http://stopcommoncoreinmichigan.com/2016/11/stop-cc-mi-respectfully-request-president-elect-trump-drain-swamp-pull-plug-betsy-devos/

Stop CC in MI respectfully request President-elect Trump to “drain the swamp” and pull the plug on Betsy DeVos

Karen Braun

We, the leadership team at Stop Common Core in Michigan, respectfully ask President-elect Donald Trump to immediately remove Betsy DeVos’s name from consideration as Secretary of the Department of Education.  We do not make this request lightly but with considerable knowledge regarding her negative influence in Michigan as a proponent of Common Core.

Michigan turned red for Trump for the first time since the 1980’s.  A large number of voters in Michigan were attracted to the Trump campaign because of his emphatic message against Common Core.  Michigan voters know that most Republicans in our state say they are against Common Core but do nothing to stop it.  We believed Trump would be a different kind of Republican and “drain the swamp” in education.  We believed that until the nomination of Betsy DeVos.  DeVos is part of  “the swamp” in Michigan.  She represents both a special interest AND as an influential Republican fought EVERY effort to stop Common Core in Michigan with her money and political influence.  

We respectfully submit that Betsy DeVos’s recent claim that she is against Common Core is not an accurate representation of her actions regarding  Common Core or the competency-based centralized education system the standards help build from prenatal to career.  We have done our “homework” as she encouraged; we support our claim with the following reasons:

1.  Betsy DeVos funds and serves on the board of the Great Lakes Education Project (GLEP).
DeVos founded GLEP in 2001 and served as chair until 2008; she currently serves as a board member.  GLEP is a special-interest education political action committee.  One of the stated priorities of GLEP is “implementing” and “maintaining” Common Core “high standards” reform.  The GLEP document “The Conservative Case for Common Core” clearly articulates their support of Common Core.  No retraction has been issued.  Only after President-elect Trump nominated DeVos for Secretary did she attempt to distance herself from the pro-Common Core position of organizations such as GLEP.   She wrote on her very new web page Q & A,

 “Have organizations that I have been a part of supported Common Core? Of course. But that’s not my position,”

DeVos cannot distance herself from GLEP and their position that easily.  As a founder and major donor, DeVos’s mission IS GLEP’s mission.   Now that the standards are implemented in Michigan, GLEP’s mission is to maintain the so called “high standards” and build the assessment and accountability framework around them.

2.  Betsy DeVos and GLEP are lobbyists for Common Core. 
DeVos is a business woman who advocates for education reform in Michigan.   DeVos and GLEP lobbied the Michigan legislature to implement and maintain Common Core and related reforms.   Former MI State Representative, now State School Board member-elect,  Tom McMillin recently spoke to our team about DeVos and her claim that she is against Common Core.  McMillin, a strong opponent of Common Core, recalled that in 2013 DeVos specifically told him she was for Common Core during the very contentious legislative debate to stop implementation.  With the help of DeVos and GLEP,  resolution (HR-11) was abruptly passed through the Senate on a voice vote.  The hasty vote allowed Common Core to continue.  GLEP publicly applauded the resolution and the continued implementation of Common Core.

3.  DeVos and GLEP seek to influence elections in order to continue implementation of a Common Core aligned centralized education system. 

DeVos appeared very depressed and unhappy at the 2016 Republican National Convention during Trump’s acceptance speech. (Photo credit: Tami Carlone)

It is not a secret that Betsy DeVos or GLEP seek to influence elections with endorsements and campaign assistance.  Like all investors, DeVos expects a return on her investment.  Candidates who receive a GLEP endorsement face intense pressure to continue the reforms she desires.  Those reforms include the continued implementation of Common Core or so called, “high standards,” accountability, and school choice.

DeVos did not initially get on board the Trump train. Trump’s anti-common core rhetoric did not match her own position and agenda.  She indicated she would work on down ballot races and to push school choice.   The DeVos definition of school choice is the freedom to choose which Common Core aligned charter school will test and track your child from cradle-to-career. Local and parent control do not exist in DeVos’s education reform model.  Data and government funding drive the decision.  In a nutshell, school choice is centralized control to meet the demands of the state and regional business not the dreams of the child.  If confirmed, DeVos will hire people who share the same vision of common core aligned centralized education system to help her run the Department of Education.   The exact opposite of his goal to “drain the swamp.”

4.  GLEP director Gary Naeyaert threatened legal action against Stop Common Core in Michigan.

Screen capture of email Naeyaert sent to Melanie Kurdys threatening legal action.

In 2014, we began talking about DeVos and GLEP and why their endorsements matter.   We were also tracking candidates who were “for” and “against” Common Core.  We began a roll call of the candidates and noted if they received the GLEP endorsement on our website.   We explained our reasons clearly.  We believed there was “a high correlation between those who accepted the GLEP endorsement and their future votes on legislation.”  On June 8, 2014 we received an email from Gary Naeyaert requesting that we refrain from referencing GLEP or their endorsements in any future communication.  We did not reply.  On June 9, we received a second email:

“Let me be as clear as possible. If you continue to make false statements about [our] organization, you will be hearing from our legal counsel.”  – Gary Naeyaert, Executive Director of GLEP.

These are the intimidating tactics of a bully who is determined to get his way and silence any opposition.  After the 2014 election, Naeyaert bragged on Twitter about the results and sent Karen Braun the following tweet,

@SpunkyBraun If tonight’s election results are a referendum on #CommonCore, looks like we’ll continue implementing them. #miprimary

— GLEP (@GLEP_MI) August 6, 2014

Naeyaert’s actions occurred under the leadership of Betsy DeVos.  Threatening ordinary grassroots moms that oppose DeVos or GLEP and bragging about continued implementation of Common Core is NOT the kind leadership needed if President-elect Trump is serious about fulfilling his campaign promise to get rid of Common Core or removing federal intrusion in education.

5. DeVos or GLEP  have NOT reached out to the Stop Common Core in Michigan team.
They do not owe us a phone call or a follow-up tweet.  But one would think that after fighting us for so long and threatening legal action that either DeVos or Naeyaert would have made some attempt to reach out and let us know they changed their position. They have not. The first time we heard about Betsy DeVos’s new position on Common Core was last week when she posted her statement after the nomination.  Now is not time to trust our children’s educational future to a candidate whose only evidence that she is against Common Core is a single statement on a recently created web page.

6.  DeVos and GLEP have NOT supported Michigan legislation SB 826 or HB 5444 to Repeal and Replace Common Core.
Legislation to repeal and replace Common Core and related assessments was introduced in the spring of 2016.  Neither DeVos nor GLEP have expressed support for the bills.  In fact, GLEP  partnered with pro-Common Core Governor Snyder and others in the Michigan Coalition for Higher Standards to OPPOSE the bills.  The bill quickly passed the Senate Education Committee but has not been voted on by the full Senate.  We believe that GLEP and the coalition’s opposition to SB 826 is a significant reason it has not passed.

7.  Betsy DeVos supports  “high standards” on a national level.
DeVos, like Huckabee and many others, knows that the term “Common Core” has become toxic.  In her statement, she now makes the claim she is against it while still supporting “high standards.”  A change in terminology does not mean a change in mission.  DeVos has never renounced national common “high standards” but understands that they are a necessary component of her goal to deconstruct local/parent control in education.  If Betsy DeVos is confirmed, it is appears that national common “higher standards” will continue unabated regardless of what they are called.

8.    Betsy DeVos’s nomination was praised by stalwart common core advocates Jeb Bush and Michigan Governor Snyder.
Jeb Bush, an unwavering supporter of Common Core, praised the nomination of Betsy DeVos.  That should not be a surprise to anyone.  DeVos serves on the board for Bush’s Foundation For Excellence in Education.   The nomination was also praised by Michigan Governor Rick Snyder.  Bush and Snyder have been vocal in their support of Common Core and a “new vision” for “prenatal to life-long learning” seamless education pathway.   Few grassroots activists who are truly anti-Common Core have praised her nomination.  That is telling and speaks louder than any recent website statement about the true vision of Betsy DeVos.

9.   Betsy DeVos will continue the push toward a “new vision” in education.
In his praise of DeVos, Bush referred to her ability to take bold leadership in a “new education vision.”  We very much doubt that he is referring to Trump’s promise to get rid of Common Core which is the opposite of Bush’s plan.   When a pro-Common Core advocate talks about a “new vision” it usually means more control not less.  Common Core (or any common national higher standard) is a necessary component of a new education system.  This vision is  often referred to as school choice.

Betsy DeVos is one of its strongest advocates.   The goal of school choice is a competency-based education system federally-funded in partnership with private organizations and businesses.  Federal dollars and student data follow the child from prenatal to career.  When government funding and data follow the child so does government control over the child’s life.

10.  Betsy DeVos’s recent statement against Common Core is insufficient to counter the weight of evidence over many years during which she worked to see Common Core and related reforms implemented in Michigan.  We have no confidence that she will stop Common Core at the national level and every reason to believe she will continue to “fill the swamp.”

We respectfully ask President-elect Donald Trump to immediately remove Betsy DeVos from consideration as Secretary of the Department of Education.  After her immediate removal, we invite Betsy DeVos to join the grassroots efforts in Michigan to undo the damage common core and P-20 (prenatal to life-long learning) competency based education has brought to our state’s educational system under her very persuasive influence.

The Stop Common Core in Michigan Leadership Team

Melanie Kurdys

Deborah DeBacker

Tamara Carlone
Michelle Frederick

Category: Uncategorized

Sent from my iPhone

http://missourieducationwatchdog.com/parents-and-professionals-protestingpetitioning-against-ipads-in-school/

Parents and Professionals Protesting/Petitioning Against iPads in School

Gretchen Logue•January 14, 2017

Share and Enjoy

From Forbes and Do iPads Belong In Schools?

How much money has your school district spent on providing every student with an iPad?   Kirkwood School District in Missouri will have spent $1.775 Million for an iPad for each student (approximately 5,500 student population):

Here is a FAQ link (undated) explaining what will happen if the parents refuse to pay the $28 insurance fee, if the iPad is lost/stolen, and is left at home.  For those readers familiar with the ‘nudge’ technique, students and parents have little choice but to use the iPad for their education.  The reasons given for iPad use:

Q:  Why iPads?

A:  iPads represent our purposeful transtion to and recognition of the personalize learning environment which defines the current educational focus. The iPad responds to an environment characterized by:

• active and interactive learning

• personalized, student-centered experiences

• enhanced teacher management of classroom time and space

• flexibility and responsiveness to student needs

Students will develop

• multi-faceted communication skills

• media literacy

• an electronic body of collected work reflecting ongoing growth in skills and creativity

Q: How was this decision made?

A:  During a three-year exploration, iPads were considered as one option in moving our district forward to provide high quality experiences for our students to utilize technology for learning.  Approximately 40 teachers, representing all schools, were included in the process through their involvement in the Technology Leadership Group.  Last spring, at a district-wide technology visioning meeting, teachers, administrators, district technology experts, and board of education members were invited to learn about data collected by the TLG, and give input into the future of instructional technology.  Personal, portable devices were strongly endorsed as a result of that process.

If your district has instituted an iPad plan and it has been in place for several years, the district should be providing the taxpayers with the data showing how the students have developed multi-faceted communication skills, media literacy and detail the ongoing growth in skills and creativity.  If claims are made that such an expense and technology will improve educational outcomes, then the taxpayers paying for this decision should be afforded the information that these premises were true.  If the outcomes have not improved, then should the district modify its statements and reconsider its policy on providing iPads for all students and determine if this technology can actually improve achievement.  As Kirkwood considers itself a ‘data driven’ district and receiving rewards for its data results in such programs as Missouri Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support (MO SW-PBS), this should not prove to be too difficult a task.  Every program should have verified results and the technology program should certainly have research/data on its effectiveness.

The concern about iPad use is not only in Missouri, but in school districts throughout the country. Parents are not only worried about the increased use of technology and its cost and effectiveness, but many are troubled by the amount of computer/iPad use both in school and out of school for homework.  From The Atlantic and Why Some Schools Are Selling All Their iPads:

For an entire school year Hillsborough, New Jersey, educators undertook an experiment, asking: Is the iPad really the best device for interactive learning?

It’s a question that has been on many minds since 2010, when Apple released the iPad and schools began experimenting with it. The devices came along at a time when many school reformers were advocating to replace textbooks with online curricula and add creative apps to lessons. Some teachers welcomed the shift, which allowed their students to replace old poster-board presentations with narrated screencasts and review teacher-produced video lessons at any time.

Four years later, however, it’s still unclear whether the iPad is the device best suited to the classroom. The market for educational technology is huge and competitive: During 2014, American K-12 schools will spend an estimated $9.94 billion on educational technology, an increase of 2.5 percent over last year, according to Joseph Morris, director of market intelligence at the Center for Digital Education. On average, he said, schools spend about a third of their technology budgets on computer hardware.

…After receiving teacher and student feedback from the 2012–2013 school year, Hillsborough sold its iPads and will distribute 4,600 Chromebooks by the fall of 2014. The students in Harmsen’s class had been on Hillsborough’s iPad pilot team, and Harmstead admits she was a little disappointed when the district chose to go with Chromebooks. She said being on the pilot iPad team transformed her classroom approach after 24 years of teaching and made her a digital-education advocate. But now that she’s spent a full year using the new device—a pared-down laptop that stores files on the Internet—she agrees with the decision.

Other iPad pilot teachers came to see the benefits of laptop capabilities, too. “At the end of the year, I was upset that we didn’t get the iPads,” said seventh-grade science teacher Larissa McCann. “But as soon as I got the Chromebook and the kids started using it, I saw, ‘Okay, this is definitely much more useful.’ ”

 While nobody hated the iPad, by any means, the iPad was edged out by some key feedback, said Joel Handler, Hillsborough’s director of technology. Students saw the iPad as a “fun” gaming environment, while the Chromebook was perceived as a place to “get to work.” And as much as students liked to annotate and read on the iPad, the Chromebook’s keyboard was a greater perk — especially since the new Common Core online testing will require a keyboard. (MEW bolded)

Another important finding came from the technology support department: It was far easier to manage almost 200 Chromebooks than the same number of iPads. Since all the Chromebook files live in an online “cloud,” students could be up and running in seconds on a new device if their machine broke. And apps could be pushed to all of the devices with just a few mouse clicks.

From The Washington Post and I gave my students iPads — then wished I could take them back:

One of my saddest days in my digital classroom was when the children rushed in from the lunchroom one rainy recess and dashed for their iPads. Wait, I implored, we play with Legos on rainy days! I dumped out the huge container of Legos that were pure magic just a couple of weeks ago, that prompted so much collaboration and conversation, but the delight was gone. My students looked at me with disdain. Some crossed their arms and pouted. We aren’t kids who just play anymore, their crossed arms implied. We’re iPad users. We’re tech-savvy. Later, when I allowed their devices to hum to glowing life, conversation shut down altogether.

I knew that the lure of the screen would continue at home each night. Many of the students had screens at home already, but this one was different: It was their very own, it was portable, and it carried the stamp of approval of teacher, school and district. Do the adults in their homes still feel the authority to tell them to put that screen away and go outside and play?

Districts all over the country are buying into one-to-one tablet initiatives, and for younger and younger students. These screens have been rebranded “digital learning devices,” carrying the promise of education success for millions of our communities’ education dollars. Yet there is some evidence that tablets can be detrimental to learning.

A study released in September by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development looked at school tech initiatives in more than three dozen countries (although not the United States) and found that while students who use computers moderately show modest gains over those who rarely do, heavy technology use has a negative impact. “Students who use computers very frequently at school do a lot worse in most learning outcomes, even after accounting for social background and student demographics,” the report concluded.

We have also known for years — at least since the 2012 report “Facing the Screen Dilemma” from the Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood — that screen time for younger children in particular comes with a huge opportunity cost, depriving them of hands-on learning, time outdoors and “face-to-face interactions with caring adults.” Digital-savvy parents in Silicon Valley made news way back in 2011 for enrolling their children in steadfastly screen-free schools. They knew that their kids would be swiping and clicking soon enough, but there are only a limited number of childhood years when it’s not only really fun to build with Legos, it’s also really good for you.

From Psychology Today and Five Reasons iPads Should NOT Be In Classrooms:

1. There is no evidence they improve learning

2. iPads only add to the financial problems of our education system

3. iPads are distracting

4. Onscreen reading is NOT comparable to traditional reading

5. Children need less screen time, not more

and the money paragraph from the article: In the five short years since the iPad was invented, it has shaken up the education system- for better or worse. As journalist H.L. Mencken once quipped, ‘for every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.’ There is no simple game plan for such a multifaceted and diverse agenda as an education system, where one size can never fit all cultures, ages and abilities. Perhaps however, before a parent or teacher hands over an iPad to improve or accelerate learning, they should ask first what precisely the outcomes are that they wish to achieve.

The latest school district parental push against iPad use is in Cupertino, California.  From iPads ignite furor in schools:

District officials and many teachers tout the iPads as innovative learning tools. Students, it seems, are thrilled to have them. But many parents in the affluent district—including some software engineers, Apple employees and a brain researcher—question the benefit of the devices, and hundreds have signed a petition to limit their use.

They say the iPads have introduced new worries, from privacy to video-game distractions, sowing family discord over screen time. And they resent being asked to pay hundreds of dollars for school equipment that state law says is the district’s responsibility.

“iPads are entertainment devices,” said Noemi Berry, a network engineer and mother of a Lawson Middle School seventh-grader and two other children. “They’re not designed for education, and they’re very hard to restrict. I have a 12-year-old boy who has a horrible screen addiction problem.”

Below is the petition from Cupertino parents with their concerns, requests and additional links about hacking, psychological concerns and financial burdens on school districts:

  https://www.change.org/p/limit-ipads-to-classrooms-an-option-parents-want-from-cusd

CUSD ipad petition

When you are examining your school district budgets and appeal for more money, perhaps a good start determining what can be pared down might be the technology expenses.  It’s a burgeoning industry paid for by the taxpayers.  From Results of the 2016 National Digital Curriculum Strategy Survey:

The survey found that 78 percent of students nationally have access to a computing device for a good portion of the school day or the full school day. It also forecasts that district spending on hardware, networks, and major system software will see a slight increase in 2017, rising to $16.2 billion.

The top three digital device trends the survey found were the following: 1) tablets are losing popularity; 2) Chromebooks have had the most significant gain in popularity, a trend that is likely to continue; and 3) there is no agreement among schools about the best device based on the age of the student. Further, even though schools cite 79–91 percent network coverage in classrooms and common areas, it’s not enough to support the burgeoning use of digital curriculum. The networks are considered “unreliable” by most teachers.

The Survey found that 86 percent of schools and districts expect to be spending more on digital curriculum in the new year. 56 percent of respondents say teachers already use 50-75 percent paid resources over free open-education resources for their digital learning objects. However, billions in spending on curriculum overall has yet to move from paper textbooks into digital: 80 percent of respondents said district curriculum budgets still haven’t shifted from paper-based resources.

2016 was also the highest year on record for digital curriculum spending. A 25 percent jump was due to years of non-adoption of textbooks in several states, causing more digital acquisitions at the same time that the market reached an inflection point of saturation of devices.

If increased technology has not increased academic achievement and/or outcomes, then school board members must be asked why they vote for large expenses without research/data proving they will indeed educational outcomes.  If they vote to implement these technological expenses, taxpayers must hold them accountable when they ask for more money ‘for the kids’.  Who knows if Chromebooks will be successful in the intended outcomes?  It’s more and more likely that iPads are a thing of the past (it’s difficult to use them for Common Core assessment testing) so will the next expensive item on school board agendas for technology be Chromebooks?  Where is the research/data showing their effectiveness in raising student achievement/outcomes?

Just what is the agenda of school districts utilizing unproven technology and millions of taxpayer dollars to reach seemingly unattainable USDOEd goals of student achievement?  What character education lesson does this impart to students?  And for those parents aware of what this technology really imparts….data mining….that’s another concern addressed time and time again on this website.  Watch for an upcoming post on how school districts have been threatened by hackers for ‘ransomware’ when student personal identifiable data was stolen.  Additional budget line items you should be watching for from your school district is how much it will budget for ransom to retrieve stolen data and security programs to protect the technology that hasn’t quite delivered what it promised.

Sent from my iPhone

https://fee.org/articles/celebrated-teacher-explains-why-schools-dont-produce-well-educated-minds/

Celebrated Teacher Explains Why Schools Don't Produce Well-Educated Minds

Annie Holmquist 

In recent years, a number of Americans have been awakening to the realization that today’s children are not receiving a high-quality education. The nation’s test scores in everything from reading to science are evidence of that.

But while many Americans now recognize what a good education is not, many are unsure exactly what it is.

Former New York school teacher of the year John Taylor Gatto once answered that question in his book Weapons of Mass Instruction. According to Gatto, the sign of a well-educated mind is one that can make connections and is connected to four different things:

1. Connected to Different Human Styles
2. Connected to Complex Experiences
3. Connected to Intellectual Ideas
4. Connected to Itself (i.e. self-knowledge)

These four connections, Gatto noted, are not a part of the normal educational system. In fact, today’s education system seeks to do just the opposite:

School disconnects, as it was charged to do. It is Caesar’s "divide and conquer" strategy brought to peak efficiency. Children are divided from their families, their traditions, their communities, their religions, their natural allies – other children – their interests and on ad infinitum. They are, as Walter Lippman deplored, disconnected from the entire Western intellectual tradition which gave societies the greatest gift of personal liberties they had ever seen, disconnected from the experiences of risk-taking and adventure in which the grand discoveries of history have been fashioned; young men and women emerge from school unable to do much of anything …

The “disconnection” strategies of public schools are almost the exact opposite of those practiced by homeschool families, who, incidentally, seem to be doing quite well when it comes to churning out well-educated minds.

Given that, perhaps it’s time we stop pretending the public school system can be the surrogate parents for the nation’s children. Perhaps children have been provided with the best educators they can have from the moment they were born.

Republished from Intellectual Takeout.

Sent from my iPhone

http://blog.hillsdale.edu/online-courses/a-failing-grade-for-common-core

A Failing Grade for Common Core

According to Professor Kenneth Calvert, Common Core, well-intentioned from the beginning, will utterly fail its students. Rather than raising the educational standard in the United States, it codifies and federally enforces mediocrity. Worse yet, in regulating education the federal government has overstepped its constitutional boundaries, by attempting to control teaching methods, preventing teachers from exercising their craft effectively.

The following video is a clip from Q&A 5 of Hillsdale’s Online Course: “A Proper Understanding of K-12 Education: Theory and Practice,” featuring Kenneth Calvert, Associate Professor of History and Headmaster of Hillsdale Academy, and John J. Miller, Director of the Dow Journalism Program.

Get the full course 

---

Transcript:

John J. Miller:

What do you think of Common Core?

Kenneth Calvert:      

Common Core is one of these well-intentioned pieces of legislation in which the federal government is trying to do something for children. They've perceived that children are behind the rest of the world and so let's create a national legislation that's not going to be forced on states, but we'll give them money, and the states will take it. It's just wrong-headed in so many ways. Number one, it's unconstitutional. From the get-go there is nothing constitutional about the federal government getting its hand into education. Number two, it doesn't do what they want it to do.

[The Federal Government] wanted to raise standards in their minds commensurate with, equal with, world standards. Neither the literature nor the science or the math standards come anywhere near that. What Common Core has ended up doing is creating, basically, what they considered to be, the lowest common denominator, the average point which students can be expected to reach. In our school and from the Hillsdale perspective it’s our belief that if you hold the bar high, very few kids are going to get there, but most of these kids are going to get beyond anywhere they ever thought they would get, that they would actually achieve higher goals than they thought they could.

By keeping the bar low, by keeping it at this kind of average, you have doomed [students] to a low level of education. They never know how far they can go. We think that it lowers the bar. It lowers the expectations.

It also does not allow teachers to be teachers. Teachers in the Common Core are teaching to tests. Much of the curriculum more and more is becoming scripted so that can't have a Socratic dialogue, a give and take where most of the real education actually takes place.

Teachers are being robbed of their calling, of their discipline. What you begin to create here in a number of these efforts of the Federal Government to create new educational legislation, what you've done is begin to create bureaucrats in the classroom rather than real teachers. I've met teachers in public and private and charter schools who are looking at what's coming down the pike, and they are not happy. More and more, especially some of the older teachers, they will tell me that what they used to be able to do twenty years ago, which was exciting, enlivening, and drawing out a love of the life of the mind in their students—all of that is beginning to disappear.

It's well-intentioned legislation, right? We know what good intentions lead to. It is not to the right place. We need to give our teachers, our schools--public, private, charter--greater freedom to be what they need to be. This also demands that our teachers be highly educated, learned, true experts in their areas. They need to be the ones in the classrooms really bringing out this love of learning and love of the life of the mind in these young ones. Honestly, we're not doing a lot of that right now either.

Sent from my iPhone

http://onlineathens.com/local-news/2017-01-11/deal-keeping-focus-failing-schools-after-defeat-ballot?utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=OnlineAthens%20Daily%20Headlines&utm_campaign=022616%20new%20Headlines

Deal keeping focus on failing schools after defeat at ballot

Gov. Nathan Deal asked Georgia lawmakers on Wednesday to support a new plan to fix low-performing schools after voters last fall rejected a proposal for the state to take over public schools that consistently struggle.

Keeping a focus on education in his State of the State speech to the Legislature, Deal said the number of students enrolled in failing schools — meaning they posted failing scores on standardized tests at least three years in a row — rose from about 68,000 in 2015 to nearly 89,000 last year.

“It should be abundantly clear to everyone, including those in the education community who so staunchly support the status quo, that this is unacceptable,” Deal said. “If this pattern of escalation in the number of failing schools does not change, its devastating effects on our state will grow with each passing school year.”

The Republican governor, who is midway through his final term, pushed hard last year for a constitutional amendment allowing the state to take control of low-performing schools. Teacher unions and parent-teacher associations fought that plan, saying it usurped control from local school boards. Voters resoundingly defeated the amendment in November, with nearly 60 percent opposing it.

Deal offered no specifics Wednesday of what the new plan might include. But he told lawmakers he’s working closely with House Speaker David Ralston, Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle and other House and Senate leaders to present a bill during a the 40-day session that opened Monday.

“I think Georgians do expect us to make education a priority,” Ralston said at a news conference last week. But he also gave no specifics on what new prescription lawmakers might offer for struggling schools.

Sid Chapman, president of the Georgia Association of Educators, said his group hopes to work with lawmakers on that final plan. He said it’s not fair to label schools as failing based on test scores alone, and said factors such as poverty and hunger among students need to be considered.

“It’s not about the teachers not being good educators,” Chapman said. “We’re not at all about being status quo. We’re on the front lines every day.”

Deal also asked lawmakers for $160 million to give teachers a 2-percent pay raise next year. Overall, he proposed $606 million in new spending for the remainder of fiscal 2017. Deal’s proposed state budget for fiscal 2018, which begins July 1, contains nearly $25 billion in total spending — an increase of 3.6 percent over the current year’s budget.

Teachers aren’t the only ones in line for pay increases. Deal wants $82.7 million total to fund 20 percent raises and incentives for state law enforcement officers, such as state troopers and Georgia Bureau of Investigation agents. He also requested $25.8 million for pay raises averaging 19 percent for caseworkers with the state Division of Family and Children Services.

Deal’s priorities also include devoting millions of dollars to guarding Georgia agencies and businesses against hackers and other computer criminals.

The governor wants lawmakers to approve $50 million for a state-run Georgia Cyber Innovation and Technology Center. The center would specialize in cybersecurity training and research and would be based in Augusta, where the Army is moving its cyber command headquarters to Fort Gordon.

“This invaluable resource will put Georgia at the pinnacle of efforts to enhance American cybersecurity in the public and private arenas with a resource unlike any other in the country,” Deal said.

The new cyber center would be developed in coordination with state universities, the military and the National Security Agency, Deal said. It would be located on 17 acres that once housed the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame, which closed in 2007 because of financial woes.

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.myajc.com/news/local-education/ajc-poll-finds-support-for-school-choice-vouchers/RXhcqBNkL4HaWjHuOs7VFJ/

AJC poll finds support for school choice, vouchers

Posted: 6:55 p.m. Monday, January 09, 2017

Bob Andres

Georgia voters appear ready to embrace more charter schools and other alternatives to traditional public schools, even if it means sending tax dollars to private or religious institutions, a new poll for The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has found.

With the election of Donald Trump, the diversification of America’s educational system is on the national agenda. Betsy DeVos, his pick for education secretary, is an advocate for charter schools and for subsidizing private school tuition with public dollars using so-called vouchers.

The poll found strong support for expansion of what people in education circles call “school choice,” with 61 percent of the polled registered voters saying they favor more of it, despite assertions it could undercut public school funding. Among those supporting more choice, there was even stronger support for vouchers, which have been a lightening rod for controversy in education policy. School vouchers can be redeemed at private schools to subsidize tuition.

Opponents say alternatives to public schools peel away the best students and the most engaged parents while siphoning away public support and funding from traditional schools, undermining them. Proponents say public schools have stagnated and are failing the children who are stuck in them, leaving them with few alternatives and a bleak future. They accuse teachers and school administrators of having a vested interest since their jobs could be on the line if parents can choose something other than a neighborhood school.

Gov. Nathan Deal used many of the same arguments last year in arguing for his proposed Opportunity School District. It was designed to convert under-performing traditional schools into charter schools, which are publicly funded but independently managed.

Voters soundly rejected that idea but the defeat apparently did not mean they had soured on school choice. The poll reveals among choice supporters there is an ardent core, 69 percent, who said their support would not waiver even if it meant vouchers for private or religious schools.

Mark James, 49, a Republican who installs heating and air systems and lives in Cherokee County, told the pollsters he fully supports school choice and vouchers. He said in a subsequent interview that he sent his own, now grown, children through the Cherokee public schools, which he said were fine. But he appears to feel empathy for students in under-performing schools in urban areas such as Fulton and DeKalb counties.

“You hear about them on the news,” he said, adding he thinks nothing will change if it’s left up to teachers and principals. “Somebody needs to step in and help them,” he said. “Maybe that would calm down the crime rate down there if people started getting an education.”

It’s been more than two decades since Georgia’s first charter school law was adopted. Now there are more than 100 of the schools. A growing number are under the authority of the state, as opposed to the local school systems, which used to have exclusive chartering authority. Four years ago, voters overwhelmingly supported a constitutional amendment that also gave the state that authority. The State Charter Schools Commission grew from that referendum, and last year it listed more than two dozen charter schools under its authority.

Georgia also has dipped its toe in the voucher pool, allowing limited funding of private schools with public money since the 2008 adoption of the Qualified Education Expense Credit law. Taxpayers pledge money to specific private schools, including many with religious affiliations, and get a state tax credit for the same amount. The tax credits allotted yearly has grown to $58 million. It’s been capped by lawmakers for several years at that amount because of the controversy about the idea. The legal authority behind the program is unsettled, with a legal hearing pending before the Georgia Supreme Court later this month over allegations that it’s unconstitutional to use tax dollars to fund religious institutions.

Since his defeat on the Opportunity School District, Deal has vowed to make failing schools the focus of the legislative session that began Monday. He has not revealed the details of his plans, but school choice and vouchers are said to be components. State Rep. Kevin Tanner, R-Dawsonville, is developing the proposal and has said he is not yet ready to discuss it. The AJC has reported meanwhile that several people briefed on a House education measure for failing schools said it would involve a six-year process culminating in an exit route for students: if performance doesn’t improve, the students could be offered vouchers or state help in switching schools.

It appears there would be some resistance to a voucher plan, though. Sen. Lindsey Tippins, R-Marietta, the chairman of the state Senate committee that oversees educational legislation, is skeptical, saying they amount to a Band-Aid solution.

“I really don’t think that that’s a solution except for those individuals who have the wherewithal to take advantage of the vouchers,” he said. Kids without advocates or basic support, like someone with a car who can drive them across town, will be left behind, he said. “It’s much more critical in my mind to go to the root causes of why schools are failing. It’s going to be harder work.”

About the poll

This Atlanta Journal-Constitution poll surveyed 919 registered voters statewide from Jan. 2 to Jan. 5. The margin of error for each response is plus or minus 4 percentage points. The survey, conducted by Abt SRBI, used both land-line and cellphones. The data are weighted based on mode (cell-only, land-line-only and mixed), region (metro vs. nonmetro), gender, age, race, education and ethnicity (Hispanic vs. non-Hispanic). Some totals may not equal 100 percent due to rounding.

---

Sent from my iPhone

http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/02/09/465557430/what-kids-need-from-grown-ups-but-arent-getting?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170101

What Kids Need From Grown-Ups (But Aren't Getting)

February 9, 20169:13 AM ET     

Annelise Capossela for NPR

Erika Christakis' new book, The Importance of Being Little, is an impassioned plea for educators and parents to put down the worksheets and flash cards, ditch the tired craft projects (yes, you, Thanksgiving Handprint Turkey) and exotic vocabulary lessons, and double-down on one, simple word:

Play.

That's because, she writes, "the distinction between early education and official school seems to be disappearing." If kindergarten is the new first grade, Christakis argues, preschool is quickly becoming the new kindergarten. And that is "a real threat to our society's future."

If the name sounds familiar, that's likely because Christakis made headlines last October, writing an email that stirred angry protests at Yale, where she is a lecturer at the Yale Child Study Center.

When a campus committee sent students a memo urging restraint in choosing Halloween costumes and asking them to avoid anything that "disrespects, alienates or ridicules segments of our population based on race, nationality, religious belief or gender expression," Christakis wrote a memo of her own. She lauded the committee's goals of trying to encourage tolerance and foster community but wondered if the responsibility of deciding what is offensive should fall to students, not their administrators.

"Have we lost faith in young people's capacity — in your capacity — to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?" Christakis wrote.

Many Yale students accused Christakis of being racially insensitive and called for her ouster. In December, she stepped down from her teaching duties, telling The Washington Post, "I worry that the current climate at Yale is not, in my view, conducive to the civil dialogue and open inquiry required to solve our urgent societal problems."

What does Christakis' role in the heated debate over racial insensitivity and free speech on campus have to do with her views on preschool? Surprisingly, a lot. I spoke with Christakis about her new book and the turmoil at Yale. Here's an edited version of our conversation.

What is this phenomenon that you call "the preschool paradox"?

It is the reality that science is confirming on a daily basis: that children are hardwired to learn in many settings and are really very capable, very strong, very intelligent on the one hand. On the other hand, the paradox is that many young children are doing poorly in our early education settings.

We've got a growing problem of preschool expulsions, a growing problem of children being medicated off-label for attention problems. We have a lot of anecdotal evidence that parents are frustrated and feeling overburdened. So that's what interests me: What is going on?

We have very crammed [preschool] schedules with rapid transitions. We have tons of clutter on classroom walls. We have kids moving quickly from one activity to another. We ask them to sit in long and often boring meetings. Logistically and practically, lives are quite taxing for little kids because they're actually living in an adult-sized world.

On the other hand, curriculum is often very boring. A staple of early childhood curriculum is the daily tracking of the calendar. And this is one of those absolute classic mismatches, because one study showed that, after a whole year of this calendar work where kids sit in a circle and talk about what day they're on, half the kids still didn't know what day they were on. It's a mismatch because it's both really hard and frankly very stupid.

We're underestimating kids in terms of their enormous capacity to be thoughtful and reflective, and, I would argue, that's because we're not giving them enough time to play and to be in relationships with others.

Why do you think so many educators and policymakers have come to see play and learning as mutually exclusive?

Yeah, it's incredibly weird — this fake dichotomy. The science is so persuasive on this topic. There's all kinds of research coming not only from early childhood but animal research looking at mammals and how they use play for learning.

I think there are two answers. There really has been tremendous anxiety about closing achievement gaps between advantaged and less advantaged children. You know, we're always as a society looking for quick fixes that might close those gaps. Unfortunately, it's had downstream consequences for early learning, where we're going for superficial measures of learning.

I think the other problem is that the rich, experience-based play that we know results in learning — it's not as easy to accomplish as people think. And that's because, while the impulse to play is natural, what I call the play know-how really depends on a culture that values play, that gives kids the time and space to learn through play.

What does playful learning look like?

Playful learning is embedded in relationships and in things that are meaningful to children. I use the example of the iconic [handprint] Thanksgiving turkey. When you really get into what's behind those cutesy crafts, a lot of curriculum is organized around these traditions, things around the calendar, things that are done because they've always been done.

When you look at how kids learn, they learn when something is meaningful to them, when they have a chance to learn through relationships — and that, of course, happens through play. But a lot of our curriculum is organized around different principles.

It's organized around the comfort and benefit of adults and also reflexive: "This is cute," or, "We've always done this." A lot of the time, as parents, we are trained to expect products, cute projects. And I like to say that the role of art in preschool or kindergarten curriculum should be to make meaning, not necessarily things. But it's hard to get parents to buy into this idea that their kids may not come home with the refrigerator art because maybe they spent a week messing around in the mud.

Preschool teachers are very interested in fine motor skills, and so often they think that these tracing and cutting activities [are important]. I would argue that those are not the most important skills that we need to foster.

What are the most important skills we need to foster?

I think the No. 1 thing is that children need to feel secure in their relationships because, again, we're social animals. And children learn through others. So I think the No. 1 thing is for kids to have a chance to play, to make friends, to learn limits, to learn to take their turn.

You're talking about soft skills, non-cognitive skills ...

I actually won't accept the term non-cognitive skills.

Social-emotional skills?

I would say social-emotional skills. But, again, there's a kind of simplistic notion that there's social-emotional skills on the one hand ...

And academics on the other ...

Right, and I would argue that many so-called academic skills are very anti-intellectual and very uncognitive. Whereas I think a lot of the social-emotional skills are very much linked to learning.

I think the biggest one is the use of language. When kids are speaking to one another and listening to one another, they're learning self-regulation, they're learning vocabulary, they're learning to think out loud. And these are highly cognitive skills. But we've bought into this dichotomy again. I would say "complex skills" versus "superficial" or "one-dimensional skills."

To give you an example, watching kids build a fort is going to activate more cognitive learning domains than doing a worksheet where you're sitting at a table. The worksheet has a little pile of pennies on one side and some numbers on the other, and you have to connect them with your pencil. That's a very uni-dimensional way of teaching skills.

Whereas, if you're building a fort with your peers, you're talking, using higher-level language structures in play than you would be if you're sitting at a table. You're doing math skills, you're doing physics measurement, engineering — but also doing the give-and-take of, "How do I get along? How do I have a conversation? What am I learning from this other person?" And that's very powerful.

What is high-quality preschool to you?

The research base is pretty clear. I'll start by telling you what it isn't. We start by looking at two variables. One set are called "structural variables" — things like class size, student-teacher ratios, or even the square-footage of the classroom and what kinds of materials are in the classroom.

And then there are so-called process variables, which are different. They tend to be more about teaching style. Is the teacher a responsive teacher? Does she use a responsive, warm, empathic teaching style? And then the other key process variable is: Does the teacher have knowledge of child development? And is that teacher able to translate that child development knowledge into the curriculum?

Which seems like a hard thing to measure.

It's actually not. And there are many good measures — things like: Is the teacher on the floor with the child? Is the teacher asking open-ended questions? You know: "Tell me about your picture" versus "Oh, cute house, Bobby." It's actually not that hard to measure.

But here's the thing. The structural variables are easier to regulate. And, if you have a workforce problem where you're not paying teachers well and a pipeline problem where there aren't good career paths to get into teaching, it's much easier for us to focus on the structural variables when those have an indirect effect only. The direct effect is the process variables.

My colleague Walter Gilliam at Yale has come up with this wonderful mental health classroom climate scale, which really looks at these process variables in very granular detail — so, not only looking at the interactions between the teachers and the children but how the teachers are interacting with each other.

You mount a spirited defense of unscheduled kid time [at home]. Less shuttling to and from sports practice, dance practice, swim lessons. Be sure, you say, to give your child time to sit on the floor and stare at the ceiling if that's what they want to do. I know a lot of parents who would find that view heretical.

That's because we don't have faith in young children. And we don't really have faith in ourselves. And we've been programmed to believe that the more enrichments we can add on [the better].

I think boredom can be a friend to the imagination. Sometimes when kids appear to be bored, actually they haven't had enough time to engage in something. We quickly whisk it away and move them along to the next thing. And that's when you say, "How can I help the child to look at this in a new way? To try something new, to be patient."

You've really kind of adultified childhood so kids really don't have those long, uninterrupted stretches of time to engage in fantasy play. And because we've kind of despoiled the habitat of early childhood, a lot of times they don't know what to do when given that time. So we kind of have to coach them.

I think there's a little bit of a repair process that we need to engage in. Because if you've got a kid who's used to going to a million lessons and only uses toys that have one way of using them and then, suddenly, you put them in a room with a bunch of boxes and blocks and say, "Have fun!", the kid's gonna say, "Are you kidding me? What?!"

I want to transition to Yale now. You were talking about creating a safe space earlier — for preschoolers. In a video taken of Yale students responding angrily to your Halloween email, one African-American woman berates your husband, who co-manages a residential college with you. She yells, "It is your job to create a place of comfort and home for your students, and you have not done that." Is it possible to create a space that is intellectually safe, where free speech prevails, that is also comfortable?

I guess the question would be, "Is comfort the goal?" My hope is that young people of all ages could feel safe in a community where dialogue is welcome. That doesn't mean you get to scream at people and throw things at them. I would like to see people feel safe in a community where they could have different ideas.

We had at Yale a representative from Planned Parenthood come to speak. I think it would be really great if we also had an alternative view, and that people could listen and say, "You know what? I really disagree with that, but this does not threaten me to my core. I can disagree. Maybe I can even hone my argument better by hearing an alternative view."

I think we can have a safe community, but does that mean that we're always comfortable? Well, I think that's very unrealistic and probably not a good idea to aspire to being comfortable all the time.

You wrote in your email: "Have we lost faith in young people's capacity — in your capacity — to exercise self-censure, through social norming, and also in your capacity to ignore or reject things that trouble you?"

The counter-argument, lodged by many Yale students, is that some things — including Halloween costumes — are simply so offensive, culturally, that not only can they not be ignored, they shouldn't be allowed in the first place. What do you make of that argument?

I want to be clear that I would probably agree with the vast majority of things that my critics find offensive. So I think I have been very misunderstood. Yes, there are things that are horrible. There are things that offend all of us and hurt our feelings.

I also would argue that much of it is context-based. As I heard from many students after the fact, people have really different ideas of what is hurtful. And there were things in the [Yale committee's] email that didn't address some people's hurts. For example, costumes about disability.

I think my point was, because context matters and because the world is full of injury and there is no question that some people bear a disproportionate burden — I accept that — we can't really create a world where administrators, teachers or parents can insulate people from these kinds of things.

Now, I do want to be clear: There are all kinds of ways to respond to being hurt, including filing a police report, reporting to your supervisor or professor or RA in a dorm, talking with your friends, ignoring. To me, I think the social norming piece is really important because I believe we put way too much faith in these administrative guidelines, "suggestions."

Is that really how behavior change happens? I don't know. I think for some things, absolutely, legal recourse makes a difference. But for other things, I think, peer norming is highly effective, and to me, Halloween costumes would be in that category.

We can't really predict people's intent. Often people use Halloween as an expression of satire, biting humor, and so we don't know. In fact, we had an amazing conversation with David Simon [creator of HBO's The Wire]. He came to speak to our students, and he was really pushing them. If you go to a Mardi Gras parade in New Orleans, you know, you're gonna see things that would strike the average Yale student as offensive. But if you understand the history and the context, then there's a different interpretation.

As I've grown older, I've grown more confident in young people to have these conversations, to fight for their rights, to sometimes ignore things. They have a whole toolkit of strategies, and we have to start at a really young age, giving kids the space to talk to each other, to get to know each other, to listen to each other. That's linking back to my book.

I think the habitat has to be one that prizes dialogue and talking and listening skills. We have an opportunity right now to do that for a whole generation. We're kidding ourselves — like with the [preschool] worksheets — there is no limit to the number of suggestions and guidelines we can offer to students, but if they don't understand each other and are not willing to talk to each other and listen to each other, I think that's going to have limited impact.

Halloween costumes are sometimes indicative of a long and tortured past of institutional racism and oppression, and it seems what the students were arguing for here was institutional protection — an expectation that, "Why can't the institution just protect us from this craziness?"

And how well has that worked out [historically]?

Not very.

I don't mean to be callous. I have great empathy, and I think my teaching and my syllabus reflect that. I'm on the side of young people. But I'm more of an old-school lefty. I think it's very important for us to question establishment responses to things. Sometimes it's very important to have an establishment response, and other times I think it's less helpful.

And I would say, proactively trying to manage Halloween costumes, however gently worded, I think there's a downside. Or, at least, let's talk about the potential downside. And I think it might be an erosion of the faith in young people to influence one another and to listen to one another and learn from one another.

Why did you resign your teaching post?

I have great respect and affection for my students, but I'm worried that the climate of civil dialogue and openness — I'm not sure we're there yet. I have a lot of faith in students. And I think time is a great healer of wounds.

Sent from my iPhone