Perdido 03

Perdido 03
Showing posts with label federal overreach. Show all posts
Showing posts with label federal overreach. Show all posts

Friday, August 14, 2015

MaryEllen Elia Loses No Matter What She Does With The Opt Out "Problem"

NYSED Commissioner MaryEllen Elia has twice said there may be consequences for high opt out rates, last week saying there could be "ramifications" and this week saying she was working with the feds on a possible sanction plan for schools and/or districts with high opt out numbers.

The NY Times reports this morning that considering the politics around punishing schools/districts for parents who opt their children out from the state tests, she may just be talking empty threats.

The NY Times report notes that Elia tried to "walk a fine line" over the issue:

“I do think it’s good for kids to take the assessments,” she said. “I don’t think that it necessarily is good for kids to have resources taken away that should be supporting them in their classrooms.”

The Times also reports that Elia says she has no plan for what to do with districts with high opt rates:

Ms. Elia said that federal officials had asked her what her plan was for dealing with districts that had large numbers students opting out, and that she did not have one. But she said she would be speaking to superintendents and seeking to understand why districts with similar demographics had very different opt-out rates.

The truth is, if the feds force the state to impose sanctions or Elia herself decides to punish districts for high opt out rates, more fuel will be thrown onto the fire:

If state education officials “think parents are unhappy with them now, just wait until they take money away from school districts,” Loy Gross, co-founder of a test refusal group called United to Counter the Core, said.

Regardless of whether sanctions are imposed onto schools/districts for high opt out rates or not, parent leaders in the Opt Out movement are looking to expand the movement again next year:
Elaine Coleman, a parent in Yonkers who is active in opt-out and anti-Common Core groups, said she had already begun planning expanding the movement next year. “We’re hoping we’ll get double the number,” she said.

In 2014, 5% of students eligible to take the state tests opted out.

In 2015, 20% of students eligible to take the state tests opted out.

That's a clear trend line there, and state and federal officials are in a bind with what to do about it. 

The reality is, if they impose sanctions, they are going to increase the anger parents and teachers have toward the unelected educrats imposing an unpopular testing regime onto the children and schools of this state, but if they don't impose sanctions, the word is out - opt your children out next year because there's nothing they will do about it.

This problem could be solved if the federal and state educrats and the politicians who back them would come down off the Mount and stop dictating and imposing policies and instead legitimately consult with parents and teachers about education policy.

But in the oligarchy that is 2015 America, that kind of thing doesn't happen.

Instead educrats like Elia are tasked with carrying out the oligarchical agenda paid for by Bill Gates, Eli Broad, Michael Bloomberg and a whole host of Wall Street and hedge fund wealthy people irrespective of what parents or teachers think or feel about that agenda.

In effect, Elia loses no matter what she does here.

If she imposes sanctions, she will increase the anger toward her and NYSED exponentially and get some of what former NYSED Commissioner John King got at Poughkeepsie.

But if she doesn't impose sanctions, the message is plain for all to see - the state does not have the will to back up their threats over the state's testing regime.

I suspect she will look for a more middle course, where she says no sanctions will happen this year, in part because she wasn't around when the state tests were given, but next year, if opt out remains a problem, here is a specific and detailed plan for what will happen to schools/districts with high opt out rates.

But we'll see - that kind of approach is dangerous too, as it still risks fanning the flames of anger of parents who feel disenfranchised from their own children's education.

Frankly, I think it couldn't happen to a more deserving person that she be stuck between in a rock and a hard place with no good options.

That way, MaryEllen Elia gets to feel what many parents and teachers feel about the current education policies imposed upon them by educrats like herself.

Sunday, September 28, 2014

How Are Schools Supposed To Work When Everything Else Around Them Is Broken?

Had a discussion with NY Daily News reporter Ben Chapman over the "disruption" that education reformers bring to the education system (and the money they make off of that "disruption") that went like this the other day:

To which Chapman replied


This is the education reformer "change" frame - sure, change is hard and sometimes it hurts, but given how bad things are now, significant change is needed no matter the cost.

But I don't buy that:





Chapman never replied to my Twitter pushback (and since it was the weekend, I'll assume he had something more fun to do than talk on Twitter with me), but this idea that schools are dysfunctional in isolation of the rest of society is something I want to hit on beyond my conversation with Ben.

Because it's bullshit.

Schools may look like sufficiently dysfunctional places to education reformers but they are no more so than other institutions in American life.

Let's start with the granddaddy of dysfunctional American institutions, the federal government.

In January, as President Obama was set to give his State of the Union address, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found this:

As President Barack Obama enters his sixth year in the White House, 68 percent of Americans say the country is either stagnant or worse off since he took office, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Just 31 percent say the country is better off, and a deep pessimism continues to fuel the public's mood. Most respondents used words like “divided,” “troubled,” and “deteriorating” to describe the current state of the nation.

On the eve of Tuesday’s State of the Union address, more than six-in-10 Americans believe that the nation is headed in the wrong direction and 70 percent are dissatisfied with the economy.

Displayed here are the words and phrases poll respondents most commonly associated with where the country is headed in 2014, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
It’s not just Obama under fire. A whopping 81 percent disapprove of Congress and twice as many Americans now hold negative views about the Republican Party as positive ones.

Democratic pollster Fred Yang, whose firm conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff, compares these findings to the 1993 movie “Groundhog Day,” in which the protagonist finds himself living the same day over and over.

“It seems like we’ve been re-living the same basic dynamics -- a public that is anxious, dissatisfied and dismayed -- in a continuous loop,” he said.

That "continuous loop" of anxiety, dissatisfaction and dismay over the direction of the country and the economy was measured again in the latest WSJ/NBC News poll earlier this month:

The most recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll says that a clear-cut majority is disgusted with the present political scene and retains little hope that future generations will fare as well as we have. As candidates get down and dirty in the lead-up to midterm elections, 60 percent say the country is in a general state of decline. A mere 19 percent of those polled have a favorable opinion of Republicans in Congress; their Democratic colleagues (or “colleagues”) poll at 31 percent. But the most remarkable number is 79: that’s the percentage of the politicized public that presently voices its discontent with the entire American political system as constituted; and fully half of the respondents said “very dissatisfied.”

79% of Americans polled express "discontent with the entire American political system as constituted," half say they are "very dissatisfied."

This is not a happy electorate, is it?

And one of the things they aren't happy with is the economy and how it seems to be rigged for the top 5%.

Which it certainly seems to be, as Neil Irwin showed in this recent report in the NY Times:

Every year, the Census Bureau delivers a sweeping set of numbers that give the richest annual picture of how much Americans are making, how many are living in poverty, and how many have access to health insurance. The numbers are backward-looking, covering conditions from a year ago. But the new numbers, released Tuesday, in many ways tell us more about how well the economy is serving — or failing — the mass of Americans than data that create hyperventilation in the financial markets.

The census numbers on what American families made last year are as mediocre as they are predictable. We now know that if your household brought in $51,939 in income last year, you were right at the 50th percentile, with half of households doing better and half doing worse. In inflation-adjusted terms, that is up a mere 0.3 percent from 2012. If you’re counting, that’s an extra $180 in annual real income for a middle-income American family. Don’t spend your extra $3.46 a week all in one place.

Going back a little further, the numbers are even gloomier. The 2013 median income remained a whopping 8 percent — about $4,500 per year — below where it was in 2007. The 2008 recession depressed wages for middle-income Americans, and they haven’t recovered in any meaningful way. And 2007 household incomes were actually below the 1999 peak.

...

This simple fact may be the most important thing to understand about today’s economy: Around 1999, growth in the United States economy stopped translating to growth in middle-class incomes. In the last 15 years, median income has been more or less flat while there was far sharper growth in, for example, per capita gross domestic product.

There are various potential reasons. Evolving technology favors those with the most advanced skills and allows companies to replace formerly middle-class workers with machines. Declining union power gives workers less power at the bargaining table over wages. Cultural norms have shifted such that top executives and financiers are paid much more compared with regular workers than they used to be.

But there really is no mystery as to why public opinion has been persistently down on the quality of the economy for years. You can’t eat G.D.P. You can’t live in a rising stock market. You can’t give your kids a better life because your company’s C.E.O. was able to give himself a big raise.
The rubber-meets-road measure of whether the economy is working for the mass of Americans is median real income and related measures of how much money is making its way into their pockets and what they can buy with that money.

And the newest census numbers show that the nation experienced virtually no progress on that frontier in 2013, and remains far behind where we were seven years ago. Americans feel disappointed by the economy; the new data show that they have good reason.

Now why aren't gains from GDP "trickling down" to the middle and working classes instead of squarely going to the top 5%?

Might it be because the economy is rigged in the favor of the top 5% and the regulatory bodies that are supposed to correct this kind of criminality are themselves rigged to favor the rich and powerful?

I think it might:

Secret audio recordings made in 2012 by a former Fed employee of conversations between high-level staffers inside the New York Federal Reserve, the branch that oversees Wall Street, show how the agency was afraid of offending powerful banks, most notably Goldman Sachs. The recordings, detailed in an explosive story on Friday by ProPublica and NPR, are a bombshell that sweeps back some of the veil of secrecy surrounding the Fed’s handling of the financial crisis to expose a culture of deference toward Wall Street, institutional paralysis and a culture averse to speaking up and challenging conventions.

...


Recordings reveal how Segarra tried to persuade higher-ups at the New York Fed that Goldman Sachs needed a firm policy regarding conflicts of interest, one of several negative conclusions she had come to about the bank. She was shot down. “Why do you have to say there’s no policy?” complains Segarra’s unidentified boss in one recording.

Another recording shows how the New York Fed caved to Goldman Sachs’s insistence that it complete a deal with Spanish bank Banco Santander, even though Fed staffer Michael Silva thought the deal was “window dressing” designed to make the Spanish bank appear healthier than it really was.

The recording also suggests how in the fall of 2008, Fed staffers were akin to a deer in the headlights. As Lehman Brothers declared bankruptcy and a large money market fund, where shares are never supposed to trade for less than one dollar, “broke the buck,” confusion and paralysis reigned. In one recording, Silva, a former chief of staff to then New York Fed President Timothy Geithner, vomited. Silva, according to the recordings, later felt disappointed when Goldman Sachs did not step in to help save Lehman, a hesitance that deterred other banks. 

“It was extraordinarily disappointing to me that they weren’t thinking as Americans,” Silva says in the recording.

Segarra sued the New York Fed last fall in Manhattan federal court over her firing. In the complaint, she says that Silva said during an unspecified meeting that the Fed “possessed information about Goldman that could cause Goldman to ‘explode.’” A federal judge dismissed her claims last April. Prior to the lawsuit’s filing, Goldman Sachs attempted to negotiate a settlement with Segarra for around $7 million, court papers show.

The Fed, which injected hundreds of billions of bailout dollars into Wall Street banks to avert a global financial collapse, and the Justice Department, which has been criticized for not putting any senior executives from banks or lenders in jail, are both increasingly seen as having been too soft on Wall Street.

We have a government that no longer functions (and when it does function, it's only to reward members of the government themselves as well as their corporate backers), an economy that no longer works for the vast majority of Americans (and hasn't for a long time now, though the nadir has been in the post-2008 recession period), a banking system that is rife with criminality and corruption and a regulatory system that is rigged to ignore it (or worse, help hide the criminality and corruption.)

Schools, dysfunctional though some may be, are not dysfunctional in isolation of the rest of America's major institutions.

To think that "significant changes" - Joel Klein's vaunted "disruption" - will fix whatever dysfunction exists in the American education system while the rest of American institutions, many of which have direct power through law and mandate over how school systems run or indirect power through lobbying of those who make the law and push the mandates, is wrong-headed.

What continued "disruption" will continually bring is more chaos, more dysfunction.

We see that already with all the changes wrought since No Child Left Behind, continued through Race to the Top - constant turmoil over the Endless Testing regime, teacher evaluation changes that tie ratings to test scores and cause ever more testing, school "turnarounds" that hand public schools over to private entities to run them as charters, the fights over school closings and co-locations, the fight over Common Core and standardized standards and curricula imposed from afar.

There have been significant disruptions to the American public education system since the Bush No Child Left Behind Era and like the rest of American institutions, public schools have suffered in the esteem of the American public as measured by the latest PDK/Gall-Up Poll on education, with 80% expressing disapproval of the nation's public schools at large even as a majority said they thought highly of the schools in their neighborhoods.

Americans may see schools at large as dysfunctional (though interestingly, not their own neighborhood schools), but no more so than they see the rest of America's institutions.

And the reality is, bringing "significant changes" and "disruption" to the school system developed by the same people who run the dysfunctional government or own banks and/or corporations that wreak dysfunction in society isn't going to fix whatever dysfunction exists in the school system.

Instead it will bring about more dysfunction.

The cynic in me thinks that's exactly what education reform is meant to bring - ever-changing mandates that breed more dysfunction, more chaos, and eventually drive the public school system to dissolution, allowing it to be privatized and owned by the very institutions that cause so much dysfunction and chaos themselves - the banks and the corporations.

It's nice to think that schools can fix themselves when the rest of America's institutions are broken, but it's a fairy tale, no less mythic than the jive we still tell ourselves about having a government "Of the people, By the People, For the people" or an economy in which anybody can succeed through hard work and sweat alone.

Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Arne Duncan Personally Lobbied De Blasio NOT To Pick Joshua Starr For Chancellor

So much for that "The Federal Government Doesn't Interfere In Local Districts" nonsense:

U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan and at least one other Education Department official urged New York Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio and his team not to choose Montgomery County Schools Superintendent Joshua P. Starr as the city’s next schools chancellor, according to several people knowledgable about the selection process. It was an unusual move by the nation’s top education official and came in the wake of Starr’s vocal criticism of some of the Obama administration’s school reform policies.

Starr, who has led Montgomery County schools since July 2011, was a finalist in de Blasio’s two-month search for a superintendent to lead the nation’s largest school system, and people familiar with the search said he might have been offered the job had Carmen Farina, a 70-year-old veteran educator and longtime adviser, not come out of retirement for it. Starr was offered the No. 2 spot in the department, with the understanding that he would become chancellor within a few years, but he declined it, according to several people familiar with details of the search who spoke anonymously because of its political sensitivity.

...

Duncan spoke negatively about Starr to de Blasio in a discussion about a number of candidates, people familiar with the discussions said. Duncan did not return phone calls seeking comment. Duncan spokesman Massie Ritsch, asked about Duncan’s conversations about the chancellorship and his objections to Starr, said he “declined to comment on private conversations between the mayor and secretary.”

“Secretary Duncan looks forward to working with Mayor de Blasio, Chancellor Farina and their team,” Ritsch said in a statement. “He wants to do whatever he can to support continued progress for students in New York City.”
...
Several people familiar with the New York selection process said that Jim Shelton, the assistant deputy secretary of education for innovation and improvement, also expressed to de Blasio’s team that he opposed Starr, although he was not speaking for the department or for Duncan. Shelton, asked about his comments, said in an e-mail that he did have conversations about the chancellor selection process, but Shelton did not answer specific questions relating to Starr.

“I have a number of decades old relationships in New York and when asked by friends and former colleagues I shared my personal impressions on the unique demands of the Chancellor role and at times specific candidates,” Shelton wrote. “I am excited to work with and support Carmen Farina, whose prior experience working in New York will surely be an advantage as she takes the helm of one of the country’s most complex and diverse school systems.”

De Blasio could not be reached for comment.

It is unclear whether Duncan’s views had any effect on the outcome of de Blasio’s search, but it is unusual for a U.S. education secretary to get involved in the selection of a district school superintendent.

Outrageous, but not a surprise coming from the heavy-handed Obama administration.

What this episode means is that the White House, the USDOE and education reformers at large are worried that New York City might lead the charge to move away from test-centric Obama/Duncan/Gates-style reforms and are going to do everything in their power to make sure it doesn't happen.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Senate Democrats Push For Federal Guidelines On "Student Achievement," Teacher Evals Tied To Test Scores

Tom Harkin doing the bidding of Barack Obama and Arne Duncan:

Until recently, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate education committee, and Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, the panel's top Republican, were in talks to see if there was any chance of getting a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the long-stalled No Child Left Behind Act together in this Congress. But now it's looking like the two lawmakers were unable to resolve fundamental disagreements, making an already very tough reauthorization process that much harder.

The reason: philosophical differences on a couple of key areas that scuttled the chance at bipartisanship between the chairman and ranking member, advocates and congressional aides say. Perhaps the biggest area of disagreement? Harkin would like to see states set goals for student achievement as they now must under the NCLB waivers granted by the U.S. Department of Education. (That's a big change from legislation he supported in the previous Congress.) Meanwhile, Alexander sees that as too much federal intrusion, advocates say.

In including a requirement that states set student-achievement goals in the bill, Harkin is hoping that he can help build on the momentum of the waivers, which are now in place in 34 states and the District of Columbia, a Senate Democratic aide said. The administration had outlined the criteria for the waivers when the committee considered the bill back in 2011, but states hadn't yet applied.

...

Back in 2011, the Senate education committee approved a bill, which Alexander reluctantly supported, that essentially didn't include achievement targets—and got absolutely clobbered by business groups and the civil rights community, including groups representing students in special education, who have long seen Harkin as a champion.

Goals were a sensitive issue even during committee consideration of the bill. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., introduced an amendment that would have called for states to set goals for student achievement that are similar to the parameters spelled out in the administration's ESEA waivers. But he then withdrew it so the bill could move forward without dealing with the super-sticky issue.
What's more, the still-under-discussion measure will likely call for states to create teacher evaluation systems based in part on student achievement, as they must now under the waivers. The goal will be to bolster teacher professional development, the Democratic aide said. The focus will be on supporting professionals in the classroom with the meaningful feedback and targeted professional development they need, the aide added.

Teacher evaluation was another major sticking point last time. When the Harkin bill was first introduced as a draft in 2011, it included a provision that would have required states and districts to craft teacher-evaluation systems based in part on student achievement. But Republicans (including Alexander) saw that provision as too much of a federal intrusion and worked to get the language out of the bill. Needless to say, the National Education Association was pretty happy about that development, and Democrats on the committee were spared from having to choose between supporting the NEA and voting with Harkin and the administration. This is an issue to watch again this time around. 

Obama and Duncan are trying to keep their test-based teacher evaluations/RttT/Common Core juggernaut going.

But this bill, even if it gets out of the Senate (which is unlikely), isn't going anywhere in the House.

I voted for Obama the first time around and still regret that vote.

Every time I see his latest education proposal, I regret that vote more and more.

It is clear that Obama and Duncan are never going to walk away from their test-based teacher evaluations/RttT/Comon Core policies.

These are their signature policies and they are going to remain with them until the bitter end.