Monday, July 25, 2016

Hillary Clinton Found at the Rotten Center of the Common Core National Standards

Hillary Clinton Found at the Rotten Center of the Common Core National Standards

Back to May 2015 Ed Reporter

Originally published by the Education Action Group Foundation news site, EAGNews.org, on April 8, 2015. Reprinted with permission. The Education Action Group Foundation believes the one-size-fits-all, assembly line government school system requires serious reform.

by Bob Kellogg

A veteran educator says parents can thank Hillary Clinton for the Common Core national standards that have been thrust upon schools across the country.

hillary-2

Even though most people probably believe that Common Core was developed during President Barack Obama’s term in office, the foundation of the initiative goes all the way back to the 1980s, reports veteran educator and now-commentator Donna Garner.

Garner tells EAGnews that back then Hillary Clinton worked with other left-leaning education reformers such as Marc Tucker of the National Committee on Education and the Economy (NCEE), Ira Magaziner, and then-Gov. Mario Cuomo, known for his fiery, liberal speeches.

The ‘What Is Common Core’ website reports that Tucker “has … openly worked for decades to strengthen the role of the state education agencies in education governance at the expense of local control” and claims that “the United States will have to largely abandon the beloved emblem of American education: local control.”

In 1992, Tucker wrote a letter to Hillary Clinton outlining his vision of a building a pipeline from education to the workforce. (It is known as the “Dear Hillary letter.”)

Magaziner has a long association with the Clintons. In addition to working with Hillary on radical education reform, he worked with her on the failed Task Force to Reform Health Care during the Clinton Administration, served as senior policy advisor for President Clinton and, as of today, serves in a leadership capacity for two of the Bill, Hillary, & Chelsea Clinton Foundation’s international development initiatives.

In the 1980s, Hillary (et al.) laid the groundwork for a School-to-Work plan, better known by the term “cradle-to-grave,” according to Garner. The idea was to create a three-legged stool of education, labor, and healthcare whereby the government would direct people’s lives from birth until they die.

Garner, who began teaching in the early ’60s in Texas, says all were to be joined together under one banner with government healthcare, school healthcare clinics providing abortions and contraceptives, classrooms emphasizing workforce development skills instead of academic knowledge, and the Department of Labor directing students into a career pathway at a very early age.

Garner, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan and re-appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve on the National Commission on Migrant Education, says the idea was “that students and everybody else would be tracked into the vocation that the government at the time thought was important. And it didn’t have anything to do with students’ natural desires or what their parents wanted them to do or what the students’ talents were. It all had to do with providing ‘worker bees’ for the government.”

And as insidious as the plan sounds, it has come to be reality under the Common Core national standards initiative, she says.

She further states the goal was to have about 10% of the population be well educated and then the other 90% would be trained to function within factories and companies.

Jane Robbins of the American Principles Project tells EAGnews:

When it was called School-to-Work 20 years ago, it was a fad for awhile and then it fell apart. And now it’s a fad again. But this time they are really focusing on cementing this through Common Core, using federal money because the people who are influential in the progressive ed world are people … like Marc Tucker … who has been an advocate of all of this forever. He thinks the schools should just be part of one, vast human development resource system and he’s been arguing that for decades.

Now known as Student Learning Plans (SLPs), sixth graders in a growing number of states, along with their parents and a school counselor, develop career paths for the coming six years until the students are graduated. Robbins says this is all connected to the Common Core national standards initiative, which has never been an education model but is instead a workforce development model. It’s not meant to produce many educated citizens.

Prior to “cradle-to-grave,” schools focused on academic-based content called Type #1. That involved memorization and drills comprised of basic education fundamentals.

Garner says once that was accomplished, students were enabled to do higher level reasoning. A 1991 report, The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, SCANS, however, helped to change the direction of the nation’s schools from knowledge-based academic content (Type #1) into an education philosophy where the emphasis is on emotions, opinions, and beliefs with an emphasis on workplace competencies (Type #2).

According to Garner, the standards movement popped up all over the country. States appointed writing teams to rewrite all K-12 courses, and the new standards required students “to be able to know and be able to do.”

She says, “We are living the plan that Hillary and her folks, her team, instigated back in the early ’80s.”

The plan was delayed when George W. Bush was elected to office. But with Obama, another zealous Type #2 advocate, Garner says it’s the perfect storm “that leads into relativism, into political correctness, multiculturalism, environmental extremism, and then into the social justice agenda under Obama, which glorifies the LGBT community.”

Garner believes we have Hillary Clinton (et al.) to thank for the mess our country’s schools are in today. It is because of her Type #2 philosophy of education as birthed by the NCEE that we now have the Common Core Standards Initiative pouring into our nation’s schools, capturing the College Board and its products (AP, SAT, PSAT), and making billions of dollars in profits for Bill Gates, Pearson, Jeb Bush, and others. Even the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) is being rewritten to align with Common Core, she reports.

Parents need to lay the blame for Common Core right at Hillary’s feet, she says. The seeds for Common Core began to sprout under Bill Clinton’s administration thanks to Hillary and her associates. Under Obama, these Common Core seedlings have grown into a complete takeover of our nation’s school system by the federal government.

According to Garner, “We have Hillary to blame for a nation of adult non-readers who get most of their news from their social media gadgets; and it is for that reason that I have used my institutional memory to try to educate those people who have no knowledge of Hillary Clinton. If she is to be a serious candidate for the Presidency, we must warn the public.”

Bob Kellogg is a freelance journalist whose work regularly appears at OneNewsNow.com.



Sent from my iPhone

8 Things You Should Know About Corporations Like Pearson that Make Huge Profits from Standardized Tests

8 Things You Should Know About Corporations Like Pearson that Make Huge Profits from Standardized Tests

Photo Credit: Shutterstock.com/Eric Von Seggern

A few months ago, fourth-grader Joey Furlong was lying in a hospital bed, undergoing a pre-brain surgery screening, when a teacher walked in the room with a standardized test. Shocked, Joey’s father, who was in the room, told the teacher to leave.

Joey’s mother, Tami Furlong, later said, “I would like to hope she would not have taken his arm that has an IV and oximeter on it and put a No. 2 pencil in it.”

Joey’s story serves as one example of just how absurdly enforced standardized testing has become. Since George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2002, testing in the United States has skyrocketed. Before NCLB, under Bill Clinton’s Improving America’s Schools Act, the federal government required students to take six tests total — a reading and math test in elementary, middle and high school. Under NCLB, in order to receive federal funding, schools are required to make students take 14 tests total — a reading and math test from grades 3-8 and once in high school, plus a science test in elementary, middle and high school. But some districts require even more tests.

Barack Obama’s $500 million competitive grant program Race to the Top, enacted in 2009, chiefly inspired school districts to give more tests. Amidst the recession, state budgets were hit hard, and government officials were willing to do whatever they could to receive money. Now, at least 25 states mandate one formal assessment test in kindergarten. Race to the Top’s 2011 Early Learning Challenge awarded schools that could prove their students' “readiness” to begin school — meaning how well four-year-olds did on “entry assessments.”

In order to execute these policies that significantly expanded testing, school districts needed test providers. This, in turn, made some educational corporations very rich. Bob Schaeffer, public education director of FairTest, a nonprofit advocacy organization working to prevent the misuse of standardized testing, said he is inclined to blame politicians, rather than corporations, for the testing boom.

He said, “In a capitalist society, if there’s a market, somebody will figure out how to serve it. But the corporations reinforce the stupidity of the bad policies of politicians.”

Pearson is the largest corporation serving this testing market. Pearson is the world’s largest education company and book publisher, bringing in more than $9 billion annually.

But Pearson wasn’t always so big. In fact, Pearson, a British multinational corporation, was just starting out in the early 2000s. But “Pearson looked at NCLB as its business plan,” Schaeffer said. Pearson began rapidly buying up U.S. companies.

Currently, Pearson has partnered with 18 states in the U.S., as well as Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico, to produce pricey testing materials. For a five-year contract, Pearson was paid $32 million to produce standardized tests for New York. Its contract in Texas was worth $500 million. Pearson also owns Connections Academy, a company that runs for-profit, virtual charter schools. It also owns the GED program, although competitors have been creating alternatives in order to combat Pearson’s expensive tests. By and large, the massive corporation has far-reaching control over the education industry.

Noted educator Diane Ravitch wrote, “Truly, the reach of Pearson across all of American education is astonishing.”

While Pearson is the major player in the rise of standardized testing, other corporations have a stake in testing as well. CTB/McGraw-Hill is probably Pearson’s main competitor, with several states across the country using its standardized tests. CTB/McGraw, with revenues of more than $2 billion, is best know for its TerraNova and California Achievement Tests. Other players include Education Testing Services, as well as Riverside Publishing and its parent company Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

But while the corporations enjoy large profits, their products continue to damage our education system. Here are eight things you need to understand about these corporations and their tests.

1. The tests are full of errors.

At least the corporations that make these tests are able to score them properly. Right?

Wrong — and by a long shot.

Most recently, hundreds of New York City high school seniors had to anxiously await their diplomas because McGraw-Hill Education made quite a blunder of scoring their Regents exams. The computer system used to score the exams that determine if a student can graduate broke down. The scoring computer system was part of a $9.6 million contract with the city. 

CTB/McGraw-Hill is also under fire for not having enough computer memory while students in Indiana took their tests, causing 80,000 students to experience interruptions during test-taking. While the state owes the corporation $24 million for this year’s tests, the state’s education department is hoping to seek more than $600,000 in damages.

In Oklahoma, students experienced similar glitches this year, prompting the Oklahoma Education Association to demand the tests be disregarded. According to their report, students “were left waiting for hours to finish tests, arrived at school day after day expecting to be tested only to experience additional delays, and had to take the same tests multiple times. … Consequently, thousands of students were left exhausted, frustrated, demoralized and incapable of giving their best effort."

A few months ago, Pearson erroneously scored New York City students’ tests used for entry into its gifted and talented programs. Thirteen percent of students K-3 (yes, kindergarteners take these tests), who were qualified for the programs, were wrongly rejected. 

Last year, researchers found a design flaw in Pearson’s standardized tests for Texas students. Pearson's long history of delaying scores and wrongly scoring goes on and on.

2. The corporations encourage new standards, to make new tests, to make new money.

One of the best ways a standardized testing corporation can make more money is by coming up with new standards, which is why it’s not surprising that Pearson has played a role in crafting the new Common Core State Standards, a new set of standards set to be implemented in most states this coming school year. Advocates argue these new standards will increase but not improve testing —which will now be done on computers many schools don’t even have.

Its website states: “Pearson’s close association with key authors and architects of the Common Core State Standards ensures that the spirit and pedagogical approach of the initiative is embodied in our professional development.”

Assessment experts and academics were the main writers of the Common Core standards, while few of its consultants were classroom teachers, and parents played no role. The tests are expected to be much harder than current tests. They are supposed to be able to determine “college readiness,” although many realize — including Pearson researchers — that testing this is a complex matter.

But whether or not these new standards are well designed, effective or useful doesn’t matter much when schools get more points from the federal Race to the Top program for implementing them. Pearson, then, acts as a national aid, ready to assist in the new profitable standards by developing the curriculum and assessments.

Peter Cohen, CEO of Pearson's K-12 division, said: “It's a really big deal. The Common Core standards are affecting literally every part of the business we're involved in."

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates implementing the new standards will cost the nation between $1 billion and $8 billion. Nearly all the profits will go to book publishers and test creators like Pearson and CTB/McGraw-Hill.

Shael Polakow-Suransky, the chief academic officer of New York City schools, has warned: "There's lots and lots of books that have got fancy, pretty stickers on them saying 'Common Core,' but they actually haven't changed anything in the inside."

3. They profit from testing teachers, too.

As corporations have found they can profit from turning students into unimaginative machines, they are newly discovering they can profit from standardizing teachers as well. Pearson’s new edTPA standardized assessments will determine teacher certification. Seven states have already adopted edTPA, with New York set to implement the program in May 2014.

The standard requires those pursuing a teaching career to complete the assessment during student teaching. Pearson requires these student teachers to complete a written examination and submit at least 20-minute videos of themselves teaching, which the corporation will then own. The test costs prospective teachers $300. And instead of a teacher or supervisor assessing the instruction, Pearson will pay anonymous, current or retired teachers or administrators $75 to evaluate them.

This type of teaching assessment completely tears down the imaginative art and craft of teaching by standardizing it, which can only leave students to be less excited about school, with less personal connection to teachers.

One prospective student relayed his fears of edTPA to his teacher:

Joel … was excited because the teacher he had been assigned to for Fieldwork I, where students spend 35 hours observing and participating in secondary settings, had invited him to student teach with her. Because he had tremendous respect and admiration for this teacher, Joel was thrilled by the opportunity. But he was also worried, so worried that he hesitated to accept the offer.

Joel was apprehensive about completing the edTPA in this school. It is an urban environment in a community noted for poverty and gang activity. He had forged relationships with the young people in the school, as well as several faculty members, but the judgment of an objective scorer who might not understand if the classroom was not filled with compliant, well-behaved learners had made my student hesitate.

4. They have lobbying power.

Not only are these corporations cheering on additional testing from the sidelines, they are also flexing their money muscle via lobbying. One 2011 report found Pearson spent close to $700,000 lobbying in four key states.

But most of its lobbying is much more implicit. The New York Times reported that in 2011, Pearson Foundation underwent investigation for paying for state officials trips to education conferences overseas. The foundation, which is a non-profit and tax-exempt, was charged with using its resources to benefit the Pearson for-profit company.

Possibly the most egregious activity was uncovered in a recent report published by In the Public Interest, which found that Pearson helps fund Foundation for Excellence in Education and its partner Chiefs for Change — both Jeb Bush-founded, conservative education policy advocacy organizations. In turn, the foundation crafts policy that profits Pearson. The report disclosed emails between the two organizations that show they are working on writing state laws benefiting their corporate funders. The organizations have already written education policies that benefit its funders in Florida, Louisiana, Maine, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island.

5. Their test content is absurd.

If you haven’t heard of “Pineapplegate,” be sure to check out Pearson’s absurd passage about a race between a hare and a pineapple, given to New York eighth-graders last year, and see if you can answer the bizarre questions. Perhaps the worst part about Pineapplegate was Pearson’s defense of the passage and its questions by offering nonsensical explanations to the “correct” answers.

Aside from illogical content, tests often include questions that require skills not yet taught to the students. For example, New York had to toss a math question because it required students to understand mathematical concepts not taught until middle or high school.

Meanwhile, bilingual students have to take tests in English before they have mastered the language. It takes five to seven years to master a language. Students with special needs are also required to take these tests and receive few accommodations.

6. They give students with the ‘proper’ textbooks an advantage.

Besides making sure students are graded properly, how else can you ensure they do well on Pearson’s tests? By making sure your school buys Pearson’s books. In a blog post titled “How Pearson Cheats on State Tests,” Diane Ravitch writes that an upstate New York teacher alerted her to the fact that her student’s standardized tests contained a story her students read a week earlier from their textbooks.

The teacher wrote:

On Day 1 of the NYS ELA 8 Exam, I discovered what I believe to be a huge ethical flaw in the State test. The state test included a passage on why leaves change color that is included in the Pearson-generated NYS ELA 8 text. I taught it in my class just last week. In a test with 6 passages and questions to complete in 90 minutes, it was a huge advantage to students fortunate enough to use a Pearson text and not that of a rival publisher. It may very well have an impact on student test scores.

7. They make students take additional tests for their company research.

How does Pearson attempt to fine-tune its tests? Not by using paid research or paying students to take tests. Instead, it administers “field tests” to certain schools and subjects students to even further testing during the school year.

Last year, parents in NYC were fed up, and protested against administering what some called “free pilot studies” for Pearson. Meanwhile, teachers were sent a memo from the NY State Education’s Office telling them to lie to students and pretend that these field tests were real.

A few months later, Pearson decided to try bribery as an approach to continuing its field-testing. If principals decided to use their students as guinea pigs, they would get a free Kindle, Nook, iPad, or iPod Touch.

8. They use product placement.

Mug™ Root Beer, IBM™, Lego®, FIFA® and Mindstorms™ — what do all these corporate brands have in common? They were all found in this year’s New York State English exam. Pearson denies receiving money from these corporations, though some say there should be further investigation.

Eighth-grader Isaiah Schrader wrote a piece about how he “found the trademark references and their associated footnotes very distracting and troubling.” Schrader argued that even if they weren’t paid, Pearson should not advertise to children, who are especially susceptible to advertising. He wrote:

No students should be required, however, to take tests that subject them to hidden advertising. Clearly the trademarked products mentioned throughout the exam had no relevance to the stated goals of testing students’ reading comprehension and analytical skills. Surely Pearson can afford to edit standardized tests and remove all mention of trademarked products.

***

The goal of NCLB was to improve overall achievement in education, to surpass some of the U.S.’s international competitors, and to close the race gap. Yet, after 11 years, research has found no significant improvement in test scores. One report by FairTest, revealed that scores actually increased more rapidly prior to NCLB. There was also no evidence of the race gap narrowing. A National Research Council report showed similar results. And no significant improvement has been made concerning the country’s ranking in reading and math scores compared with other countries.

Because Race to the Top ties teacher evaluations to these test scores and NCLB puts sanctions on schools that fail, both teachers and administrators have also suffered in various ways from these programs. Teachers have had to teach to the test and put other classroom learning aside, which researchers believe is the cause of decreased creativity among children. A 2011 teacher survey revealed that 66 percent of teachers said the NCLB’s focus on reading and math has led to reduced time for art, science and social studies.

Meanwhile, many administrators have reacted by taking students’ scores into their own hands — and cheating. Cheating scandals have been documented in more than 37 states, with the largest and most recent scandal in Atlanta, GA. One superintendant in El Paso is currently serving jail time for cheating and even forcing low-scoring students to drop out of school.

For charter schools, forcing low-scorers out has been common practice. Students with disabilities, bilingual students and students with various behavioral issues are routinely denied access to charter schools for fear of lowering the schools’ test scores, which charters rely on in an attempt to appear superior.

And as testing has become more high-stakes — determining promotion, graduation (for 26 states), teachers’ jobs and schools’ very existence — students are facing insurmountable stress and anxiety. (One California standardized test even came with an instruction packet on what to do with a test booklet if a student vomits on it.) Perhaps, more damaging, a new study has found a relationship between high-stakes testing and the school-to-prison pipeline, with students who fail high stakes testing exams 12 percent more likely to face incarceration.

Testing, however, doesn’t have to be this way. Instead, it can be helpful if used to gauge students’ abilities.

As Bob Schaeffer writes:

“Standardized tests can be a portion of an assessment system. They are an okay tool to measure factual recall in a real quick way. … The purpose of testing is to improve learning and teaching, which means it should be primarily a feedback tool not a label and punish tool.”

But for now, Pearson and other educational corporations profit off of Bush and Obama’s policies that made standardized tests one of the main forms of assessment, tied to severe consequences. And while students, teachers and schools suffer the consequences of these profitable standardized tests, Sandy Kress, one of the key architects of No Child Left Behind—and now a lobbyist for Pearson—sends his son to a private Latin school that doesn’t give the tests.

Schaeffer said Obama’s children also go to a private school where standardized testing isn’t emphasized.   

He said, “Well to-do parents can buy their way out of the test prep insanity by moving to well to-do districts where there’s not much test prep going on in schools.”

Fortunately, the increase in standardized testing has been met with resistance. Across the country, teachers are refusing to give the tests and students are refusing to take them. Parents are also speaking out and are part of the grassroots fight to remind corporations, politicians and school boards that our education is not for sale. 



Sent from my iPhone

Tuesday, July 19, 2016

New GOP Platform: The Good, the Bad, and the Very Concerning

New GOP Platform: The Good, the Bad, and the Very Concerning

Photo credit: Erik Drost via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

Photo credit: Erik Drost via Flickr (CC BY 2.0)

The Republican Platform was released on Monday, the first day of the convention. Much of the K-12 education plank is good; parts are concerning. Here are a few initial impressions.

The platform begins with a strong statement of the purpose of education — that true education goes beyond transmission of “knowledge and skills” and encompasses “handing over of a cultural identity.” The platform observes, correctly, that “centralizing forces outside the family and community . . . have done immense damage,” and it states flatly that the strongest centralizing force — the federal government — “should not be a partner in [the educational] effort, as the Constitution gives it no role in education.”

Citing the celebration of human dignity in the Declaration of Independence, the platform states: “That truth [of the Declaration] rejects the dark view of the individual as human capital – a possession for the creation of another’s wealth.” In so doing, the platform dismisses the foundational principle of Common Core and other education-as-workforce-development schemes. This statement is a welcome indication that at least some of the people who worked on this language actually understand — and reject — the Chamber of Commerce view of education.

Turning to parental rights, the platform also acknowledges that parents “have a right to direct their children’s education, care, and upbringing” and even supports a constitutional amendment to protect that right from “interference by states, the federal government, or international bodies such as the United Nations.” It strongly endorses local control in education, opposes all national standards (specifically Common Core) and assessments and, while it endorses tests that “serve as a tool so teachers can tailor teaching to meet student needs,” rejects “excessive testing.” (There is no mention of parental rights to opt out of the testing.)

The platform also recognizes that more spending isn’t the solution to our education problems, noting the singular lack of effectiveness of the $2 trillion of federal money spent on education over the last 50 years.

As for student privacy, the platform doesn’t go into great detail but does indicate an understanding that the data-collection being incentivized by the federal government is out of control:

The federal government has pushed states to collect and share vast amounts of personal student and family data, including the collection of social and emotional data. Much of this data is collected without parental consent or notice. This is wholly incompatible with the American Experiment and our inalienable rights.

This welcome denunciation of collecting social and emotional data shows that grassroots objections to the Orwellian direction of K-12 education are paying off. This language, along with the proclamation that “federal funds should not be used in mandatory or universal health, psychiatric, or socio-emotional screening programs,” perhaps will get the attention of Republican members of Congress who heretofore have ignored this serious and growing problem of government-as-shrink, children-as-research-subjects.

The platform also rejects the Obama administration’s misuse of Title IX to force schools to open up restrooms, locker rooms, overnight sleeping quarters, and probably sports teams to both sexes. The platform correctly observes:

Their agenda has nothing to do with individual rights; it has everything to do with power. They are determined to reshape our schools – and our entire society – to fit the mold of an ideology alien to America’s history and traditions. . . . We salute the several states which have filed suit against it.

Other welcome statements in the platform include replacing family-planning programs with abstinence education, and endorsement of Bible-as-literature courses and study of original founding documents in history and civics classes. Unfortunately, although early reports indicated that the platform would reject government preschool as intruding on parental rights and influence, that language didn’t make it into the final draft.

Now for the troubling parts. The platform focuses a great deal on choice in education and endorses the concept of “portability” of education funding to be used for many different types of schooling (private or parochial schools, homeschooling, etc.) and with many different funding mechanisms (tax credits, vouchers, etc.). While efforts to shatter the government monopoly on education are laudable, extreme caution must be exercised to ensure — if this is even possible — that when government money follows the child, government regulations don’t follow as well. For example, a state that grants vouchers (such as Indiana) may require the private schools that accept voucher students to give the state Common Core-aligned test, which means the private schools will pretty much have to teach Common Core.

“Choice” that results in all schools’, whether public or private, having to teach the same thing is no choice at all. The platform would have done well to acknowledge this danger.

Another concern is the language praising Republican education efforts in Congress. Perhaps it was too much to hope that Republican congressmen would be taken to task for their monumental failures in this area — for example, passing the enormously statist Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) — but one would hope they wouldn’t be commended for them.

The platform doesn’t mention ESSA, but it does praise congressional Republicans for the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), a Soviet-style monstrosity that divides states into regions and sets up crony-populated labor boards to control training and workforce-development for politically connected industries. This concept is not just anti-conservative; it’s anti-American. Republican members of Congress should be begging forgiveness, not blowing their horns. That WIOA is considered something to brag about demonstrates that the mentality of the Chamber of Commerce (motto: Sure it’s bad for the country, but in the meantime, there’s money to be made!), though it took a few jabs, is still on its feet.

In its entirety, the platform shows how far the grassroots researchers and activists have come in sounding the alarm about what’s really going on in public education — and how far we still have to go.

Jane Robbins is an attorney and a senior fellow with the American Principles Project.



Sent from my iPhone

Thursday, July 14, 2016

Statisticians slam popular teacher evaluation method

Statisticians slam popular teacher evaluation method

(freepik.com)(freepik.com)

You can be certain that members of the American Statistical Association, the largest organization in the United States representing statisticians and related professionals, know a thing or two about data and measurement. That makes the statement that the association just issued very important for school reform.

The ASA just slammed the high-stakes “value-added method” (VAM) of evaluating teachers that has been increasingly embraced in states as part of school-reform efforts. VAM purports to be able to take student standardized test scores and measure the “value” a teacher adds to student learning through complicated formulas that can supposedly factor out all of the other influences and emerge with a valid assessment of how effective a particular teacher has been.

These formulas can’t actually do this with sufficient reliability and validity, but school reformers have pushed this approach and now most states use VAM as part of teacher evaluations. Because math and English test scores are available, reformers have devised bizarre implementation methods in which teachers are assessed on the test scores of students they don’t have or subjects they don’t teach. When Michelle Rhee was chancellor of D.C. public schools (2007-10), she was so enamored with using student test scores to evaluate adults that she implemented a system in which all adults in a school building, including the custodians, were in part evaluated by test scores.

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

Assessment experts have been saying for years that this is an unfair way to evaluate anybody, especially for high-stakes purposes such as pay, employment status, tenure or even the very survival of a school. But reformers went ahead anyway on the advice of some economists who have embraced the method (though many other economists have panned it). Now the statisticians have come out with recommendations for the use of VAM for teachers, principals and schools that school reformers should — but most likely won’t — take to heart.

Here’s part of what they said:

*VAMs are generally based on standardized test scores and do not directly measure potential teacher contributions toward other student outcomes.

*VAMs typically measure correlation, not causation: Effects – positive or negative – attributed to a teacher may actually be caused by other factors that are not captured in the model.

The entire statement is below.

Some economists have gone so far as to say that higher VAM scores for teachers lead to more economic success for their students later in life. Work published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, done by authors Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman and Jonah E. Rockoff, has made that claim, though there are some big problems with their research, according to an analysis of their latest study published by the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder. The analysis finds a number of key problems with the report making the link between VAM of teachers and financial success of students, including the fact that their own results show that VAM calculation for teachers is unreliable.

You can read the analysis below, after the American Statistical Association’s statement.

The evidence against VAM is at this point overwhelming. The refusal of school reformers to acknowledge it is outrageous.

ASA VAM Statement[1]

And here’s the National Center for Education Policy paper:

Ttr Chetty Teachimpacts 0[1]



Sent from my iPhone

Statisticians slam popular teacher evaluation method

Statisticians slam popular teacher evaluation method

(freepik.com)(freepik.com)

You can be certain that members of the American Statistical Association, the largest organization in the United States representing statisticians and related professionals, know a thing or two about data and measurement. That makes the statement that the association just issued very important for school reform.

The ASA just slammed the high-stakes “value-added method” (VAM) of evaluating teachers that has been increasingly embraced in states as part of school-reform efforts. VAM purports to be able to take student standardized test scores and measure the “value” a teacher adds to student learning through complicated formulas that can supposedly factor out all of the other influences and emerge with a valid assessment of how effective a particular teacher has been.

These formulas can’t actually do this with sufficient reliability and validity, but school reformers have pushed this approach and now most states use VAM as part of teacher evaluations. Because math and English test scores are available, reformers have devised bizarre implementation methods in which teachers are assessed on the test scores of students they don’t have or subjects they don’t teach. When Michelle Rhee was chancellor of D.C. public schools (2007-10), she was so enamored with using student test scores to evaluate adults that she implemented a system in which all adults in a school building, including the custodians, were in part evaluated by test scores.

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

Assessment experts have been saying for years that this is an unfair way to evaluate anybody, especially for high-stakes purposes such as pay, employment status, tenure or even the very survival of a school. But reformers went ahead anyway on the advice of some economists who have embraced the method (though many other economists have panned it). Now the statisticians have come out with recommendations for the use of VAM for teachers, principals and schools that school reformers should — but most likely won’t — take to heart.

Here’s part of what they said:

*VAMs are generally based on standardized test scores and do not directly measure potential teacher contributions toward other student outcomes.

*VAMs typically measure correlation, not causation: Effects – positive or negative – attributed to a teacher may actually be caused by other factors that are not captured in the model.

The entire statement is below.

Some economists have gone so far as to say that higher VAM scores for teachers lead to more economic success for their students later in life. Work published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, done by authors Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman and Jonah E. Rockoff, has made that claim, though there are some big problems with their research, according to an analysis of their latest study published by the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder. The analysis finds a number of key problems with the report making the link between VAM of teachers and financial success of students, including the fact that their own results show that VAM calculation for teachers is unreliable.

You can read the analysis below, after the American Statistical Association’s statement.

The evidence against VAM is at this point overwhelming. The refusal of school reformers to acknowledge it is outrageous.

ASA VAM Statement[1]

And here’s the National Center for Education Policy paper:

Ttr Chetty Teachimpacts 0[1]



Sent from my iPhone

Just whose rights do these civil rights groups think they are protecting?

Just whose rights do these civil rights groups think they are protecting?

A dozen civil rights groups this week issued a statement contending that parents opting their children out of high-stakes standardized tests are harming at-risk students. That sparked a response from the Network for Public Education, saying that high-stakes standardized tests are hurting these young people, not the opt-out movement. You can read both statements here.

Here’s a different look at all of this, by Wayne Au, an associate professor in the School of Educational Studies at the University of Washington Bothell, and an editor for the social justice teaching magazine Rethinking Schools. Most recently, with Joseph J. Ferarre, he co-edited the book, Mapping Corporate Education Reform: Power and Policy Networks in the Neoliberal State. His research interests include critical analyses of high-stakes testing, critical educational theory and practice, curriculum studies, and multicultural education.

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

By Wayne Au

On May 5, 2015, a group of civil rights organizations released a statement in opposition to the growing movement to opt out of the current wave of high-stakes, standardized testing. This testing lies at the very heart of current education reform efforts because it provides the fuel that the current education reform machine relies upon: data. Without the numerical data produced by the tests, there is no way to make simplistic comparisons, there is no justification for the corporate entry into public schools, there is no way to shape education along the logics of a competitive marketplace.

Because it challenges the validity of the tests and the data, the opt-out movement strikes at the heart of the reform movement. I feel this sharply here in my home city of Seattle as powerful men including U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Washington state Superintendent of Public Instruction Randy Dorn, and Seattle Schools Superintendent Larry Nyland threaten local test resisters with punishments. Opting out scares those in power because it undermines the education policies being done to — not by — our communities, particularly communities of color. Indeed, many of us have taken great pains to highlight the racially disparate impact of corporate education reforms, especially high-stakes standardized testing, specifically on communities of color.

Which is why I was disappointed to see a statement from several mainstream civil rights organizations opposing the opt-out movement, supposedly on the grounds of civil rights and equality. Most of us would agree that there is rampant educational inequality in our public school system (as there is in the United States in general), but there is clearly disagreement on the root causes of that inequality and the ways to address it. Many of us education activists (and yes, this includes folks of color) challenge the fundamental assumption that high-stakes, standardized testing provides “…fair, unbiased, and accurate data…” as the civil rights organizations assert in their statement, and we challenge this assumption on historical groundsempirical groundspedagogical groundspolitical-ideological groundscultural grounds, and technical groundsamongst others.

Therein lies the difference: The civil rights organizations who made their statement against opting out see high-stakes, standardized testing as a solution to educational inequality, while others, like myself, see ample evidence that high-stakes, standardized testing is exasperating educational inequality and therefore needs to be rejected as an inherently damaging measure.

There is a very strong critique of the civil rights organizations’ anti-opt-out statement, written mainly by my good friend, colleague, and noted test-resister, Jesse Hagopian, with the endorsement of the Network for Public Education, so I’m not going to take up a close reading and critique of the civil rights organizations’ anti-opt-out statement. However, anytime I see “grassroots” groups promoting the agenda of the corporate education reformers, like what happened here in Washington State with charter school reform in 2012, I’m always compelled to follow the money.

There were 12 civil rights groups that issued the statement against opting out. These groups are:

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights

The American Association of University Women (AAUW)

Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD)

Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA)

Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)

League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)

NAACP

National Council of La Raza (NCLR)

National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)

National Urban League (NUL)

Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC)

TASH

Some of these groups are larger and some smaller, and certainly some, like the NAACP, the National Urban League, and the National Council of La Raza, have relatively prominent national profiles. My first wondering is which of these groups are tied to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation because the Gates Foundation has been a central driver behind the Common Core State Standards and maintaining high-stakes, standardized testing as a central tool for decision-making. A quick search reveals that seven are well-funded by the Gates Foundation:

National Council of La Raza: $33,446,160 total

National Urban League: $5,286,017 total

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (also as the Leadership Conference Education Fund): $3,811,021 total

NAACP: $2,456,106 total

Southeast Asian Resource Center $1,680,105  total

League of United Latin American Citizens: $943,687 total

We cannot, of course, say that these groups came to the defense of high-stakes, standardized testing at the behest of the Gates Foundation, but we should be clear that their politics align with that of the Gates Foundation, and so the fact that these particular civil rights organizations came out in force to support a central reform backed by the foundation should come as no surprise to anyone.

Knowing that along with the Gates Foundation, both the Broad Foundation and the Walton Foundation constitute the “big three” in major philanthropic funding for the corporate education reform effort, I decided to dig just a little more. While I couldn’t find any connection between the Broad Foundation and the 12 civil rights organizations opposing the opt-out movement, I did find two that are also funded by the Walton Foundation:

National Council on La Raza: $2,561,741 total

National Urban League (and Urban League of New Orleans): $731,300 total

There is a deep irony here, considering the Walton Family’s track record with regards to civil rights. For instance, in 2012 civil rights leaders called on Walmart and the Walton Family to withdraw from the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is famous for promoting hyper-conservative policies and laws, including the “stand your ground” gun laws associated with the murder of Trayvon Martin. Walmart and the Walton family have spent millions fighting against universal preschool in California, supporting public school voucher programs in various cities, and other conservative initiatives.

And there’s this: According to Making Change At Walmart, Walmart is the largest single employer of African Americans in the country (20 percent of the 1.3 million total employees), pays employees an average of $8.81 an hour, and under Walmart’s definition of full-time work, an employee would only earn 65 percent of the 2014 federal poverty rate for a family of four. According to a brief by the Economic Policy Institute, the Walton Family’s total wealth equals that of 79 percent of the combined wealth of all African American families (or almost 78 percent of the combined wealth of all Latino families).

In a final bit of civil rights irony, the Walmart PAC and the Walton Family’s contributions show that, based on the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights’ own scores for candidates, they supported candidates who failed to protect civil rights.  For instance, the Walmart PAC has regularly supported noted conservative John Boehner (R-OH), who not only has consistently voted against gay rights, but also voted against race-based affirmative action in college admissions and voted against a bill that would have given $84 million in grants to African-American and Hispanic-serving institutions of higher education. This voting record, combined with his stances against the protecting the rights of women and other groups, has earned him low civil rights ratings from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human rights, the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Human Rights Campaign.

So when I see these civil rights groups come out in favor of  testing and in opposition to the opt-out movement, not only do I have to think that they are ignoring the research around high-stakes testing and inequality, but I also have to question just whose rights they are protecting.



Sent from my iPhone

Democrats make education revisions to 2016 platform — and a key reformer is furious

Democrats make education revisions to 2016 platform — and a key reformer is furious

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at an event on Atlantic City’s Boardwalk on July 6. (Mel Evans/AP)

In an unexpected move, Democrats have revised the K-12 education section of their party’s 2016 platform in important ways, backing the right of parents to opt their children out of high-stakes standardized tests, qualifying support for charter schools, and opposing using test scores for high-stakes purposes to evaluate teachers and students.

Some of the changes are being welcomed by public school advocates who have been fighting corporate school reform, which includes standardized test-based accountability systems and the expansion of charter schools. Many of these activists have been worried that Hillary Clinton, the presumptive Democratic nominee, would back corporate reform, just as the Obama administration has. While it isn’t clear exactly what she will do if she becomes president — as platform language does not necessarily translate into policy — supporters of those reforms are furious at the changes, highlighting a rift in the party over how to improve K-12 education.

One of them, Shavar Jeffries, president of the Democrats for Education Reform, an influential political action committee supported heavily by hedge fund managers favoring charter schools, merit-pay tied to test scores and related reforms, issued a statement that went so far as to say that the original draft on education was “progressive and balanced” but that the new language “threatens to roll back” President Obama’s education legacy. (See full statement below.)

Answer Sheet newsletter

Education questions and answers, in your inbox weekly.

Negotiators on the platform committee met this past weekend in Orlando (you can watch here, starting at the 31st minute) and changed an earlier draft of the K-12 education plank (one of five education sections) that had drawn criticism from activists who wanted the Democrats to take a stand against some of the key elements of corporate reform, including on charter schools and test-based accountability. Clinton got booed recently when she appeared at the National Education Association’s convention and touted charter schools (though most of her speech was met with approval).

The first released draft said this:

Democrats are also committed to providing parents with high-quality public school options and expanding these options for low-income youth. We support great neighborhood public schools and high-quality public charter schools and we will help them to disseminate best practices to other school leaders and educators. At the same time, we oppose for-profit charter schools focused on making a profit off of public resources. Democrats also support increased transparency and accountability for all charter schools.

Critics pounced. Veteran educator Peter Greene, for example, said the Democrats needed to understand that charters now operate at the expense of traditional public schools. Education historian and activist Diane Ravitch said that language was unacceptable and that, among other things, the Democrats needed to make a statement opposing corporate replacements for neighborhood public schools.

[Why Hillary Clinton was booed (briefly) at the NEA convention

Democratic negotiators led by Troy LaRaviere, an outspoken Chicago educator who was pushed out of his job as principal of an elementary school by the school district leadership; Chuck Pascal, a Sanders delegate from Pennsylvania; and Christine Kramar, a Nevada delegate, worked to win agreement on key changes to the original language. They got help from American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, who has been a longtime supporter of Clinton’s, and some of their changes were adopted with little dissent.

Here’s the new charter language:

Democrats are also committed to providing parents with high-quality public school options and expanding these options for low-income youth. We support democratically governed great neighborhood public schools and high-quality public charter schools, and we will help them disseminate best practices to other school leaders and educators. Democrats oppose for-profit charter schools focused on making a profit off of public resources. We believe that high quality public charter schools should provide options for parents, but should not replace or destabilize traditional public schools. Charter schools must reflect their communities, and thus must accept and retain proportionate numbers of students of color, students with disabilities and English Language Learners in relation to their neighborhood public schools. We support increased transparency and accountability for all charter schools.

Among the changes is the phrase “democratically governed” in reference to traditional public schools and public charter schools. The two words actually mean a lot in the charter world, given that charter schools are beholden to the boards that grant them charters to operate, not the general public, and that they are not required to reveal key information about their finances and governance to the public.

The new language also says that charters should not “replace or destabilize traditional public schools.” During the discussion of the vote, Weingarten said, “We can’t have what is happening in Detroit right now, where entities like the DeVos family and the Koch brothers are trying to use charters to kill off public schools.”

There were important changes to the test-based accountability language. The new language comes out in favor of allowing parents to opt their children out of high-stakes standardized tests — a big move by the Democrats, given efforts by the Obama administration to stop the opt-out movement — and it opposes using scores from these tests for high-stakes evaluation purposes.

The old language said this:

Democrats believe that all students should be taught to high academic standards. Schools should receive adequate resources and support. We will hold schools, districts, communities, and states accountable for raising achievement levels for all students — particularly low-income students, students of color, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities. We are also deeply committed to ensuring that we strike a better balance on testing so that it informs, but does not drive, instruction.

The new language says this:

We are also deeply committed to ensuring that we strike a better balance on testing so that it informs, but does not drive, instruction. To that end, we encourage states to develop a multiple measures approach to assessment, and we believe that standardized tests must meet American Statistical Association standards for reliability and validity. We oppose high-stakes standardized tests that falsely and unfairly label students of color, students with disabilities and English Language Learners as failing, the use of standardized test scores as basis for refusing to fund schools or to close schools, and the use of student test scores in teacher and principal evaluations, a practice which has been repeatedly rejected by researchers. We also support enabling parents to opt their children out of standardized tests without penalty for either the student or their school.

The opt-out movement has been growing across the country in recent years, with a growing number of parents deciding that they don’t want their children to take standardized tests whose scores are used for purposes they don’t think are valid. The U.S. Education Department has been for some time pushing states to penalize schools where more than 5 percent of students don’t take the required tests.

The American Statistical Association — the largest organization in the United States representing statisticians and related professionals — that blasted the high-stakes “value-added method” (VAM) of evaluating teachers that has been increasingly embraced in states as part of school-reform efforts. VAM purports to be able to take student standardized test scores and measure the “value” a teacher adds to student learning through complicated formulas that can supposedly factor out all of the other influences — including how violence affects students — and emerge with a valid assessment of how effective a particular teacher has been.

[Statisticians slam popular teacher evaluation method

Bob Schaeffer, public education director of the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, or FairTest (a nonpartisan 501c3 organization not aligned with any political party or candidate), said that the statements supporting opt-outs and opposing the use of student test scores to evaluate students and teachers are “particularly strong.” He said the Democrats did not take other important steps, such as calling for the banning of all high-stakes uses of standardized tests and a reduction in government-mandated testing.

“As someone who has attended three national party conventions (and countless statewide gatherings), I recognize that platform language rarely has a significant impact on policy,” he said. “So, even if the rhetoric sounds considerably better, the proof is in the doing!”

The changes around accountability and charter schools infuriated Jeffries, of the Democrats for Education Reform. He issued a statement Tuesday blasting the changes, saying the new platform language “stands in stark contrast to the positions of a broad coalition of civil rights groups.” It is worth noting that other civil rights groups oppose the coalition’s views.

[Just whose rights do these civil rights groups think they are protecting?

Here’s his full statement:

“After putting forward a progressive and balanced education agenda in the initial draft of the 2016 Democratic Platform, this weekend the Platform Drafting Committee inexplicably allowed the process to be hijacked at the last minute. This unfortunate departure from President Obama’s historic education legacy threatens to roll back progress we’ve made in advancing better outcomes for all kids, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds.

“The platform stands in stark contrast to the positions of a broad coalition of civil rights groups which have made clear that those encouraging testing opt-outs are harming the prospects of low-income and minority children and that having clear academic performance benchmarks tied to school turnaround efforts is necessary to promote a more equitable education system.

“What happened in Orlando is little more than a bait and switch, one we are eager to fix, and which we hope is unreflective of Hillary Clinton’s priorities, as she has repeatedly supported standards and accountability and high-performing charter schools. President Obama has made clear that the best way to strengthen our system is not just with more resources, but reforms that ensure our children are progressing. Our party’s platform should build upon that legacy.”

Another interesting change involved the paragraph that said this in the first draft:

We will invest in high-quality STEM classes, community schools, computer science education, arts education, and expand linked learning models and career pathways. We will end the school-to-prison pipeline. And we will work to improve school culture and combat bullying of all kinds.

The new language goes into more detail, calling specifically for changes in tough disciplinary policies at schools that disproportionately affect blacks, Latinos, students with disabilities and LGBT students. Also, the “A,” for arts, was added to STEM to make it STEAM:

We will invest in high quality STEAM classes, community schools, computer science education, arts education, and expand link learning models and career pathways. We will end the school to prison pipeline by opposing discipline policies which disproportionately affect students of color and students with disabilities, and by supporting the use of restorative justice practices that help students and staff resolve conflicts peacefully and respectfully while helping to improve the teaching and learning environment. And we will work to improve school culture and combat bullying of all kinds. We will encourage restorative justice and reform overly punitive disciplinary practices that disproportionately impact African Americans and Latinos, students with disabilities, and youth who identify as LGBT.

Here’s most of the new language on the K-12 education plank:

Guaranteeing Universal Preschool and Good Schools in Every Zip Code

Democrats believe we must have the best-educated population and workforce in the world. That means making early childhood education a priority, especially in light of new research showing how much early learning can impact life-long success. Democrats will invest in early childhood programs like Early Head Start and provide every family in America with access to high-quality childcare and high-quality pre-K programs.

We will ensure there are great Pre-K-12 schools for every child. Democrats are committed to the federal government continuing to play a critical role in working towards an America where a world-class education is available to every child. Democrats believe that a strong public education system is an anchor of our democracy, a propeller of the economy, and the vehicle through which we help all children achieve their dreams. Public education must engage students to be critical thinkers and civic participants while addressing the wellbeing of the whole child. ..

Democrats believe that all students should be taught to high academic standards. Schools should have adequate resources to provide programs and support to help meet the needs of every child.. We will hold schools, districts, communities, and states accountable for raising achievement levels for all students—particularly low-income students, students of color, English Language Learners, and students with disabilities.

We are also deeply committed to ensuring that we strike a better balance on testing so that it informs, but does not drive, instruction. To that end, we encourage states to develop a multiple measures approach to assessment, and we believe that standardized tests must meet American Statistical Association standards for reliability and validity. We oppose high-stakes standardized tests that falsely and unfairly label students of color, students with disabilities and English Language Learners as failing, the use of standardized test scores as basis for refusing to fund schools or to close schools, and the use of student test scores in teacher and principal evaluations, a practice which has been repeatedly rejected by researchers. We also support enabling parents to opt their children out of standardized tests without penalty for either the student or their school.

To close the opportunity gap, we also must find ways to encourage mentoring programs that support students in reaching their full potential. Mentoring is a strategy to ensure that children living in poverty have the encouragement and support to aim high and enter the middle class. We will focus on group mentoring, which is a low-cost, high-yield investment that offers the benefit of building a supportive network of peers who push one another towards success…..

We know that good teachers are essential to improving student learning and helping all students to meet high academic standards. Democrats will launch a national campaign to recruit and retain high-quality teachers, and we will ensure that teachers receive the tools and ongoing professional development they need to succeed in the classroom and provide our children with a world-class education. We also must lift up and trust our educators, continually build their capacity, and ensure that our schools are safe, welcoming, collaborative, and well-resourced places for our students, educators, and communities.

We will invest in high quality STEAM classes, community schools, computer science education, arts education, and expand link learning models and career pathways. We will end the school to prison pipeline by opposing discipline policies which disproportionately affect students of color and students with disabilities, and by supporting the use of restorative justice practices that help students and staff resolve conflicts peacefully and respectfully while helping to improve the teaching and learning environment. And we will work to improve school culture and combat bullying of all kinds. We will encourage restorative justice and reform overly punitive disciplinary practices that disproportionately impact African Americans and Latinos, students with disabilities, and youth who identify as LGBT.

The Democratic Party is committed to eliminating opportunity gaps–particularly those that lead to students from low income communities arriving to school on day one of kindergarten several years behind their peers from higher income communities.  The means advocating for labor and public assistance laws that ensure poor parents can spend time with their children.  This means being committed to increasing the average income in households in poor communities. It means ensuring these children have health care, stable housing free of contaminants, and a community free of violence in order to minimize the likelihood of cognitive delays. It means enriching early childhood programming that increases the likelihood that poor children will arrive to kindergarten with the foundations for meeting the expectations we have for them in the areas of literacy, numeracy, civic engagement, and emotional intelligence.  It means we support what it takes to compel states to fund public education equitably and adequately, as well as expand support provided by the Title I formula for schools that serve a large number or high concentration of children in poverty. It means that we support ending curriculum gaps that maintain and exacerbate achievement gaps.

We are also committed to ensuring that schools that educate kids in poverty are not unfairly treated for taking on the challenge of serving those kids.  This means an end to the test-and-punish version of accountability that does no more than reveal the academic gaps created before they reach school.  We support policies that motivate our educators instead of demoralizing them.

No school system in the world has ever achieved successful whole-system reform by leading with punitive accountability.  We must replace this strategy with one that will actually motivate educators and improve their training and professional development in order to get results for all students–with an emphasis on equitable results for students of color, low-income students, English language learners, and students with disabilities.

Democrats are also committed to providing parents with high-quality public school options and expanding these options for low-income youth. We support democratically governed great neighborhood public schools and high-quality public charter schools, and we will help them disseminate best practices to other school leaders and educators. Democrats oppose for-profit charter schools focused on making a profit off of public resources. We believe that high quality public charter schools should provide options for parents, but should not replace or destabilize traditional public schools. Charter schools must reflect their communities, and thus must accept and retain proportionate numbers of students of color, students with disabilities and English Language Learners in relation to their neighborhood public schools. We support increased transparency and accountability for all charter schools.



Sent from my iPhone