Archive
True Believers
Note: This is the post I’ve been trying to write for weeks. For as long as I’ve been working on it, I still don’t feel like it’s finished. The idea I’m trying to bring forward probably isn’t one that can be fully discussed in 1200 words anyway. After I put this on the blog, I’m sure I’ll immediately wish I had said something else. I’m sure this isn’t the last post I’ll make with this subject.
In truth, the idea for this post came to me a few months ago, before I even had a blog. I had a chance to visit with a University of Florida professor (who is also a retired superintendent) about the extent to which Oklahoma’s education reform movement mirrors her state’s – only from a few years behind. She talked openly about the problems with Turnaround schools in her state and the confusion created by A-F Report Cards. She said that charter schools had re-segregated students in much of the state. When I asked how state leaders react when presented with these facts, she said that they either don’t or can’t believe them, because they are the “True Believers.”
Her point was that the education reformers who brought us charter and virtual schools (or taken them to perverse extremes), promoted simplistic accountability systems, and in some cases, fought to funnel public education dollars to private schools, are so entrenched in their beliefs, that the idea that they might be wrong is unfathomable. I used the word “fanatics” to describe them over the weekend, and that might be a better word choice.
So where do these True Believers or fanatics come from? And where do they get their ideas?
It is simplistic and wrong to say that all of one party is out to destroy public education and all of the other party is its savior. This always has been a false premise. It’s also inaccurate to believe that all who propose education reform are out to destroy public education. There are good ideas out there, and these good ideas need to be explored. What we’re seeing now goes beyond any of this.
On the national level, one major player is a group called Chiefs for Change. If you click the link, you will see that Janet Barresi is one of the ten state superintendents (or equivalent) who belong to this group. While they don’t represent a majority of states, they are nonetheless an influential group. Just below the header on their website is this statement of purpose:
Chiefs for Change is a coalition of state school chiefs and leaders that share a zeal for education reform. Together, they provide a strong voice for bold reform on the federal, state and local level.
Below that is the organization’s mission statement:
Chiefs for Change is committed to putting children first through bold, visionary education reform that will increase student achievement and prepare students for success in colleges and careers.
One thing that strikes me is the use of the word “zeal.” It goes with the concept of these reformers as fanatics. Another is the idea that this organization is necessary to “put children first.” Might I remind them that public school teachers have been putting children first with zeal for more than a century!
Another group of True Believers is the Michelle Rhee organization, Students First. Rhee was chancellor of the Washington, D.C. school system from 2007 through 2010. Her time in DCPS is now under scrutiny for testing irregularities.
Prior to her time with DCPS and Students First, Rhee was a teacher with Teach For America, where she used some sort of tape over mouth concoction to control students. (For the record, I’m against that.) She later founded The New Teacher Project, a group that has brought a lot of attention this week for writing a post called “The Irreplacables.” The idea in this is that good teachers are not encouraged to stay in the profession and trying to figure out who is to blame for this.
On their website, Students First is described as a “grassroots movement … designed to mobilize parents, teachers, students, administrators, and citizens throughout country [sic], and to channel their energy to produce meaningful results on both the local and national level.” Read that again, and hear the zeal. These are the reformers that national politicians in both parties listen to. These are the people who keep beating the drum and saying that our public education system is a failure. They are well-funded, and they are relentless. Students First even released a horrible, offensive, Olympic-themed ad criticizing public schools. Education Week criticized it for “playing up obesity for laughs.” Other critics of the ad claimed it to be mocking the effeminate qualities of the “athlete.”
(By the way, for fun, I follow the Twitter account of Rheefirst – a parody mocking Michelle Rhee and exposing her inconsistencies.)
Speaking of Twitter, I also follow the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs and some of their employees’ accounts. The tweets from OCPA, SchoolChoiceOK, and Oklahoma Truth Council all come from the same place. And they tweets among these groups and top staff from the State Department of Education are beyond chummy. When the Tulsa World criticized Damon Gardenhire in an editorial a while back, Brandon Dutcher with OCPA was quick to his defense. The public exchange between the two included criticism of vitriol and ad hominem attacks in political discourse. Soon to join them was Jennifer Carter, formerly of the SDE (and most famous for calling certain superintendents “dirtbags.”) It should be noted that Carter’s husband is an editorial writer for the Oklahoman, and any anti-education editorial by that paper should be taken with a grain of salt. It should also be noted that OCPA tends to decry any public money spent on anything.
The connections between the SDE, OCPA (which frequently publishes anti-education columns in the Oklahoman), and the newspaper itself lead to a near-monopoly on the public discourse. These are people who are convinced that public education is responsible for the destruction of Americana. They are convinced that poverty is not a determinant of student outcomes. And they are convinced that if they create excessive burdens for public education and give parents the choice of schools that lack those same burdens, parents will begin to pull their kids out in droves.
Judging from what has happened in Indiana, Florida, New Jersey, and Louisiana (all Chiefs for Change states), we will soon be farther down the path towards charters and vouchers. We will see more obfuscation of facts in the name of transparency and more withholding of allocations in case the charter schools fill up. We will see more propaganda that fills our mind with images of children succeeding, without the offset of facts. We will see more attacks upon those who oppose the True Believers.
As the calendar turns to August tomorrow, we know that in Oklahoma City, the 2012-13 school year has already started. Soon, administrators, then teachers, and finally students will all report to public schools. This is a pivotal year in determining the future of public education. If the True Believers have their way, it will be a crippling one.
As for me…I’m just starting to fight back.
Accreditation…With a Side of Warning
A reader today pointed something out to me that I had completely missed. At last week’s State Board of Education meeting, while I was paying attention to budget questions and ACE appeals, they approved accreditation requests for school districts – some with deficiencies, some with warnings. According to the SDE news release:
For the coming school year, there are 372 nonpublic, public, charter, and career and technology education districts accredited with no deficiencies; 83 with one deficiency; 27 with multiple deficiencies; 111 districts accredited with a warning; and 9 listed as on probation.
The complete list is here.
The reader’s concern is that the number of districts receiving a warning with their deficiency report has increased from 38 to 111. The short answer to this is that the procedure is routine and goes back three or four years. The number of districts with warnings correlates to the number of schools that were placed in Needs Improvement status under the No Child Left Behind rules – rules that no longer apply due to the state waiver. Last year, as expected under the unrealistic goals set by NCLB, the number of schools and districts not making AYP spiked.
So a school district’s accreditation status for 2012-13 depends in part on test scores from the 2010-11 school year. Regardless of who is running the show up there, that’s ridiculous.
I also found interest in this nugget from my reader. For the 2011-12 school year, all charter schools in the state were accredited with no deficiencies. Warnings are not listed on the spreadsheet.
Compare that with the 2012-13 accreditation report and … wait … only one charter school received a warning? Santa Fe South Middle School received a warning, but not Justice A.W. Seeworth Academy (234 API –Needs Improvement). While several other charters did not make adequate yearly progress, they had still avoided the Needs Improvement designation.
I don’t know if this is an oversight or an inconsistency. And it really doesn’t matter. What it really points to is the idea that accreditation (a state process) should never have crossed streams with Adequate Yearly Progress and Needs Improvement (federal). If districts meet state statutes, that should be enough to keep accreditation.
Informed Discussion on Consolidation
Rural schools are necessarily inefficient.
Read that statement again; it’s not a slam on rural schools. It’s just a statement of fact. If a school has 30 seniors every year, the cost of educating students ends up being higher on a per pupil basis. Add to that the higher transportation costs and other associated expenses that come with being located in remote areas, and this simple fact is exacerbated.
Today, the Oklahoman ran a feature on the difficulties in the state pursuing consolidation from a policy perspective. In this respect, they have the issue right. So many legislators represent at least one small, rural district, that consolidation is tantamount to political suicide. And as you know, our elected leaders don’t exactly qualify for the sequel to Profiles in Courage.
Some districts have consolidated in recent years because of lagging funding from the state. They simply can’t continue operating. In public sector terms, they have gone out of business.
In western Oklahoma, many of the smaller districts get so much of their funding from ad valorem taxes from oil and gas that they wouldn’t necessarily feel the pinch from the loss of state aid and have to close down.
Another issue raised in the feature is the average salary of superintendents. Similarly, a story in the Tulsa World yesterday questioned the practice by many districts in the area of providing cars for superintendents. These are local decisions made to attract and keep top area leaders. I see a number of inconsistencies in salaries across the state, and I question the wisdom of providing cars for administrators, but these aren’t the decisions crippling school funding.
The Oklahoman also draws comparisons to Arkansas and Oregon. They do not mention why those two states are good exemplars for Oklahoma, but Arkansas has gone through a huge overhaul to its education system in the last decade. The results were twofold – fewer districts, and more total spending for education. Even if the legislature, state superintendent, and governor could agree on a consolidation plan, the more spending part would never happen.
This is a serious conversation that needs to happen, but it needs a foundation in reality. Leaders from urban and suburban areas need to spend meaningful time in rural communities and schools to gain an understanding of what the challenges are in these areas. Only then will they have some perspective about how their decisions might impact children.
Thanks and Onward
There’s an old joke about a man who constantly seeks external validation. When his therapist explains this to him, the man asks, “That’s ok, isn’t it?”
To the point of the joke, it’s probably safe to say that people who blog also seek external validation. I know enjoy it when the typical number of readers view one of my posts. The one that I researched most intensely and was the first on my blog has been seen over 250 times. I occasionally prod new readers to take a look back and read it, and occasionally they oblige me.
Sometimes my audience surprises me. To date, the blog has been viewed by readers in 27 countries outside the US. One morning, I looked at my stats, and I had 26 page views – all from Pakistan! I’m going to go ahead and state that I don’t know a lot of people who live abroad – especially in countries that our State Department (as opposed to State Department of Education) keeps under that close of a watch.
The post I made last Friday discussing the deliberate decision by the SDE to withhold money from school districts has been viewed over 2,000 times. It has been shared on Facebook 445 times. The second most viewed post on this blog has been clicked 329 times. So to sum up, what I wrote last Friday has been shared more than any other blog post has been read. I guess I struck a nerve.
And yet I feel like I’m only scratching the surface. I know there are more than 2,000 angry, frustrated people out there who care about public education. I’m trying to reach as broad an audience as possible, hopefully sharing facts that otherwise wouldn’t see the light of day.
I have more I want to write than I have time and energy to write it. I read probably a dozen other education bloggers daily – most notably Diane Ravitch. I follow a number of activists on Twitter – teachers, parents, administrators, politicians, writers, union activists. I try to keep up with education trends, not only in Oklahoma, but across the country.
Ironically, I wrote this morning that the SDE is busy patting itself on the back. I guess that’s what I’m doing right now. I don’t think I’m changing the world; that’s what teachers are for. I do think people are listening, though, and for that, I’m more than grateful.
Thanks for following. If anyone ever has something you want me to look into, let me know in the comments, on Facebook, or in a Tweet.
Patting Yourself on the Back
Shortly after noon today, the SDE sent out this release explaining that test scores in Oklahoma are on the rise and are an indication that the ACE reforms implemented in 2005 are making a difference. In her remarks, Superintendent Barresi goes out of her way twice in the same paragraph to praise teachers for their hard work.
The release also calls the ACE exams “one of the most important indicators for college readiness” and points out that scores have been rising on the exams for several years. Let me go ahead and state the obvious then: it seems schools were on the right track two years ago when she was going all over the state campaigning and saying how badly schools were doing. And let me point out another obvious point: increases in ACE exam scores don’t correspond at all with performance on the ACT or SAT – indicators also cited by this administration (when it serves them) to point out the lack of college readiness.
She ties the gains to the ACE graduation requirements and makes the logical leap to saying, “This shows the need to press forward with our new third-grade graduation reading requirements next year, as well as our emphasis on science, literacy and math.” As this release went out, and as I write at this moment, the State Board of Education had convened into executive session to discuss graduation appeals for more than 80 students. This is the third board meeting with graduation appeals on the agenda, and this is the third different method the Board has used in listing the appeals for the public. It seems they’re still trying to zero in on an efficient way to manage the process without violating FERPA.
All of this leads me to another obvious statement: test results released today indicate that 72 percent of students passed the third grade reading test. While the rules adopted by the state board allow schools to promote students to fourth grade if they received a score of limited knowledge, proficient, or advanced, it’s pretty clear that we’re going to be looking at a lot more third grade retentions than we are ACE graduation appeals. I sure hope they get FERPA figured out before May 2014, when parents of third graders start swarming board meetings.
More on State Aid
A useful tactic when trying to control a hot narrative amid justified criticism is to tell the people questioning you that they are confused or misinformed. That explains yesterday’s Leadership Post from Superintendent Barresi.
Earlier this week, school districts across Oklahoma received their initial state aid notices from the SDE. Given that the legislature funded public education at a flat level and that enrollment was up by 11,000 students last year, districts were expecting a small dip in the per pupil allowance in the funding formula.
As Barresi points out, “Oklahoma is required by state law to withhold dollars from the initial allocation in order to account for a variety of factors. At a minimum, this is mandated at a floor of 1.5 percent.” She then gives the following breakdown of how money was withheld:
- Retained for midyear growth & surplus (anticipated growth of ADM) – $35,446,095
- August adjustment – (this includes new charter applications) – $18,848,842
- Retained for mid-year adjustment for virtual students – $8,056,285
- Retained for Lindsey Nicole Henry – $1,500,000
- Pending adjustments – $105,444
- Total Amount Withheld: $63,956,666
Yesterday, I criticized the choice to withhold 3.52 percent (more than twice the mandated amount) from state aid to schools. That blog post has spread beyond my wildest imagination, with 189 shares on Facebook as I write this. Reaching even more people was the Tulsa World, which interviewed area school district leaders. The $1.75 million less allocated to Tulsa Public, $210,000 less to Jenks, $522,827 less to Owasso, and $692,000 less to Union will make a difference in how those districts staff schools for the beginning of the school year. Today’s editorial in the World astutely points out that this decision “appears to short regular schools to accommodate virtual and charter schools.”
Damon Gardenhire, the SDE’s spokesperson, goes on to explain that the department is “trying to err on the side of caution and not have districts take a hit mid-year” and that “everything that’s left over will be distributed to schools during their mid-year adjustments.” That’s all well and good, but district leaders are making staffing decisions now. While 90 percent of that planning occurs in the spring, school districts – which are used to receiving funding notices earlier, I might add – watch enrollment during the summer and add positions as needed. When test scores come back (on time this year), they make further decisions based on the areas of greatest need.
And that’s the perspective lacking from the non-educators making these decisions. Most of the top leadership at the SDE does not have experience running a school district. In times like these, it shows. The state department has chosen to withhold more money from school districts than they are required to. This choice will hurt students. Barresi closed yesterday with the hope that her post “clears up any misunderstanding that may have occurred as a result of any misleading information you may have received.”
Then understand clearly what the 2012-13 school year has in store for Oklahoma districts: more students, more mandates and regulations, and less money.
I hope that clears it up.
Another Bad Decision
Once again, the leaders at the Oklahoma State Department of Education are showing what they do with discretion. As this Leadership Post from Superintendent Barresi explains, public education received no increase in funding this year in spite of an increase in enrollment of 11,000 students. Blame the legislature for that one (as I did in May), but what comes next is truly baffling.
The SDE has made the conscious decision to withhold a greater portion of state aid for schools. As the Tulsa World explains, “the education department withheld nearly $64 million, or 3.52 percent, of all state aid, compared to the $41 million, or 2.26 percent it kept in reserve at the beginning of 2011-12.” The article is a great read, with typical flimsy excuses from SDE staff, comments from Tulsa-area administrators about the real impact of this decision, and even a caustic remark from a legislator who is frustrated with all of this.
The World goes on to discuss the fact that all the large districts in the Tulsa area will receive less aid than last year. In short, the SDE tells districts not to worry – the money will come at the mid-term adjustment. In the meantime, it would be irresponsible for districts to set staffing levels based on what might happen in December. Districts that are growing at a fast pace will be teaching more students with less money. All of this occurs in the backdrop of numerous sea-change reforms to public education, all of which are costing school districts tremendous amounts of money.
This is just another example of bad decision making at the SDE. To refresh your memory, in the last few months:
- They botched the bid process for TLE funding, so that it will now cost schools extra money;
- They used federal jobs money to hire 60 REAC3H Coaches for school districts, promising them employment for three years although funding ends after one;
- They tried to divert money from textbook allocation to their activity fund, but legislators in Barresi’s own party called them on it;
- They switched accountability systems to match Florida’s A-F report cards and then had to bring in former SDE employees to run No Child Left Behind Report Cards – which didn’t even get to schools until April (instead of the customary October release);
- They posted student records on their website, insisted they had done nothing wrong, and then caved anyway;
- They’ve handled personnel situations poorly – both with incumbent and new staff; and
- Their curriculum team is down to bare bones, while the communications staff is expanding at the rate of suburban school enrollment.
Did I miss anything?
School board members, administrators, and parents need to get involved. Call your legislators. Call the governor. Heck, call the SDE. Make them listen. Let them know that the people of Oklahoma did not elect them so that they could wreck public education due to incompetence. I’m angry and embarrassed that these are the people leading public education. If you’re paying attention, you should be too.
Interim Studies
Even though the legislature has adjourned for the year, several interim studies will be done by our elected leaders to help chart the course for future bills. This is an annual occurrence, usually not amounting to much in terms of substance. However, with 2012 being an election year, we can expect for some of the studies to involve an element of playing to the base, rather than doing any actual legislating. This year, there are eleven studies relevant to common education on the House side, and four more on the Senate side.
House Interim Studies
- 12-010 – Special Education
- 12-011 – Native American Education
- 12-013 – Performance Pay
- 12-015 – Common Education – Funding
- 12-016 – Common Education – Testing
- 12-019 – National Board Certified Teachers
- 12-024 – School Redistricting
- 12-036 – Educational Administrative Efficiencies
- 12-056 – Class Size
- 12-063 – Student Rights to Privacy and Education Reform
- 12-066 – Bridge to Literacy
Senate Interim Studies
- 12-5 – Study school funding formulas.
- 12-21 – Joint House/Senate study on facility funding for charter schools.
- 12-25 – Study on creating administrative efficiencies and streamlining costs for schools with the goal of putting more money in the classroom.
- 12-27 – Study of all sources of funding for Oklahoma common education and develop comparisons to other states.
I find it interesting that the House and Senate display the information differently. For example, you can download explanatory comments on the House studies. Study 12-010 is “A study of special education – solutions for the shortage of teachers, educational preparation for teachers (requirements for teachers).” I don’t really get a lot from that, but it’s more informative than the Senate studies, which only tell you as much as you see above.
Just looking at the two lists, I see that how we as a state pay for schools is a common them, as is a renewed interest in efficiency (unicameral legislature, anyone?). I think the charter school facility funding issue could get tricky, since Oklahoma is one of only eight states that do not provide facility funding for schools at the state level anyway.
Representative Sally Kern’s study on privacy could be worth a look too. The explanatory comments on the scope of the study say:
“The right for public school students to maintain privacy of their education records is protected by federal FERPA laws. Recent changes in these laws combined with Oklahoma’s effort to create a Statewide Longitudinal Database for public school students ages Kindergarten to age 20, can pose serious risks to the privacy of student records.”
My first thought is who needs a data system to violate FERPA? That’s what State Board of Education meetings are for. Seriously though, the way Rep. Kern is known for grandstanding and last year tried to get Oklahoma to pull out of Common Core, there’s no telling where this will go.
As these topics are studied, I’ll keep an eye out for updates. When reports are posted to the legislature’s website, I’ll add my own thoughts.
Choice and Accountability
I am an unabashed supporter of public education, so it may seem somewhat contradictory that I also support school choice. I do not, however, support School Choice. Allow me to elaborate.
I believe that our society benefits from having a well-educated populace. As such, we have an obligation to make sure that a quality education is available for every child. We can all disagree about what “quality education” means, and that’s fine. We can also point to places and times of students not receiving the kind of education that we would want for our own kids.
It’s human nature to want better things for our own kids than we want for all kids. I have heard urban and suburban parents say they would never send their kids to school in small towns, and I have heard rural parents say they would never send their kids to large high schools. The preferences come down to the environment you want for your kids.
I don’t want my child getting lost in the crowd.
I don’t want my child going to a school where so little is offered.
I don’t want my child to have to ride a bus for 45 minutes to get to school.
I don’t want my child going to school in a 70 year old building that looks 100.
And on it goes. As parents, we are responsible for making the lowercase choices and deciding what is best for our kids. We select where we live, in part, based on the schools that our children will attend. We expect the state-supported schools to meet minimum standards, both in terms of curriculum and community values.
But there is a difference between school choice in principle and School Choice – the movement. Advocates of the movement also favor full-on vouchers that will allow federal, state, and local dollars to follow their children into any educational environment.
Sometimes, parents want something more or something different, they decide to pull our children out of public school. Many parents who want their children’s education to include a religious component put them in private, sectarian schools. This – of course – is fine; it’s the parents’ choice. This choice should not be funded with state dollars, however.
Other parents choose to homeschool their children. For them, Oklahoma is one of the least restrictive states. Parents do not need the state’s permission to homeschool children, and students are not required to demonstrate any kind of mastery. There will be no 3rd grade retention or ACE graduation appeals for homeschool students because the state of Oklahoma only provides funds to test public school students.
Oklahoma parents also have charter schools and online schools from which to choose. And now, you can combine them for online charter schools. Some public school districts have magnet schools, as well. In fact, you could even make the argument that the Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics is a school of Choice. The Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs’ Brandon Dutcher and I had a Twitter argument over that a few weeks ago. He promptly ended it explaining that he doesn’t engage in discussions with anonymous “lurkers.” Then he quit following okeducationtruths on Twitter.
My argument with OSSM – as well as with many private, charter, and magnet schools – is that it’s not a school of choice if they don’t have to choose you back. Governor Fallin chose to decrease taxes, but the legislature didn’t comply with her choice. I can choose all kinds of things, but I can’t achieve them if there is a person on the other end who may or may not reciprocate my choice.
Where our state falls behind others is in the use of vouchers as a means of school choice. Only through the Lindsay Nicole Henry scholarship may parents of special education students choose to put their children in private schools. Where some districts and the courts have objected, still, is the use of public funds for religious purposes.
Oklahoma’s use of vouchers, to date, has been limited to the special education domain. At the risk of having a master or rhetoric tell me I’m falling prey to a slippery slope argument, I expect this is the beginning of a push for a full-scale voucher program, like the one in Louisiana. Recent stories from that state involve the use of public dollars to fund textbooks from Bob Jones.. And one legislator saying she never would have voted for vouchers if she knew they were going to allow Muslims to use them to open a school.
When I say I support a lowercase school choice, I mean that I support parents and their right to choose to teach their children inaccurate, racist, and narrow-minded versions of what students are learning in public school. Public funds shouldn’t support this practice though.
Back in January, our governor and our state superintendent celebrated National School Choice Week, with Superintendent Barresi saying, “In a free country, with so many exceptional school offerings, there is no reason a child’s education should be bound by his parent’s income level or his geographical location.”
Does she think Holland Hall is going to open the floodgates for all of Tulsa County’s population, regardless of a parent’s ability to donate? Does she think Christian Heritage Academy is going to teach children of all creeds?
And let’s say for a minute that they do, will the state hold them accountable with cumbersome A-F report cards?
I doubt it.
okeducationtruths 