greater oddity is connecting Kaplan to the kinds of editorials that the teachers union was upset about – in this case, supporting the controversial teacher evaluation system that was former DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee’s signature initiative. The former is primarily about higher education, the latter about K-12. Kaplan does also run a test-prep business that might mingle with the interest of DC public schools, but not in any fundamental way that is worth waging a policy battle about.

Blogger mport84 left the comment that leads this piece. Here are reports from themail which includes WTU VP Candi Peterson's report of the rally.

The Washington Teachers Union held a protest against the editorial board of The Washington Post on Friday, and the protest was much larger than either of the DC statehood protests that got much more publicity. So, if you haven't heard about it, read Candi Peterson's article below.
Gary Imhoff
themail@dcwatch.com
###############

WTU Protests the Washington Post
Candi Peterson, saveourcounselors@gmail.com
Approximately three hundred teachers, school personnel, city workers, union and community members protested outside The Washington Post building on Friday, April 15. This day was selected because it coincided with a day-off furlough for DC Public Schools employees and DC government workers. The protest was organized by the Washington Teachers' Union (WTU) against the Post due to their biased reporting that consistently vilifies DC public school teachers and fails to include more balanced reporting of the obstacles teachers face in a mostly urban school district. According to WTU President, Nathan Saunders: "You've got to understand that the Washington Post has been vicious against, not just teachers unions, but the Washington Teachers' Union in particular, for the last three or four years," he said. "And everything that the former chancellor, Michelle Rhee, has done in the district, they have embraced wholeheartedly at the expense of working teachers.

In the words of Reflective Educator blogger, a former DC teacher: "Why is the Washington Post such an awful place for citizens to get information about what's really going on with education in the District?" We have to ponder why did it take USA Today newspaper's investigative journalists, Jack Gillum and Marisol Bello to cover the story, "When Standardized Test Scores Soared in DC, Were The Gains Real?" Another reason for Friday's protest was to call attention to the Washington Post's relationship with Kaplan Testing Company, which accounts for the majority of their revenue. It is the Washington Teachers' Union position that the Post fails to adequately cover education reform from all vantage points, fails to print letters to the editor from education stakeholders, colors their editorial viewpoint, and heaped undeserved praise on former Chancellor Michelle Rhee during her term in DCPS, despite her many transgressions.

At the protest, teachers carried signs that read: "Cancel your Washington Post subscription today" and "We'll stop buying until you stop lying" while singing chants, as a big inflatable union rat loomed large in front of the Post. Speakers included other union leaders, including Jos Williams, President of Washington, DC Metro Labor Council; Bill Simon, Former WTU President; AFSCME representative, Caneisha Mills; AFGE representative, Johnny Walker; Vincent Orange, At-Large City Council candidate; Robert Brannum, President of the DC Federation of Civic Associations; Jerome Brocks, a now-retired activist teacher; and Sheila Gill, a wrongfully terminated school counselor; and a host of others, with closing remarks given by Reverend Grayland Hagler, who encouraged protesters to march in solidarity around the K street corridor. All in all, it was a beautiful day and just the start of actions planned by the Washington Teachers Union which will seek to build momentum and convince our government and the mayor of the need to provide adequate funding for public education.

MPort84 also sent this info along:

Here are some quotes from Kaplan website extolling virtual schools:

“IMAGINE REACHING EVERY CHILD, EVEN IF SHE NEVER WALKS THROUGH THE DOOR....PROGRAM SOLUTION: DISTRICT-LABEL VIRTUAL SCHOOL”

Kaplan created public school programs to address the needs of districts seeking a partner....Districts can also open an intact virtual school that has the look and feel of the district and not that of Kaplan.

Districts can accommodate students who cannot be served by a traditional brick and mortar school, thus keeping them in-district and capturing per-pupil funding. Plus, a dedicated Account Manager will work as a district partner to deliver results.”

http://www.kaplanonlineschools.com/district/solutions

There is a great need to discuss the actual educational consequences of the profit-driven drive to curtail brick-and-mortar and flesh-and-blood education in favor of virtual products.  

 

Others have voiced genuine reservations, especially considering the horrific record of the for-profit online college mills.  Here is a respected columnist from Forbes, E.D. Kain:  “The Next Step in Scott Walker’s Corporate Education Reform Agenda: Diploma Mills”

 

“But a virtual school does not fully replicate an actual classroom, and even if it did, we should be deeply troubled by the funneling of public education dollars into the coffers of for-profit businesses with very dubious transparency and even more dubious results.”

http://blogs.forbes.com/erikkain/2011/03/23/the-next-step-in-scott-walkers-corporate-education-reform-agenda-diploma-mills/

The Manifesto, Income Inequality & Credibility

On Friday, I wrote a blog item ('Misleading Manifesto') chiding a group of urban superintendents for misstating educational research in a 'manifesto' published in Sunday's Washington Post. Teacher quality *is* important -- but it does not matter MORE THAN family income and concentrated poverty.

I am convinced that too many educational reformers are happy to 'spin' the truth for rhetorical purposes. I think this is exactly what we saw in this manifesto. While this may help to simplify messaging, target solutions at a more narrowly construed problem, and focus in on what education leaders have direct control over, it carries an inherent policy danger along with it. That danger is two-fold: (1) teacher policy reforms may be set up for failure by overstating their potential impact; and (2) more comprehensive strategies desperately needed to combat rising income inequality and growing poverty in our nation may be discounted and ignored.

For me, this isn't an issue of setting low expectations for children from poverty. We must train and support our teachers to have high expectations and develop the potential in all children. But, from a policy perspective, which is the world in which I work, to not even discuss poverty and inequality -- even though the research evidence points to its preeminence -- is akin to taking it off the table as a policy priority.

Nor it is a lack of belief in the ameliorative benefits that sensible teacher reforms can have on student outcomes by expanding the recruitment pool of teacher candidates, improving initial training and on-going support of classroom teachers, improving teaching and learning conditions within schools, providing differential compensation to teachers for leadership roles, difficult assignments, shortage fields, and demonstrated effectiveness, and more....

For teacher quality specifically, as I argued in my previous post, playing fast and loose with the facts isn't necessary. There is a powerful argument to be made based on the fact that teachers are the most important school-based influence on student learning. That's exactly what my colleagues at the New Teacher Center have done. We've made careful and honest declarations about teacher quality being the most critical within-school variable, but haven't framed the issue in a way that would make us education-industry Pinocchios.

And this leads us directly to the question of credibility. While I am personally inclined to support elements of what the superintendents' manifesto calls for -- and inclined to support elements of broader education and teacher reform agendas -- I am disinclined to associate myself with a clarion call that is dishonest on its face and misserves the national need for a critical conversation and accompanying set of public policies to address issues of economic inequality. That need extends well beyond the education system and requires responses much broader than merely strengthening the teaching profession and overhauling human capital systems.

Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich recently has been banging the drums challenging policymakers -- and Democrats, in particular -- to address our nation's historic levels of income inequality and rising levels of poverty. As reported by the Washington Post's Steven Pearlstein, since 1976 "virtually all of the benefits of economic growth have gone to households that, in today's terms, earn more than $110,000 a year." Further, UNICEF reports that the United States has the highest rate of childhood poverty among 24 OECD nations -- over 20% -- and the second-worst rate (barely ahead of bottom-dwelling Great Britain) of childhood well-being in the industralized world. Further, as Walt Gardner recently noted, a September 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report showed that the percentage of Americans below the poverty line in 2009 was the highest in 15 years. And the rise was steepest for children, with one in five affected. Think this has any bearing on U.S. students' relatively poor performance on international student assessments? Uh-huh.

So, let's talk about how to strengthen teaching and its central importance to student outcomes. But let's not fence ourselves in with self-serving rhetoric. Let's be honest in our communications and expansive in our thinking about policies needed to improve the lives of American children.

It's about education -- and a whole lot more.

Revealing Wash Post and Kaplan Scams

Hi norm,

 

I'm chemtchr.  I put a blog diary up on Daily Kos yesterday that I think you might link to.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/9/6/899241/-The-Washington-Post-and-its-Kaplan-Education-Scams

 

It's really about connecting the vile revelations about Kaplan college scams, with Kaplan's (and thus the Washington Posts) K-12 for-profit involvement.  It exposes the reasons behind the Posts rabid advocacy of everything Michelle Rhee does.  The links open a new and unexpected avenue of counter-attack, and are a little funny.

 

Here's the intro paragraph- it is a long piece;

 

On Tuesday, Sept 7, Senator Durbin of Illinois opens  long-promised congressional hearings to investigate predatory, illegal practices by for-profit college chains, including Kaplan Higher Education, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Washington Post. Kaplan Higher Education derives 85% of its revenues from federal funds, and we the people have been robbed; but that is only the tip of an iceberg.  Kaplan has also penetrated into local public education, in for-profit markets the public doesn't even know exist.  Because the Washington Post relies on Kaplan for 62% of its total revenues and almost all of its profits, it is agressive and brutal in its retaliation against any politicians who oppose its education-profit agenda.  It will take courage for senators to turn over these rocks, and determination for citizens to find accurate reports.

 

There is a full page of connect-the dots, and then finally, here are the links:

 

Wall Street Journal on Wpo investments
Secret Shopper investigation
California colleges cut Kaplan tie
Stock traders survey damage to WPo
Mercenary Traders offer moral guidance
Kaplan creates venture subsidiary
Rafael offers context for Kaplan venture arm
Kaplan K12 Learning Services
Kaplin online in public schools, at public expense
Washington Post fails to disclose interest
Find the hidden partner in the Louisiana "Association of School Administrators"

 

Some Sad Statistics

Check out George Will's column in today's Washington Post:


For black children, daunting divides in achievement and family life
by George Will
Washington Post

Gary Babad breaks his contract and is demoted to DOE's press office

In a violation of his exclusive contract with the NYC Public School Parent blog, Gary Babad has published a exclusive report on the Washington Post blog about the appointment of a new Superintendent of DC schools.



We dragged Gary out of obscurity and propelled him to fame and fortune, and this is how he repays us? (Okay, there was no pay involved, but still!)

Gary's photo is at right, at the Class Size Matters fundraiser in May, talking to famed attorney Norman Siegel and to me; an occasion in which he never even hinted at his future betrayal.



As punishment, we are sending Gary to the bowels of the Tweed building to head their PR department, otherwise known as the NYC Department of Education press office.



This department is short-handed because of much turnover in recent months; and it's obvious they need help with their spin control. (The new hires haven't even managed to subscribe to our NYC education news list yet, the first step in any genuine attempt to control the news.)



For example, last week, when a press spokesperson tried to explain the lack of action for five years in a DOE investigation into the misconduct of a principal, recently shown to have misused funds in an audit from the State Comptroller's office, the excuse was that "Our lawyers are very thorough."



More recently, a DOE press spokesperson fed the absurd line to an Ed Week reporter that the DOE "is poised to introduce online credit-recovery options for students this coming school year in 10 schools" and then, only when a teacher is present.



Meanwhile, we know from numerous news articles that credit recovery is pervasive throughout the city, and credits are being handed out like candy to students, through cut-and-paste online programs, even when they failed to attend their classes and had flunked their courses.

We also know through DOE's own job postings and RFPs that online "learning", as they call it, is being used in at least 42 schools this year, with a plan to spread the discredited practice more widely next year, through "multi-million dollar online learning technology development projects" to be utilized during and beyond the school day - from home, library, or anywhere students have access to online resources.""



And in today's Daily News, this is how the DOE press office explained their decision to grant tenure to a principal, two days after a girl had drowned on a field trip at his school, a trip which had occurred without adequate supervision and permission slips:



"In the heartbreaking days following Nicole's death our primary focus was not on the tenure status of Columbia Secondary School officials," said Education Department spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz..



As Steve Koss, contributor to this blog pointed out, "such a statement is ridiculous and belied by their own actions, since it certainly didn't take them long to focus on the employment status of the teacher (now fired) and the AP (now demoted from administration back to being "just" a teacher.)"



We're sorry, Gary, that we have to demote you to heading the press office at Tweed, but at least at DOE, you can be assured that poor performance and/or misconduct are not punished, but are rewarded with a higher salary and assurances of lifetime employment.

More on the League of Democratic Schools

In a post below, we described a visit to the Westside Village Magnet School in Bend, Oregon, one of the schools in the League of Democratic Schools. In the League's May newsletter, readers can read updates on the other schools. See page 6 for the highlights from LODS schools.

John Goodlad, the founder of the League of Democratic Schools, has recently published three articles in the Washington Post where readers can gain a deeper understanding of the motivations behind his life's work.

See:

Goodlad on school reform: Are we ignoring lessons of last 50 years? Part 1


Goodlad: Straight Talk About Schools, Part 2


Goodlad: How to help our schools -- Part 3



Common Characteristics of LODS Schools

 Democratic Purpose: LODS schools believe the primary
purpose of schooling is to develop in young people the
knowledge, skills, and attitudes students require for
successful participation in our nation’s social and political
democracy.

 Student Achievement: Students in such schools are
successful academically and socially.

 Ongoing Professional Development: All members of the
school community engage in continuous learning.

 Approaches to Learning: These are schools that use a wide
variety of approaches to learning, including engaging students
with parents and other adults within the community.

 Personalization: These schools deliberately personalize the
relationships among students, teachers, parents, and
administrators by faculty members’ gathering as a group for
dialogue and by making other arrangements to facilitate
communications among the members of the school community.


2010 goals for the League schools focus on developing "ongoing, sustainable mechanisms for deepening our community’s understanding and engagement around the public purpose of schools in our democracy."

Diane Ravitch: A New Agenda for School Reform

A new agenda for school reform

By Diane Ravitch
Washington Post
Friday, April 2, 2010

I used to be a strong supporter of school accountability and choice. But in recent years, it became clear to me that these strategies were not working. The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program enacted in 2002 did not produce large gains in reading and math. The gains in math were larger before the law was implemented, and the most recent national tests showed that eighth-grade students have made no improvement in reading since 1998. By mandating a utopian goal of 100 percent proficiency, the law encouraged states to lower their standards and make false claims of progress. Worse, the law stigmatized schools that could not meet its unrealistic expectation.

Choice, too, has been disappointing. We now know that choice is no panacea. The districts with the most choice for the longest period -- Cleveland and Milwaukee -- have seen no improvement in their public schools nor in their choice schools. Charter schools have been compared to regular public schools on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009, and have never outperformed them. Nationally, only 3 percent of public school students are enrolled in charters, and no one is giving much thought to improving the system that enrolls the other 97 percent.

It is time to change course....

To read the entire article, go to the Washington Post.


Diane Ravitch is an historian of education. Her most recent book is The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education.

Historians Speak Out Against Proposed Texas Textbook Changes

Historians speak out against proposed Texas textbook changes
By Michael Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 18, 2010

Historians on Tuesday criticized proposed revisions to the Texas social studies curriculum, saying that many of the changes are historically inaccurate and that they would affect textbooks and classrooms far beyond the state's borders.
The changes, which were preliminarily approved last week by the Texas board of education and are expected to be given final approval in May, will reach deeply into Texas history classrooms, defining what textbooks must include and what teachers must cover. The curriculum plays down the role of Thomas Jefferson among the founding fathers, questions the separation of church and state, and claims that the U.S. government was infiltrated by Communists during the Cold War.

To read the entire article go to: Washington Post

Live By The Sword, Die By The Sword?

The problem with Jay Mathews' defense ("Measuring Progress At Shaw With More Than Numbers") of a Washington, DC school principal who did not demonstrate student learning gains at his school after one year is that the principal operates within an accountability system that demands such a result. In this case, both Mathews -- and DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee, as described in Mathews' WP column -- are right not to have lowered the boom on Brian Betts, principal of the DC's Shaw Middle School at Garnet-Patterson, based on a single year's worth of test scores.

The state superintendent of education's Web site says Shaw dropped from 38.6 to 30.5 in the percentage of students scoring at least proficient in reading, and from 32.7 to 29.2 in math.

But those were not the numbers Rhee read to Betts over the phone.

Only 17 percent of Shaw's 2009 students had attended the school in 2008, distorting the official test score comparisons. Rhee instead recited the 2008 and 2009 scores of the 44 students who had been there both years. It didn't help much.

The students' decline in reading was somewhat smaller; it went from 34.5 to 29.7. Their math proficiency increased a bit, from 26.2 to 29.5. But Shaw is still short of the 30 percent mark, far below where Rhee and Betts want to be....

Despite the sniping at Rhee, the best teachers I know think that what happened at Shaw is a standard part of the upgrading process. I have watched Betts, his staff, students and parents for a year. The improvement of poor-performing schools has been the focus of my reporting for nearly three decades. The Shaw people are doing nearly everything that the most successful school turnaround artists have done.

They have raised expectations for students. They have recruited energetic teachers who believe in the potential of impoverished students. They have organized themselves into a team that compares notes on youngsters. They regularly review what has been learned, what some critics dismiss as "teaching to the test." They consider it an important part of their jobs.

That's how it's done, usually with a strong and engaging principal like Betts.

Mathews' take -- including consideration of contextual factors, such as the fact that only 17% of the school's students had attended the prior year and the contention that school turnaround requires more than a single year -- is how the education world should work. Embrace the complexity of learning and trying to measure it! To do so would disallow the use of single-year changes in test scores for making high-stakes decisions about schools and individual school personnel. It would also remove the unrealistic pressure on school turnarounds to bear fruit in a single year. Test scores would be used responsibly in combination with other data and evidence to paint a fuller picture about individual school contexts and inform judgments about school leadership and student success.

But Michelle Rhee and other education reform advocates have publicly argued that student performance as measured by test scores is basically the be all and end all. According to this Washington Post story ("Testing Tactics Helped Fuel D.C. School Gains"), Rhee supports strengthening No Child Left Behind to "emphasize year-to-year academic growth." Such a stance creates a problem for such reformers when they are leading a district and staking their leadership on uncomplicated test score gains. Others will assess their leadership and judge their success by this measure -- an ill-advised one in its simplest form.

I would argue that, in addition to doing the right thing (as happened in this instance), reform advocates and school leaders like Rhee also have a responsibility to say and advocate for the right thing. They have a responsibility to be honest about the complexity of student learning and the inability of student assessments to accurate capture all of the nuance going on within schools and classrooms. While the reformers' challenge of the adult-focused policies of the educational status quo is often warranted, some reforms -- accountability, chief among them -- have been taken too far. Student learning, school leadership and teaching cannot be measured and judged good or bad based on a single set of test scores. Test scores must be part of the consideration -- and supporting systems such as accountability, compensation and evaluation must be informed by such data -- but they should not single-handedly define success or failure.

The complexity as presented by Mathews in his article -- and, more importantly, by existing research (such as by Robert Linn, Aaron Pallas, Tim Sass, and embedded within Sunny Ladd's RttT comments) about year-to-year comparisons of both overall test scores and test score gains -- strongly suggests that educational accountability systems should be designed more thoughtfully than they have been to date, but unfortunately that does not seem to be the direction that policymaking is headed at either the federal or state levels. Part of being more thoughtful is moving away from NCLB-style adequate yearly progress and toward a value-added approach, but thoughtfulness also requires not making high-stakes decisions based exclusively on volatile student data. Do I hear "multiple measures"? Sure, but Sherman Dorn offers some provocative thoughts on this subject in a 2007 blog post.

With regard to educational accountability, policymakers first should do their homework -- and then they clearly have more work to do in creating a better system and undoing parts of the existing system that aren't evidence-based and accomplish only in simplifying a truly complex art: learning.

-------------------

For those of you that have gotten this far, there's a related post on the New America Foundation's Ed Money Watch blog discussing a new GAO report that analyzes state spending on student assessment tests -- $640 million in 2007-08.

The increasing cost of developing and scoring assessments has also led many states to implement simpler and more cost-effective multiple choice tests instead of open response tests. In fact, although five states have changed their assessments to include more open response items in both reading and math since 2002, 11 and 13 states have removed open items from their reading and math tests, respectively over the same time period.... This reliance on multiple choice tests has forced states to limit the content and complexity of what they test. In fact, some states develop academic standards for testing separately from standards for instruction, which are often un-testable in a multiple choice system. As a result, state NCLB assessments tend to test and measure memorization of facts and basic skills rather than complex cognitive abilities.

------------

And here's a new story hot off the presses from Education Week. It discusses serious questions raised about New York City's school grading system.

Eighty-four percent of the city’s 1,058 public elementary and middle schools received an A on the city’s report cards this year, compared with 38 percent in 2008, while 13 percent received a B, city officials announced this month.

“It tells us virtually nothing about the actual performance of schools,” Aaron M. Pallas, a professor of sociology and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, said of the city’s grades.

Diane Ravitch, an education historian at New York University, was even sharper: She declared the school grades “bogus” in a Sept. 9 opinion piece for the Daily News of New York, saying the city’s report card system “makes a mockery of accountability.”

But Andrew J. Jacob, a spokesman for the New York City Department of Education, defended the ratings, even as he said the district’s demands on schools would continue to rise next year....

The city employs a complex methodology to devise its overall letter grades, with the primary driver being results from statewide assessments in reading and mathematics, which have also encountered considerable skepticism lately.

The city’s grades are based on three categories: student progress on state tests from one year to the next, which accounts for 60 percent; student performance for the most recent school year, which accounts for 25 percent; and school environment, which makes up 15 percent.

Mr. Pallas of Teachers College argues that one key flaw with the city’s rating system is that it depends heavily on a what he deems a “wholly unreliable” measure of student growth on test scores from year to year that fails to account adequately for statistical error.

Obama Endorses Community College Reform

It's a very big day for the nation's community colleges. In today's Washington Post, our president praises them, and calls for additional funding to support their work. In particular, President Obama writes, "We can reallocate funding to help them modernize their facilities, increase the quality of online courses and ultimately meet the goal of graduating 5 million more Americans from community colleges by 2020."

On Friday I spent the morning speaking with staff from the U.S. House of Representatives Community College Caucus, and was impressed by the significant turnout and detailed questions they asked. Then, TIME magazine moved on a substantial piece noting the importance of the 2-year sector as well.

This thing has legs. It's a very exciting time.... Let's hope that the President's ability to connect community colleges not only to job training but to his goals for increasing degree attainment continues. An integrated agenda will pay off.

NOTE: On July 14, 2009 the President will announce a proposal for $12 billion in support for community colleges, to enable them to produce an additional 5 billion graduates over 10 years. This is a remarkable turn of events.

----------

RELATED ARTICLES:
New York Times, "A Boon To Two-Year Colleges, Affirming Their Value", July 14, 2009
NYT, "Obama Attacks On Economy and Seeks Billions For Community Colleges", July 15, 2009
Derrick Jackson, "Community Colleges' New Clout", Boston Globe, July 18, 2009
David Brooks, "No Size Fits All", New York Times, July 19, 2009
Cap Times, "UW-Madison profs help shape bold initiative for community colleges" July 20, 2009

Will Darwin Take It On The Chin in Texas?

The Washington Post editorial page ('Strengths and Weaknesses') weighs in on the creationism debate in the Lone Star State.

Starting today, the state's board of education will consider whether the phrase "strengths and weaknesses" should remain deleted from the state's science standards. Debating strengths and weaknesses of various scientific theories might sound reasonable until you learn that those are supportive buzzwords for people who doubt evolution and want creationism taught in the classroom.

The force behind restoring the "strengths and weaknesses" language, which was stripped from the science standards in January after two decades, is Don McLeroy. He's the chairman of the State Board of Education. He is also a "young earth creationist" who believes the Earth was created by God no more than 10,000 years ago. Never mind plenty of scientific evidence that the planet has been around for a few billion years. The scary thing is that what's happening in Texas is by no means isolated.

So, in a state of 24 million people, this Mr. McLeroy is the best candidate that Republican Governor Rick Perry could find for the job of chair of the State Board of Education? Scary. Purposefully scary, I'll bet.

For more background, see here (6/3/08), here (7/21/08), here (1/22/09), and here (1/23/09).

Does This Stimulate Change?

The Washington Post is onto something here ("An Education Stimulus?")

EDUCATION is poised to win big under the economic stimulus plan hurtling through Congress. But it remains to be seen whether America's schoolchildren really will be helped by the huge investment of public funds that is being planned. After all, it seems that much of the billions of dollars of new federal spending is aimed at continuing programs and policies that largely have failed to improve student achievement. For the amount of money being spent, Congress should insist on real change, not simply more of the same.

Its editorial underscores what I was saying yesterday in this post ("Overstated"). More money by itself won't produce educational reform unless the way that money is spent locally changes. It doesn't appear that such requirements will be made part of the stimulus legislation. Thus, the federal role in education isn't poised to become more significant apart from covering a higher (albeit still small) portion of overall education costs.

The Iceman Cometh

Amen! "Washington Post: "As To Ice, Chicago Still Obama's Kind Of Town".

"My children's school was canceled today," Obama said, speaking to reporters before a meeting with business leaders. "Because of what? Some ice? . . . We're going to have to apply some flinty Chicago toughness to this town."

In 2001, the first of three winters I lived in Washington, DC, I innocently walked into my local grocery store one evening on my return home from work. Before me stood dozens of Washingtonians scooping up batteries, bottled water and toilet paper, with checkout lines stretching halfway up the aisles. Why? Two-to-three inches of snow was forecast for the next day. A native New Englander, I rolled my eyes and walked out.

If we lived like that here in Wisconsin -- or in my former Vermont -- the entire state would shut down for half the year. Not gonna happen.

I think President Obama is onto something. Maybe as a condition to giving Washington DC statehood, the Prez should insist on more "Chicago toughness."

In Chicago, where the President's daughters previously attended school, the schools haven't closed for weather since a 1999 ice storm.

------------------------------------------

UPDATE: Just discovered that Huffington Post, Alexander Russo and Kevin Carey beat me to the punch on this one. Guess it takes longer for news to reach Wisconsin ... especially through all this ice and snow.

Debate Redux: DC Vouchers

Republican presidential candidate John McCain made a point to declare school vouchers an education policy grounded in research at Wednesday's debate. "And I've got to tell you that vouchers, where they are requested and where they are agreed to, are a good and workable system," said McCain. "And it's been proven." Not so fast, Senator!

Today's Washington Post offers a fact check on the federal "Opportunity Scholarship Program" which, of course, was imposed upon Washington, DC by the Republican-controlled Congress and President Dubya.

A U.S. Department of Education study released in June showed that students in the program generally scored no higher on reading and math tests after two years than public school peers. The findings are consistent with previous studies of the voucher program.

Leslie Nabors Olah, senior researcher for the Consortium for Policy Research in Education, a coalition of five prominent universities, said that the D.C. voucher program hasn't shown immediate benefits and that more research needs to be done.

"We have no evidence that vouchers work," Nabors Olah said.

Washington Post Chastizes DC Teachers Union

Today the Washington Post editorial board weighs in on the on-going saga between DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee and the DC Teachers Union.

WITH CONTRACT talks apparently going nowhere, D.C. teachers ought to be asking whose interests their union leaders are tending to at the bargaining table. They certainly aren't defending those of the system's many dedicated and qualified teachers, who apparently won't even get the chance to consider a bold pay plan that would net many of them six-figure salaries.

The two-tier salary system proposed by Ms. Rhee would require teachers seeking the top pay levels to go on probation for a year; apparently union leaders found that unpalatable. Yet Ms. Rhee was offering teachers a choice: No one would be forced to give up tenure, and those opting for the lower pay level would still get -- another fact overlooked -- a 28 percent salary boost over five years, plus $10,000 in bonuses.

Amen. I'm no union basher, far from it, but it is clear that the interests of all the teachers -- sometimes the most talented, often the younger generation -- is often not represented by older generation, often status quo-oriented union leadership. Such appears to be the case in the Nation's Capital.

The traditional steps-and-ladders compensation system for teachers needs to change in order to recruit a broader set of candidates to teaching -- individuals who are not necessarily in it for their lifetimes and who want to receive compensation based at least in part of their demonstrated impact on students and on their school communities -- and to retain individual educators who are making a real difference for kids.

It is also important that we don't lose sight of the fact that such new compensation systems should be developed in partnership with teachers and the associations that represent them. Now, if those groups are unwilling to come to the table or to bargain in good faith, then that presents a problem, because I believe that there is a growing consensus that teacher pay needs to change. But that isn't necessarily the norm.

Models such as Denver's ProComp are beacons in this on-going dialogue that follow the principle of engaging teachers and jointly developing a new system. The Joyce Foundation (which also funds my employer) is also funding some thoughtful work to recommend new ways of paying educators. Both initiatives are worth a look.

Will The New President Support New Educators?

In yesterday's lukewarm editorial about the presidential candidates' education policy platforms, the Washington Post clearly sided with Barack Obama as the preferable option over John McCain. Not exactly a strong endorsement.

One thing is clear. Obama's presidential platform specifically focuses on developing excellent teachers--recognizing educators as the #1 school-based impact on student achievement. As a U.S. Senator, Obama has sponsored and co-sponsored legislation that would fund teacher residency programs and high-quality teacher induction programs. He's not a Johnny-come-lately to this issue.

Other than the fact that the charter-and-voucher-happy Lisa Graham Keegan (Matthew Yglesias/The Atlantic blog) (Arizona Republic article) is his chief education advisor, why is McCain clinging primarily to the tired, old right-wing focus on school structure, market-based reforms, and demonizing teachers at the exclusion of everything else? What too many conservatives don't seem willing to admit is that teachers drive results. Whether it's a public school, a charter school, a voucher school, a religious school or a home school, if a child has a good teacher he will be more likely to succeed. If teacher quality is lacking, learning is much less likely to occur. Teachers are not the enemy - they will lead us where we need to go if we support them and, yes, challenge them when appropriate to do better. But It can't be all sticks and no carrots. And It can't be done to teachers, it must be done with them.

The 'It' is what is in question in this campaign.

There is some hope in McCain's education platform. Buried within it is an interesting idea:

Provide Funding For Needed Professional Teacher Development. Where federal funds are involved, teacher development money should be used to enhance the ability of teachers to perform in today's technology driven environment. We need to provide teachers with high quality professional development opportunities with a primary focus on instructional strategies that address the academic needs of their students. The first 35 percent of Title II funding would be directed to the school level so principals and teachers could focus these resources on the specific needs of their schools.

I agree that Title II monies should be better directed at high-quality, high-impact professional development. About half of these funds currently go to class size reduction which is not necessarily the biggest bang for the buck, particularly outside the early grades. Certainly, some professional development monies are directed at low-quality, pray-and-spray, one-size-fits-all PD seminars. And some teachers are allowed to self-select PD offerings that really aren't focused on improving their teaching. I'm not saying that enrollment in Underwater Basket Weaving is rampant, but simply that districts and school leaders should have more say in -- and a better understanding about -- helping teachers improve through purposeful PD.

As McCain so often discusses, it is also appropriate to focus on weeding out ineffective teachers. But even more important is identifying the effective ones through meaningful evaluation systems [Ed Sector] [NGA] [NCCTQ], figuring out what makes them effective, and using that knowledge to transform the practice of the vast majority of mediocre-to-average-to very good teachers by improving preparation [ECS] [Edutopia] [SREB] [TNE], instituting high-quality induction programs [NTC] [AASCU] [AEE], and and designing career-long professional development opportunities [CCSR] [CCSSO] [PEN] [VA DOE] that support individualized teaching contexts.

The main problem with McCain's proposal is that he has proposed ratcheting down increases in domestic spending. That means little money to implement No Child Left Behind-related programs and fund needed teacher quality reforms. (Remember, we've got to fund those tax cuts for the rich that sickened McCain just a few years ago; oh yes, and pay for the 100-year war in Iraq.)

Obama, on the other hand, has signaled a willingness to reform teacher compensation and strengthen professional development systems and ante up federal resources and target them at high-need, hard-to-staff schools and districts across the country. His focus clearly is on making teachers better with a focus on student outcomes. That's a more comprehensive approach that makes a lot more sense. I agree with the Post that he needs to go further in fleshing out his views on issues such as teacher assignment and teacher tenure, but Obama's reform-minded, student-focused teacher policy proposals are a refreshing change from the "status quo or bust" and "more money is the only answer" ethos of many recent Democratic presidential contenders.

With regard to McCain, I wish he would spend less time talking about bad teachers and more time talking about how we can learn from good ones. And enough with this voucher obsession! Let's focus on making our public schools as good as they can be. That starts with strengthening America's teaching force.

A Generational Divide Over Teacher Pay

Interesting story in today's Washington Post about the continuing saga over D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee's teacher compensation proposal.... Based on anecdotal evidence, the article suggests that support and opposition to Rhee's plan is breaking down along generational lines, with younger teachers generally supportive of the Chancellor's plan to base salaries, in part, on student performance and older teachers opposed.

I've always thought that union opposition to moving away from the traditional steps-and-lanes teacher salary schedule would lessen over time as a new generation of takes over leadership of national, state and local union chapters. That day hasn't quite arrived in most places. But the debate in D.C. certainly exposes the generational rift within the teaching profession and within union membership. And the ranks of younger teachers are swelling as the Baby Boomers retire.

I have to wonder how many potential teaching candidates we lose by our failure to recognize performance (based on student achievement or anything else) at any point in most of our teacher compensation systems. How many forsake the teaching profession entirely because of the design of the compensation system? The steps-and-lanes approach to paying teachers (based on years of experiences, advanced degree and PD credits) certainly doesn't warm the cockles of the younger generations' hearts. Have districts like Denver with differentiated compensation systems attracted individuals to teaching that might otherwise gone to another field? Perhaps it's too soon to tell, but I think this is an area that warrants further research.

"Illusory" Test Score Gains

Here is a neat little story from today's Washington Post that puts my recent post about Maryland test scores into some context.

Recent reports from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and [Bruce] Fuller's group, Policy Analysis for California Education, have concluded that most recent gains on state tests are illusory, reflecting better test-taking skills or lower standards rather than increased knowledge. Another study, from the Center on Education Policy, concluded that the gains seemed genuine but did not necessarily reflect greater learning.

DC Pay Update

Today's Washington Post reports on the new teacher compensation proposal put forth by Washington, DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee.

D.C. teachers interested in the huge salary increases proposed by Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee would not only have to relinquish their seniority but also risk dismissal by spending a year on probation, according to details of the plan released yesterday.

The tradeoff, part of one of two salary scenarios under discussion, could earn an instructor with five years of experience as much as $100,000 in base pay and bonuses. The structure would put the city's teachers in an elite class in a profession in which the national average salary is $47,600, according to the most recent survey conducted by the American Federation of Teachers.

D.C. school officials said the leaps in pay would be subsidized partly by private foundations.

See background blog posts here and here.

It Doesn't Add Up

Every couple of months it seems a new (inter)national report is released bemoaning the performance of American students in mathematics or recommending improvements. But what is clear from today's Washington Post editorial on John McCain's voodoo economics is that math lessons didn't always 'take' for past generations of students either. McCain - a self-professed economics neophyte - either doesn't know that 2+2=4 or refuses to acknowledge it. I'm not sure which is worse.