Archive
Get thee to a Thuggery!
Get thee to a nunnery: why wouldst thou be a
breeder of sinners? I am myself indifferent honest;
but yet I could accuse me of such things that it
were better my mother had not borne me: I am very
proud, revengeful, ambitious, with more offences at
my beck than I have thoughts to put them in,
imagination to give them shape, or time to act them
in. What should such fellows as I do crawling
between earth and heaven? We are arrant knaves,
all; believe none of us. Go thy ways to a nunnery.
William Shakespeare
Hamlet, Act III, Scene i
(a few pages after that one more famous scene)
Two evening events on my calendar this week relate to education advocacy. Last night, I attended the Education in Oklahoma panel discussion at the University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma featuring strong public school advocates.
The University of Science and Arts of Oklahoma’s Nita R. Giles Public Policy Program and the Oklahoma Policy Institute present Education in Oklahoma, a panel discussion examining feasible solutions to problems facing the Oklahoma education system.
Panelists:
Phyllis Hudecki, former Oklahoma Secretary of Education, executive director, Oklahoma Business and Education CoalitionDavid Perryman, Oklahoma State Representative
Mickey Hepner, dean, College of Business, University of Central Oklahoma
Joe Siano, superintendent, Norman Public Schools
Megan Benn, consultant
Moderator:
Gene Perry, policy director, Oklahoma Policy Institute
As I said, it was a friendly crowd. I didn’t detect any dissent from those in attendance either. They discussed some of the issues public schools are facing and some potential solutions for solving them. I heard little with which I would disagree. Other than Hepner, I was previously pretty familiar with the rest of the group.
Tomorrow night is an entirely different ball of wax. I was thinking of going to Full Circle Bookstore to hear Scott Inman speak about the upcoming legislative session.
It was on my calendar and everything. Then I caught wind of another event:
The School Choice Summit and Expo is tomorrow at Oklahoma City Community College. It’s scheduled from 4-9 pm, and it’s free. I’ll just be attending the main event from 7-9. Apparently, this bothers some of the people who aren’t big public school fans.
“Thuggery paid for with our tax dollars, at least for now.”
So I’m a thug because I’m going to an event that is far outside of my bubble? Sure, there will be people there who see me and are uncomfortable. It happens all the time. I assume these people are adults, though, and that they can handle being in a room with someone who isn’t a fan of vouchers – especially the kind that come with no accountability.
By the way, my tweet that Trent England responded to was from Friday night at 8:59 pm. I’m not really sure how my thuggery was paid for with tax dollars. And what’s with the at least for now business?
Oh, they’ve called the police in for order. The libertarians are so scared of teacher thugs like me that they’ve called the cops. How cute. As KFOR reports:
So far, no word if the event will be canceled, but OCCC assured us they will have campus police available for the safety of the students.
Check that. They’ve called the campus police. All is well.
I have so many issues with all of this.
- It’s a public event. I registered on Eventbrite. I announced that I’d be coming almost a week ahead of time. I’m not even trying to sneak in.
- My plan is to listen, take notes, maybe ask a question or two, and then write about the event if I come up with anything good.
- Nobody is threatening violence. There is a group I don’t know much about organizing a group to support public education, but they’re not even making signs.
- How is my tweet on a Friday night anything “paid for with our tax dollars”? I have a life outside of work, you know. And last I checked, Twitter is free.
- Is Trent England threatening my job or all public education jobs? He really needs to work on his clarity.
Dictionary.com defines thug as a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer. I hardly see myself as a ruffian, robber, or murderer. I do like the sound of the word ruffian. I just don’t think I can pull off the vibe.
Again, as we have seen in the past few weeks, there are some in power who view dissent as vitriol. That’s ridiculous. We need to quit eyeballing the extreme positions and locking into them. That’s why I’m going tomorrow night. I might actually learn something. I also might want to bang my forehead on the seat in front of me for wasting my time. I’m keeping an open mind about it.
What I’m not going to do is recuse myself to a world of like-minded people. I have plenty of those around. I have few friends who are on the other side of education issues anymore. That was never my intent. While I don’t expect to make new friends in the middle of an OCPA/ALEC/Walton event, I can at the least hear what others are saying about the public schools I’m proud to lead.
If that makes me a thug, so be it. Another perspective, Mr. England – and just bear with me here – is you need to work on not being so thin-skinned.
Two things: ESAs are not a Grassroots Movement
Happy Super Tuesday, y’all!
Many of my friends in the state have received a flyer that boasts of the great things that Education Savings Accounts can do for all of us – well, at least those of us who can make up the difference between the amount of the voucher and the private school tuition. Somehow I missed one. Maybe the group sponsoring the mailouts – Americans For Prosperity – knew not to bother.
Well, it’s Tuesday, and I don’t have a lot of time today, so let me tell you two things about this educational non-profit group.
1. The best thing I can tell you is they have a lot of money coming in and a lot going out. In 2012, their tax return shows more than $122 million in revenue. The form also shows that they are a 501 (c)(4) non-profit organization. In other words, they’re a Super PAC – a soft money group that can get around individual contribution limits for candidates. Stephen Colbert explains this better than anyone.
In fact, if you look at the list of groups funding the ESA voucher campaign, there really aren’t any grassroots groups. They are national and statewide special interest groups. The list below includes several right wing groups that have been trying to destroy public education for decades.
They may have anecdotes that tug at your heartstrings, but they have no coherent answers to why students or private schools receiving vouchers should lack for all the accountability that public schools and their students have. We have stories too. We also have thousands of teachers who come to work and take care of the state’s children every day. If you want to help children, I know about 690,000 who have been shorted continuously by the state legislature and governor for six years and counting.
2. To be fair, the same group operates a separate organization that is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, the Americans For Prosperity Foundation. Their 2012 tax return shows a mere $24 million in revenue. It also shows that many of the top executives are the same in both organizations.
More important is the name listed as the chairman is David Koch. His $40 billion net worth partially bankrolls AFP, AFP Foundation, ALEC, and who knows which other groups. In other words, there is nothing pure about the motives of this shadow group or their flyer. Even if David Koch was the sole supplier of funds for AFP, to him, that would be comparable to me going to 7/11 for a Big Gulp.
This is similar to complaints made last week by local billionaire Bob Funk.
Having all the money doesn’t mean you always get your way. I have some friends who will be reminding our legislators of that fact today. Hopefully, we’ll remember that at the polls too.
No on SB 573 (Charter School Expansion): Call Now!
In 2010, when candidate Janet Barresi entered the Kingdom and spoke to the Protectors (I kid – because it’s easy), one comment struck me more than all others. She stated that it would be a happy day when all public schools performed so well that we wouldn’t need charter schools.
After taking office, she quickly worked with legislators to establish policies designed specifically to create lists of winners and losers. Specifically, the tandem of accountability systems of the A-F Report Cards and the No Child Left Behind waiver created dueling and convoluted scales that ensure a certain percentage of schools are always in need of improvement. In short, there is no world in which candidate Barresi’s vision could ever be achieved. The bureaucrats have ensured this.
For lovers of small government, any new law, agency, or procedure must clearly be matched to an unfulfilled need. This is the litmus test that SB 573 clearly fails and why every one of us who care about high-quality public education and the principles of local control need to remember as we contact our legislators. Email them tonight and call them in the morning. Ask them how much they want out-of-state charter school chains in their own communities.
I read Rep. Denney’s editorial today. I was unmoved. Show me the communities ringing the bell for this. Show me that we’re not just running another ALEC measure up the flagpole. Unfortunately, no such evidence exists.
I read all 48 pages of the engrossed bill. (I read a lot, but not much off my wish list lately.) My biggest concern is with the section that begins on page 13:
| SECTION 6. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 3-132.6 of Title 70, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:
A. The Commission may give priority to applicants that have demonstrated a record of operating at least one (1) school or similar program that demonstrates academic success and organizational viability and serves student populations similar to those the proposed school seeks to serve. B. In assessing a program’s potential for quality replication, the Commission shall consider the following factors before approving a new site or distinct school: 1. Evidence of a strong and reliable record of academic success based primarily on student performance data as well as on other viable indicators, including financial and operational success; 2. A sound, detailed and well-supported growth plan; 3. Evidence of the ability to transfer successful practices to a potentially different context that includes reproducing critical cultural, organizational and instructional characteristics; 4. Any management organization involved in a potential replication is fully vetted and its academic, financial and operational records are found to be satisfactory; 5. Evidence the program seeking to be replicated has the capacity to do so successfully without diminishing or putting at risk its current operations; and 6. A financial structure that ensures that funds attributable to each district school within a network and required by law to be utilized by a school remain with and are used to benefit that |
I’m all for replicating best practice. That’s why we have professional development. That’s why we have 60 REAC3H coaches, right? It’s why Jeb Bush and Mary Fallin visited KIPP in Oklahoma City, right? (By the way, when was the last time he was in a traditional public school?) The problem is that every community, every school, and even every classroom has something unique that limits the possibility of replication. Sometimes, what makes one setting great can’t transfer to another.
This is why so many of us rail against the standardization of everything in public education. When we remove the ability of schools and communities to thrive upon what makes them special, we do that even moreso to students. Since the passage of the ACE law, how many high schoolers have their choices of electives severely limited? We’re focused on making every child as college and career ready as the next – no more, no less. And this is wrong.
This bill does nothing to give schools academic flexibility. If a district wants to focus on agriculture or technology, nothing in existing statutes or regulations would keep them from developing coursework to do so. Over the last several years, we’ve even seen language immersion programs pop up in elementary schools around the state, in districts like Jenks (Mandarin) and Norman (French). School districts think outside the box when afforded the opportunity, and all of this comes without the corruption and intrusion of the Carpe Diems of the world.
Remember, the narrative is that we have failing schools and need to fix them at any cost. We have manufactured evidence to support that sketchy tale. With this legislation – and word is that Mary Fallin is lobbying hard for its passage – carpetbaggers who care more about their profits than our kids will have a foot in the door.
Email your legislators…right now. Remind them that even with a lottery in place, charter schools find ways to exclude children. Remind them that charter school performance trails overall public education performance. Warn them of what happens when states open the floodgates to charters everywhere. Call them in the morning. Don’t let them off the call without telling you how they plan to vote.
If need be, remind them you have a vote too.
***
You can find contact information for legislators here.
More on the Voucher Bill (Part II)
On Tuesday, I posted Part I, looking at specific language in HB 3398, which would create Education Savings Accounts – or vouchers, if you prefer – for qualifying students to take a portion of the state aid they generate to a private school. Before I get deeper into this, I want to respond to a few of the comments that readers left me.
From Nicole Shobert:
Thank you! I had to turn off twitter last night. I was getting lost and confused and ready for bed. I do not like holding twitter conversations, although I am impressed that Rep Nelson sticks around. I think he has good intentions but gets his material from the wrong sources, like ALEC.
Great post. But I did not realize the per pupil was that low. I saw a figure from 2010 that I thought was 8000$. Hmm.
Ironically, my family qualifies for the 30% savings account. It could help us over that edge. Maybe if Barissi is re-elected…
Nicole had engaged the bill’s author, Rep. Jason Nelson, in a lengthy conversation on Twitter over the weekend. Much of that conversation was the reason Part I was so lengthy. To answer her question, I looked up data from the 2011-12 school year. At that point, the average district was spending $7,648 per pupil. Of that, 47.6% was generated by state aid. This would come to about $3,640 per pupil. With the weighting that occurs for different student factors (grade, transportation, special education, gifted, etc.) will make the available amount vary a great deal for parents.
From Rob Miller:
You shine the light on some key points. (1) Most families in poverty will not have the capacity to “make up the difference;” (2) most will not be able to provide transportation; (3) private schools will not be held to same mandates or accountability; and (4) private schools can pick and choose their students. The more I read about programs like KIPP, the more upset I get. If we tried to treat students like they do, we would be sued.
I like Rob’s summary of my post, and I want to at least try to make these figures more concrete. Below is the table used for calculating free/reduced lunch in Oklahoma for the 2013-14 school year.
|
Federal Income Chart For 2013-14 School Year |
|||
|
Household Size |
Yearly |
Monthly |
Weekly |
| 1 |
$21,257 |
$1,772 |
$409 |
| 2 |
$28,694 |
$2,392 |
$552 |
| 3 |
$36,131 |
$3,011 |
$695 |
| 4 |
$43,568 |
$3,631 |
$838 |
| 5 |
$51,005 |
$4,251 |
$981 |
| 6 |
$58,442 |
$4,871 |
$1,124 |
| 7 |
$65,879 |
$5,490 |
$1,267 |
| 8 |
$73,316 |
$6,110 |
$1,410 |
| Add for each additional family member |
$7,437 |
$620 |
$144 |
For the sake of this illustration, let’s apply these income levels to the legislation. The Voucher Bill states that a family at or below the income threshold would be eligible for 90% of the state aid generated for their student. A family with up to 1.5 times the income threshold would be eligible for 60%, and a family with up to 2.0 times the income would be eligible for 30%.
|
Applied Income Levels |
|||
| Household Size |
Yearly |
Yearly x 1.5 |
Yearly x 2.0 |
| 1 |
$21,257 |
$31,886 |
$42,514 |
| 2 |
$28,694 |
$43,041 |
$57,388 |
| 3 |
$36,131 |
$54,197 |
$72,262 |
| 4 |
$43,568 |
$65,352 |
$87,136 |
| 5 |
$51,005 |
$76,508 |
$102,010 |
| 6 |
$58,442 |
$87,663 |
$116,884 |
| 7 |
$65,879 |
$98,819 |
$131,758 |
| 8 |
$73,316 |
$109,974 |
$146,632 |
| Estimated Voucher per Child (with weights) |
$4,851 |
$2,911 |
$1,455 |
The typical Happy Days size family (four, in case you’re under 35), at or below the income cut-off, would have a hard time affording private school with this voucher – even with nearly 5k in state aid. The family in the next column could probably use the voucher and make up the difference. The family in the last column may or may not need the voucher to afford private school, but certainly wouldn’t turn it down if they were choosing a private school in the first place.
Let’s be perfectly honest about the first column, though. We know that poverty matters, but we also need to understand that the depth of poverty matters more. In Oklahoma City and Tulsa, each with about 90% of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch, a great majority of the households don’t come anywhere close to approaching the cut-off.
If the authors of the bill are serious about the narrative that this helps poor kids escape schools that are failing them, they should probably do a little more math. While I contest the premise that a school’s letter grade tells you anything about its quality, I detest the thought that politicians might use them – combined with a voucher – to convince parents to send their children somewhere else.
Another fallacy of school choice, as Rob states in the third point, is that we honestly have no idea that parents using vouchers would be placing their students in better schools. When you think about it, we don’t know anything about private schools. We don’t know how their students perform, their teachers’ qualifications, attendance rates, disciplinary problems, or mobility. I don’t have a problem with that, if that’s what parents choose to do with their own money. Once we start using tax dollars in private schools, however, that all changes. I want to know the quality of the public investment. Everything we ask public schools to do in the name of accountability and transparency should be on the table for privates accepting vouchers.
From ropeok:
I look at this argument of ‘vouchers’ as a taxpayer issue. i am in no way against public schools. I believe public education to be part and parcel of our American heritage. Here’s where I have the beef; If I pay taxes to a public school that doesn’t work for my family, if I have money to burn, I put my kids in private school and don’t think twice about it. If I’m cash strapped, I’m stuck in the crummy school. I can home school, but only if our family can make it on one income. If I can’t, I’m stuck in the crummy school. Even then, say you are able to homeschool (as I now do all three of my kids still at home) – I’m not paying for a private school education, but I still have expenses; books, tutoring, online classes, activities, etc. Why should I pay twice? Granted, we pay sometimes 4x for things in taxes these days, but does that make it right? I’m not going to go out and willfully pay for something that isn’t going to benefit myself and/or my family, but I will be forced by the state to do just that. I don’t see how that isn’t criminal, frankly. If I went to someone’s house with a gun and told them they had to buy a car with a shot transmission, I wonder what would happen.
I am reluctant to use the terms private money and public money because essentially, all money the government collects is private money. It would be well for all public officials to remember this. That said, I still don’t get much from the argument that parents paying taxes and paying for private school (or homeschooling expenses) are paying twice. Depending on their income levels, they may actually be paying more than twice. At the other end of the scale, some of the families that the authors of HB 3398 most claim to want to help aren’t paying once even.
The taxes we pay do not equate to chits that we can cash in for various goods and services. My taxes have not bought x amount of military protection, y amount of drive time on the state’s roads, or z amount of protection from law enforcement. Taxes fund the public services that a government deems necessary. In this case, the state has determined that students must reach a certain set of standards to be educated in a way that will benefit society. Parents choosing other avenues for meeting those (or different) standards are currently on the hook for the costs. While I don’t always agree with the positions taken by those at ROPE, I enjoy Jenni White’s contributions to education conversations and her comments on my blog and social media accounts.
Less Reader Mail…More Part II
It was not my intent to spend the first 1,300 words of this post that way, but now that I have, I want to spend about 1,000 talking about why ALEC matters in this conversation. As you may recall, what prompted Tuesday’s marathon post was this Tweet from Rep. Nelson:
First, I should probably point out that Nelson doesn’t even use the Straw Man fallacy correctly. He’s thinking of a Red Herring – a person or thing introduced into an argument in an attempt to distract from relevant facts. A Straw Man is an intentional misrepresentation of another’s argument, usually through exaggeration or extrapolation.
Still, my reference to ALEC – the American Legislative Exchange Council – in the discussion is neither Red nor Straw. Understanding the source of policy-making in Oklahoma is just as important as understanding the policy that is made.
Rob Miller has previously written about the connection between Oklahoma’s Voucher Bill and the model legislation presented by ALEC:
The entity I am referring to goes by the innocuous-sounding acronym ALEC, or the American Legislative Exchange Council. From their website, ALEC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization headquartered in Washington D.C., and defines itself as “a nonpartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers who share a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty.” It provides a constructive forum for state legislators and private sector leaders to discuss and exchange practical, state-level public policy issues.
An integral part of ALEC’s influence comes from the creation of so-called model legislation. Legislators and policy makers from across the nation contribute through involvement in various task forces and summits. According to ALEC, each state legislator and their constituents then decide which solutions are best for them and their states. As ALEC Treasurer Rep. Linda Upmeyer (IA) has said, model policies are like “a file cabinet. If something can help my constituents, I can take what I need; and if it doesn’t help, I leave it alone.”
The 35 active members of ALEC in the Oklahoma Senate and House (all Republicans) go to this “file cabinet” quite often. Representatives Nelson and Newell may claim credit for this Education Savings Voucher legislation, but they clearly made extensive use of ALEC’s model legislation in drafting this bill.
What’s the harm in this? Governor Fallin copies executive orders from other states. Superintendent Barresi copies idea after idea from Florida (via Jeb Bush). An idea doesn’t have to be original to be good, right?
That’s why it’s important to get to know ALEC. From their website:
A nonpartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty. Their vision and initiative resulted in the creation of a voluntary membership association for people who believed that government closest to the people was fundamentally more effective, more just, and a better guarantor of freedom than the distant, bloated federal government in Washington, D.C.
That all sounds harmless enough. Free markets. Liberty. Conservative. Nonpartisan. Each of these words, by their nature is loaded against its very own red herring. If you don’t agree with our positions, you’re a socialist liberal who wants to take away our rights. None of these words is a position of substance. Nor are their antitheses.
ALEC receives more than $7 million annually in contributions to help shape policy. Their donor list reads as a who’s who of the energy (Koch and ExxonMobil), pharmaceutical (Pfizer), insurance (State Farm), tobacco (Altria and Reynolds), and retail (WalMart) industries. Their agenda, in every policy domain, centers around one overarching principle. Clear the way so those we serve can make money.
Again, I have nothing against money, the people who make it, or the people who use it to exert extraordinary influence over our elected officials. Well, the first two of those things are true.
I do have a problem with the mentality that everything can be done better when left to private markets. We see time and time again that left to their own devices, big corporations will not take care of their consumers, employees, or surroundings. Yes, regulating the free market stunts it. Leaving it unregulated, however, leads to chemical spills, market collapses, and harmful side effects in our medication. There is a balance in the middle in which the economy can grow, and people and their surroundings can be safeguarded.
What should concern us most about ALEC and their education policy, however, is that this particular piece of legislation is but one page in their playbook. Rob has linked on his blog to ALEC’s Report Card on American Information and discussed how the reforms they have supported are the tip of the iceberg. Reading further into rest of the document shows a desire for complete privatization of education. Whether it be ALEC or one of the groups they support (such as the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, listed on page 120), every reform proposed is the extent to which they believe privatization can be achieved right now.
Perhaps this sounds like another great logical fallacy – the Slippery Slope. As I said, however, ALEC and their acolytes spell out the ideal support for public education: zero. The path to privatization is slow and deliberate. Manufacture a crisis in education. Develop flawed tests and use them to establish flawed ratings for schools and teachers. Leach students off of the “failing” schools and put them in private schools or for-profit charters (not locally-run charters, which have a much better track record than the charter chains). Have different rules for each set of schools, making it a lot harder for traditional public schools to succeed. Eventually (see Chicago and New Jersey). Be humane about it, though. Call it restructuring. Say you’re doing it to save money. All the while, continue draining resources from public schools and throw your hands up, claiming you’ve done everything possible to help them succeed. What ALEC wants is private, unregulated schools. And a piece of the pie for their puppet masters once the money comes free.
I’m not suggesting for a minute, by the way, that Nelson and the bill’s other sponsor, Tom Newell, want to eliminate public education. Nelson frequently mentions on Twitter that his own children are in public school and that he is very supportive of that school. I don’t doubt that if he felt differently, they would be somewhere else. Whatever Nelson and Newell’s motives are, we are wise to understand the role this particular reform would play in the ALEC master scheme.
I don’t believe this bill will help poor children. And for the middle class families with the means to take advantage of vouchers, I don’t believe the benefits are substantial. The truth is that we’ll never know. Any system that places our tax dollars behind a wall of secrecy and says, “Trust us,” deserves scrutiny and ultimate rejection.
Oh Goodie! Another Report Card
The culmination of the initial release of A-F Report Cards in Oklahoma was the state grade. After all the calculations were thrown into the Wayback Machine, the state received a C. That’s right – of all the states in our fair state, Oklahoma is average.
That’s why yesterday, I was shocked – shocked! – to hear that Oklahoma received a D+ on an entirely different grading system. Michelle Rhee’s deceptively named organization Students First issued report cards for each state yesterday. It seems that if you stack the report card indicators in order to promote a particular agenda, you can pretty much issue any letter grade you want.
The funny thing about these report cards is that of all the states, Oklahoma was in 13th place – with a D+. Woo hoo! We’re above average! And look who is at the top…Louisiana, Florida, and Indiana. These are the three states Oklahoma is trying hardest to emulate. And of course, DC is near the top too – even though Rhee’s reforms there have destroyed both the schools and profession in her wake. You can see the complete list of state grades here.
With the Internet still burning with the release of the report card, Oklahoma’s anti-education movement was already chirping. Jason Nelson tweeted and blogged. Brandon Dutcher retweeted. And the Oklahoman quickly threw together an article highlighting the report card’s key components. Chiefly, the report card recommends more vouchers, elimination of class size limits, and decimating the teacher retirement system. If we do these things, we can be more like Louisiana, Florida, and Indiana. And then our test scores will …
Oh, that’s right, this report card mentions nothing about results. It’s strictly a scorecard of the extent to which states have adopted draconian reforms favored by ALEC. Diane Ravitch astutely points out the irony of a grading system critical of states for not doing more to evaluate teachers on student results when that system itself does not consider student results. For all the love reformers give NAEP, some of the highest scoring states are towards the bottom of this rank-order list.
For what it’s worth, I think Oklahoma educators deserve an A. We do more with less than just about any other state in the country. Could schools do more? Absolutely. Support them and find out.
Michelle Rhee’s record is well-documented. She was a failure as a teacher. She was a failure leading DC schools. She’s little more than a political operative now, and for reasons that elude me, the face of the reform movement. There’s little about Michelle Rhee worth taking seriously, yet many do. The only explanation I can give is that these same people take donations from the same right-wing corporate reformers.
Again, for the 500th time, we have a report card grade that means nothing.
okeducationtruths 