Grumpy Educators

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Washington State Ballot Initiative: Redefining School Choice

Parents, community members, and taxpayers across the nation have been loud and clear regarding what they expect from public schools.
1) They want accountability; but do not want schools turned into centers of testing and test preparation instead of centers of learning.
2) They want safe, student-centered, and instructionally-rich environments that include art, music, and P.E.
3) They want reasonable class sizes and believe that class-size matters.
4) They want stronger local control and less federal and state control.
5) They want less standardization, less intrusive rules, less tests, and less data collection.
6) They want to retain parent rights, and not have them weakened by new FERPA regulations.

Education policy-wonks, education reformers, foundations, and legislators in both establishments persist in ignoring these concerns and persist in forcing their definition of education reform.

Washington State is one of nine states that do not allow charter schools. "Washington voters have rejected charter schools three times before -- in 1996, 2000 and a third time in 2004." This November, voters will revisit this situation again via a ballot initiative 1240, based on a petition drive. The three week petition drive was funded this way:

According to Public Disclosure Commission filings posted Tuesday, Yes On 1240 has raised a total of $2.3 million and spent about $2.1 million to gather about 350,000 signatures. Most of the money has come from Washington technology leaders, including Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, who donated $1 million.

Other reported funds and funders of the petition drive included $100,000 from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, and $200,000 from Katherine Binder, chairwoman of EMFCO Holdings, $150,000 has been donated to the campaign from out-of-state, and $50,000 from Democrats for Education Reform, which is based in New York but has a presence in Washington state.

The successful petition drive was organized by Winner & Mandabach of Santa Monica, California, a company that specializes in "big-buck initiatives."

The final and approved wording on the ballot measure read as follows:

Title:
Initiative Measure No. 1240 concerns creation of a public charter school system.

Concise description:

This measure would authorize up to forty publicly-funded charter schools open to all students, operated through approved, nonreligious, nonprofit organizations, with government oversight; and modify certain laws applicable to them as public schools.

Ballot measure summary limited to 75 words:

This measure would allow a newly-created state commission or approved local school boards to authorize qualifying nonreligious, nonprofit organizations to operate public charter schools, limited to forty schools over five years. Public charter schools would receive standard per-student public school funding and be open to all students without tuition. Public charter schools would be subject to teacher certification requirements, government oversight, and performance reporting requirements, but exempt from certain state laws and school district policies.

Read more here: http://www.theolympian.com/2012/06/15/2141973/judge-oks-ballot-words-for-i-1240.html#storylink=cpWhat voters are unlikely to read is the 39-page implementation plan, which includes

What voters are unlikely to read is the 39-page detailed implementation plan or the "conversion charters" plan tucked within it. These new public charters would be free of regulations required of the public schools except for testing requirements. Conversion charters permit parents or teachers to vote to turn a standard public school into a charter school via a petition process. While controversial so-called parent trigger laws are restricted to low performing schools and rely on a petition process, this ballot initiative allows any school including high performing schools to "convert."

I1240 proponents attempt to distinguish "conversion" from "parent trigger" this way:

"...there is no parent or teacher “trigger” in I-1240. Under I-1240, it’s possible for a traditional public school to convert to a charter school only if the school meets rigorous application requirements, and demonstrates community need and parent and community support. One additional requirement before that conversion could happen is that either a majority of the parents or a majority of the teachers would have to sign a petition supporting the conversion. However, this is an additional requirement to demonstrate support for the school — a petition alone would mean nothing."

Parents, community members, and taxpayers are not so easily fooled by changes in a word or two and creating new definitions. Pass it now, fix it later is a bad idea. The devil is in the details, or lack of, and Washington state voters would do well to reject this ballot initiative. What is clear for the rest of the nation is that charter expansion for all is the goal.

While public schools strain under regulations, public charters would not. How does this make any sense? Wouldn't the public be better served by wider discussion of what type of customized conversion schools would be developed even in those areas where students demonstrate high achievement? How do customized schools navigate in a standardized-driven top down environment? Without that conversation first, how much more experimentation on children should the taxpayers be willing to pay for?

Below is a section of the final text of the ballot measure that references a conversion.

I-1240
Part II
Sec. 201: (8) "Conversion charter school" means a charter school created by converting an existing noncharter public school in its entirety to a charter
school under this chapter.
(9) "New charter school" means any charter school established under this chapter that is not a conversion charter school.
Sec. 205: (3) A conversion charter school must provide sufficient capacity to enroll all students who wish to remain enrolled in the school after its conversion to a charter school, and may not displace students enrolled before the chartering process.
Sec. 213: (3) In the case of an application to establish a conversion charter school, the applicant must also demonstrate support for the proposed conversion by a petition signed by a majority of teachers assigned to the school or a petition signed by a majority of parents of students in the school.
Sec. 222: (6) Conversion charter schools are eligible for local levy moneys approved by the voters before the conversion start-up date of the school as determined by the authorizer, and the school district must allocate levy moneys to a conversion charter school.
Sec. 223: (5) A conversion charter school as part of the consideration for providing educational services under the charter contract may continue to use its existing facility without paying rent to the school district that owns the facility. The district remains responsible for major repairs and safety upgrades that may be required for the continued use of the facility as a public school. The charter school is responsible for routine maintenance of the facility including, but not limited to, cleaning, painting, gardening, and landscaping. The charter contract of a conversion charter school using existing facilities that are owned by its school district must include reasonable and customary terms regarding the use of the existing facility that are binding upon the school district. References:
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/seattle-schools/article/Charter-schools-Can-they-send-more-kids-to-3711444.php#ixzz25tVawjA9
http://no1240.org/
http://sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/initiatives/FinalText_274.pdf

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

Governor Scott left at the station and misses the testing and accountability train.

UPDATE ON DR. ROBINSON: Truth in American Education reported that Teresa Sweet of the Florida DOE responded to the concerns of Dr. Robinson of the Trinity Christian School in Deltona repeating the regulations and adding some detail. Blogger Vander Hart concludes the following (bold added):

The only guidance that this provides is that principals can determine what to do with incoming transfers so this perhaps gives Dr. Robinson some latitude with which to deal with incoming students who have taken Algebra I, but failed the EOC assessment. Since private schools don’t participate he could probably grant the credit. Currently there is no way any of his or other private school’s students transferring out can receive credit for Algebra I and Biology unless they take the state’s EOC assessment. Theoretically, the only way for a student to be prepared to take that assessment is for that private school to adopt the same standards as the public schools (read Common Core State Standards) at the moment. As Sweet mentioned, there is a provision in the Florida Statutes for the Commissioner of Education to approve an alternative exam, but the current Education Commissioner, Gerard Robinson, has resigned effective August 31st. So who knows when or if that’ll happen.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yesterday, Florida Governor Scott promised changes to the testing system, but had no specifics other than no more teaching to the test. Today, the Florida Department of Education and the State School Board sent Superintendents a 12-page memo on testing and accountability rules starting this school year, rules that cement just the opposite on Florida's testing system.

In the meantime, Dr. Robinson of the Trinity Christian School in Deltona, Fl still has received no reply from the Governor regarding the impact of the end-of-course exams on students leaving private school for public school and reported here. In fact, in an interview today reported on the Truth in American Education website, Robinson elaborated that the unnecessary disruption and uncertainty affecting students and their families both leaving and coming to private school under the current testing system. Robinson cites an "influx of students transferring into his school from area public schools who took Algebra I, but failed the end of course assessment." This situation "places his school in a conundrum because their transcript says they took a math class, but they don’t have credit for Algebra I so they’re not sure what to do with those students. “Do we just put them back into Algebra I again?”

How are other states managing this? At least Oklahoma was forward thinking and established alternative ways for students with "special circumstances" to demonstrate their proficiency in 2011 including 11 alternatives for Algebra 1 alone.

From OK State Dept. website:

Students with Other Special Circumstances

Some students may have other special circumstances related to meeting the ACE Testing Requirements. Some examples of students with special circumstances include, but are not limited to, students who used proficiency based promotion to earn credit in one of the required courses, students who transferred to a public school from a private school or home school, or students with medical conditions that make testing difficult. Students with special circumstances may be able to meet the ACE Testing Requirements through alternate tests or End-of-Course Projects instead of taking the EOI exams. More information about students with special circumstances is available in the ACE Implementation Guide.

On the other hand, Texas school districts struggle with figuring out how to calculate the results of test results as they affect GPA. They consider whether greater points should go to a student who passes the first time and less to a student who has to take the exam more than once.

After the FCAT writing fiasco and a 40% failure rate in the new Algebra 1 end-of-course exam, Florida parents might have thought private school was a way to escape an out of control accountability system that does not serve the best interest of students and families. Unfortunately, parent choice has no meaning under these conditions. Governor Scott may have a new message, but the train has left him behind at the station/

And what of the students?

Saturday, August 18, 2012

Florida Testing and Accountability System Creates Havoc in Private Schools

The smooth system of transferring credits from private schools to public schools has apparently been eliminated. According to an email sent to Governor Scott, the Volusia County Director of Assessment informed the Trinity Christian Academy in Deltona that credit will not be given to private school students who transfer to public school for courses, such as Algebra and Biology, because the standardized end-of-course tests are not available to them. If this information is correct, the Florida legislature, Commissioner of Education, and State School Board, by an act of incompetence or by design, have removed all alternative testing measures available to students in a private school that would serve in lieu of end-of-course-exams, leaving students unable to graduate from a public high school.

One Florida private school has raised this issue with Governor Scott in an August 10, 2012 email requesting a remedy to this surprising turn of events. Thanks to Sunburst, the open government email system, the public caught a ray of an additional lapse of serious magnitude in the state's accountability system that redefines parental choice.

“… these families bear the cost of education that our government would have had to carry. Private school students should not be penalized for choosing to go to Florida's private schools.”

Is this lapse a way to insert Florida's controversial testing and accountability system into private schools and exert control over religious schools? Will the standardized end-of-course requirement ultimately be required of all schools, public and private? Does the requirement apply to homeschoolers who transfer back to public school?

State education authorities have some explaining to do and an unambiguous remedy to develop. The public deserves a clear plan on how they intend to clean up yet another mess they have made with the state accountability system. In the meanwhile, parent choice has just been thrown under the bus.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Florida Accountability Concerns Increase

In spite of Florida Commissioner of Education Gerard Robinson whirl-wind talking tour of Florida on the heels of the FCAT fiasco, parents, community members, and taxpayers remain unconvinced of the validity of Florida's assessment initiative.

Ocala.com editorial page editor Brad Rogers commented on the FCAT Writing fiasco saying: "Too many people on the front lines — principals, teachers and parents — have far too many criticisms of FCAT for Robinson, Gov. Rick Scott and our lawmakers to continue playing the hear no evil, see no evil and speak no evil game."

Rogers points out the public wants accountability, but not expensive, experimentation. After all, who exactly is footing the bill?

Call me a skeptic, but nothing is likely to change. First of all, most of Robinson’s comments about FCAT concerns have largely been in defense of the high-stakes test. Second, while Robinson and his masters in the governor’s mansion and the Legislature keep raising the bar — which, I believe, most Floridians agree is prudent — they are doing nothing to help local school districts meet the challenge. For example, when the Tallahassee crowd mandated all testing be done on computers, schools received no help to buy enough computers to get the job done, despite millions in new costs.

The more state level officials try to explain, the less confidence the public has that the testing has any value. Reusing a worn out largely indefensible narrative, Robinson repeats that high stakes testing has been good for Florida and without it we would be turning back the clock on the meteoric progress made. He warns that test scores will continue to be low as the state transitions to the national assessments based on the Common Core standards; but ignores basic questions on current implementation.

Currently, four Florida School Boards (Martin, St. Lucie, Palm Beach, and Broward) have voted a resolution that rejects the FCAT as the sole means for grading Florida schools saying it is an "and inadequate and unreliable measure of student learning," and rejects the over emphasis on standardized testing. Reports indicate that the Orange County School Board is going to review the resolution.

The Florida School Board Association will convene a meeting with representation by all 67-school boards and an emergency item has been placed on the agenda to discuss encouraging the State Board of Education "to revamp its testing and accountability methods, and add more variety to the way student progress is measured."

More reporting found here.

Friday, May 11, 2012

APP Press Release: ALEC Board Delays Vote on Common Core

Washington, DC – Today, the board of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), after considering anti-Common Core legislation introduced by the American Principles Project (APP), Goldwater Institute and the Washington Policy Center last summer, delayed a decision on whether to endorse the legislation until their next meeting.

“ALEC’s delay in endorsing the resolution is troubling and plays into the strategy of the multi-billion dollar private entities that are pushing the Common Core,” said APP’s Emmett McGroarty. ”This issue has been before ALEC for almost a year. The resolution was approved by the ALEC Education Task Force overwhelmingly last December, and ALEC has discussed it at three of its national meetings. The well-financed private entities and the federal government are moving forward with their implementation of the Common Core, and Americans have been cut out of the process.”

Dr. Tony Bennett, the Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction, presented the pro-Common Core case to the board of ALEC. Dr. Bennett is also on the Board of Directors of the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), one of the two trade associations managing the Common Core Standards (along with the National Governors Association). Additionally, he is the Chairman of Chiefs for Change, an initiative of Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education. The Foundation for Excellence in Education and CCSSO have received $1,000,000 and $70,000,000, respectively, from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the primary force financing and pushing the Common Core.

Robert Scott, Texas Commissioner of Education, presented the case for the resolution to the board, which then deliberated behind closed doors. State Rep. Dave Frizzell of Indiana, ALEC’s National Chairman, reported that the board found that there was much to like about the legislation but decided to send it back to the Education Task Force due to concerns about some of the language. He stated that the board would forward the details of those concerns to the task force.

This week, APP and Pioneer Institute released a white paper that makes the case against state adoption of the national Common Core State Standards. Co-sponsored by Pacific Research Institute and the Washington Policy Center, Controlling Education From the Top: Why Common Core Is Bad for America argues in favor of a Common Core withdrawal resolution.

The white paper can be seen here:
http://americanprinciplesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Controlling-Education-From-the-Top.pdf

The Resolution can be seen here:
http://americanprinciplesproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Comprehensive-Legislative-Package-Opposing-the-Common-Core-State.pdf

The American Principles Project is a 501(c)(3) organization dedicated to preserving and propagating the fundamental principles on which our country was founded - universal principles, embracing the notion that we are all, "created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
For more information, please contact Jameson Cunningham with Shirley & Banister Public Affairs atjcunningham@sbpublicaffairs.com or (703) 739-5920.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: On May 2, reports of families of 400 students opted their children out of standardized tests.
In Texas, over 400 school boards have signed a Resolution opposing high stakes assessment.
In Florida, two school boards have signed a National Resolution opposing high stakes assessment.

Tuesday, May 8, 2012

NUT Report: National Call to End High Stakes Assessment

Press Release

A Letter to President Obama

Two grandparents on opposite ends of the continent each had a concern about the direction of education reform and its effect on their grandchildren. Through a chain of improbable circumstances they found each other on Facebook and conjured up a letter to President Obama expressing their concerns.

Mark Naison, from Brooklyn, NY and a Fordham professor prepared a draft of the letter. Bob Valiant, retired school administrator from Kennewick, WA, edited the letter and Bob Valiant Jr. developed a survey form and website, http://dumpduncan.org. The letter calls for the removal of Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the inclusion of parents, teachers, and school administrators in all administration policy discussions. It insists on the immediate end to penalties and incentives to compel using student test scores to evaluate teachers, require school closures, or install charter schools. Finally, the letter asks for a National Commission, to include parents and teachers, to explore ways to improve the public schools.

Naison and Valiant Sr. began to circulate the letter to friends on Facebook. The signatures started rolling in and now more than 6700 total signatures have been recorded. A map on the website shows they came from all across the country, from big cities, suburbs, and hamlets. All of this happened with a purely volunteer cadre made up of parents, teachers, and other concerned citizens with no financial expenditure. Now the goal is to continue collecting signatures until June 1 when the letter and package of signatures will be delivered to the President.

For further information, consult the website, http://dumpduncan.org or phone Bob Valiant at 509.783.8883.

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Indiana: Parent Opts Out and Indiana DOE Overreacts

Recently, Grumpy Educators reported on a New York parent who opted her student out of student testing. The response from the school was disheartening. Now, a parent in Indiana reports a similar experience in asserting her parental rights to opt out her son from standardized testing. In both cases, the parents were mistreated, harassed, and in New York, threatened, their students had an IEP, and the state-level officials demanded compliance to non-existing regulations. Are these appropriate responses by State-level education department staffers? Schools are ordered to comply and school officials then order the parents and students to comply without any enforceable legal requirement. The schools must give the tests, but the students are not compelled to take them and parental rights have not been overridden. When the state is asked for relevant regulations, the compliance begins to fall apart.

Read the Indiana parent's story from beginning to end.

Part 1: The Parent Requests No Testing

"I went to school with [child's name] today, Thursday, May 5th, to make sure the school did not make [child's name] take the ISTEP (he was at home on Tuesday and Wednesday this week). I was pulled out by an administrator about thirty minutes into the day with [child's name] and asked to speak with him. He brought me to his office and explained how they have to follow what the DOE requires. If a child comes to school during ISTEP they must take the exams, and today they are doing makeup exams for ISTEP. Therefore if I don’t allow him to take the ISTEP he will have to stay home until the testing window is closed (meaning the next 4 days of school he would have to stay home until May 9th). The administrator then directed me to talk with Dr. Walker at the DOE about my desire to opt [child's name] out of ISTEP and to hear what they mandate. She indicated I had no legal right to opt him out and that the state has the right to make a child take the test even if the parent/s object. She indicated if I decided to stay at school with my son that the school would have to call the legal authorizes to have us removed from school. I summarized for her the three options I thought I had:
1. Stay at school with my son and refuse the test,
2. Stay at home with my son,
3. Allow my son to take the test.

Obviously there are consequences with all three situations. The first option threatens me with physical removal from the school and undue stress on my son. The second option denies my son a right to an education. The third option denies my right as a mom to say no to the excessive testing that is going on in our schools, especially in third grade.   I told my son’s administrator that I feel like my son and I are being run out of this school because of ISTEP. He nodded his head and agreed that is what the DOE is requiring. He didn’t agree with the mandate from the DOE but he also didn’t want to put his school at jeopardy of sanctions. He indicated that he believes there are other laws such as compulsory education laws that contradict what the DOE is saying but at this point he has to follow the DOE directions. He knew that there are 28 kids opting out at the Indianapolis Project School and the school principal has allowed this. However, he believes that situation will put that school at risk.   We were asked to take the test at 10:30 or leave the school. I decided to leave but tried to get [child's name] back in school later in the day as he really wanted to go to his Passions class at 2:30. I was told by phone not to come back as the DOE has been notified of [child's name] departure from school and the staff has been notified that [child's name] should not be allowed back at school today. When I asked about [child's name] going to school tomorrow he said something to the affect, “Tensions are high. If you come to school it will probably be a very ugly situation”.   I feel so upset about many of the elements of this situation. I honestly thought the school would leave an opt out child/parent alone if they came to school to ensure their son’s right to an education and denied the test for their child. I am shocked that the school is responding in this manner and that the Indiana DOE can assert their power over a school in this way."

Part 2: Indiana DOE finds another option.

"I wish to update you all on my situation.
I received an email this morning from the school principal indicating that I can bring [child's name] to school and they wanted to talk to me in person about a way for [child's name] to stay at school and not take ISTEP.
When I showed up both principals were present and they said that they regretted how the DOE spoke to me yesterday on the phone regarding my demand to opt out [child's name] from school. They said they asked the DOE to put in writing where the law states that [child's name] cannot be at school if he doesn’t take the ISTEP. In addition, they explained to the DOE that [child's name] is supposed to get special accommodations to take the test due to his IEP. The school believes this new knowledge caused the DOE to provide another option to the school.
They told me [child's name] could go to school again and not take the ISTEP but he would have to be given the opportunity to take the test under normal accommodations (in a separate room). All he has to do is say no to the test and they would let him go back to class and they would have to go through this procedure through the middle of next week. I agreed to talk to [child's name] about this option and make sure he understands the plan. After yesterday my son really understands what is going on and he is ready to say no to the test. In addition, it was a big deal to my son to be at school today and he was more than happy to say no to the test. I was given assurances that it would be done in a gentle matter.
As I walked out of the school building today, I felt emotion and some degree of victory. I feel that the school and the DOE had to show me as a parent where it says in the state law that [child's name] could not be at school. They obviously could not provide that information and realized they needed to back up from what they said to me yesterday.
I believe the school was trying to find a solution and felt that what they provided me was the best solution for now. I am grateful that they did follow up with the DOE from the unfortunate situation yesterday and asked the DOE to back up their statements regarding [child's name] right to attend school.
I would like to continue to provide pressure on the DOE to turn back their policies around threatening parents and threatening to force kids to take a test. However, I need time to think about how to use this situation to benefit the larger cause. The issues that need to be in the spotlight are:
1. The parents right to guide the well being of their child and how that supersedes the states right to force testing

2. Putting the child in a position to have to be the one to say no to the test.
Although I agreed to this and felt confident my son could handle this option, I also realize that young kids should not be put in this position. I don’t want this to be the fall back policy of the opt out movement.

3. The DOE has been caught overstepping their power in a number of ways recently. IREAD is one example. I believe we need to apply pressure on our legislators to make sure we put them back in their place.

4. More organizing at the local level around these issues is critical – I was alone in this situation. I hope to make more progress once I have time to recover from the intensity and stress of this situation

I hope that this story is helpful to other parents who run into this situation in the future. Let’s keep the pressure on the DOE."