Providence is in the red yet pays a finder’s fee to Teach for America


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

teach-for-america-logoAccording to City Hall, Providence has a major budget crisis to face, meaning the municipality needs to tighten its belt. But if this is true, why are we paying a finder’s fee to Teach for America, the corporately-backed nonprofit that is pumping the nation’s schools full of under-trained teachers who do serious damage to the learning experience of the student while bashing the teacher unions and privatizing schools?

The Rhode Island Teach for America offices are located at 1 Western Exchange Center, Suite 101, 67 Cedar Street in Providence. Their impact on Providence schools is shown to be nothing but detrimental in a recent report filed by Jaisal Noor of The Real News Network wherein he speaks to education scholar and TFA alumnus T. Jameson Brewer, the co-editor of Teach For America Counter-Narratives: Alumni Speak Up and Speak Out who has just completed a study of TFA that was the subject of an interview by Glen Ford of Black Agenda Report we previously referred to in our report on City Year Rhode Island. One quote that seems particularly relevant to the allegedly cash-strapped Providence is the following:

[I]n most cases if you have the prospect of filling a single teaching position with either a Teach For America corps member or equally experienced, or rather inexperienced, non-TFA teacher, it’s actually more expensive to fill that position with Teach For America on the front end, because TFA requires non-refundable finder’s fees, right, that range anywhere between $2,000-5,000 per corps member per year. And even if the corps member quits, the district is still obligated to pay the rest of that finder’s fee to Teach For America. [Emphasis added.]

Between Teach for America and City Year alone, we are talking about municipal expenditures that are costing the city millions of dollars that it allegedly does not have. At a time when the social safety net is most precarious why is Jorge Elorza giving away freebies?

The popular media narrative of the 2014 Providence mayoral election was that the East Side threw support behind Elorza and delivered him the vote to prevent a return to power for Vincent “Buddy” Cianci. But the point not raised is that the East Side is an enclave of private sector NGO-industrial complex policy wonks that support corporate school deform efforts, including the Democratic Party finishing school of neoliberalism known as Brown University’s School of Government. Perhaps the election narrative needs to be revisited.

kaGh5_patreon_name_and_message

What is ‘competency based education’?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

kids on computersSomething sinister has been happening to public education in America for the last decade or more. Billionaires such as Bill Gates, Eli Broad, and the Walton family have poured their fortunes into remaking our public schools and our public school students into what they envision will be good for multi-national corporations such as Pearson, Microsoft, McKinsey, and IBM. We saw this clearly with the Common Core State Standards and accompanying testing, with the bulk of the funding for the drafting, promoting, and implementing of the Common Core coming from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Now that there has been an (unexpected?) hue and cry about the over-testing of our students, here comes the antidote: competency/proficiency based education, aka personalization, aka student-centered education, and community partnerships. While this sounds on the surface like a welcome relief to the one-size-fits-all standardization of curricula and high-stakes standardized testing, it comes with its own pitfalls.

A perusal of the new “RI Strategic Plan for Public Education: 2015-2020” (http://media.ride.ri.gov/BOE/BOE_Meeting_102815/Encl6a.pdf), recently approved by the RI Board of Education, turns up a number of appealing-sounding but troubling buzzwords: personalized instruction, one-to-one computer technology, blended learning, online learning, community partners outside of the school, and particularly, proficiency-based instruction and assessment. In an ideal world, these buzzwords could be a refreshing approach to teaching and learning in a dazzling world of opportunity through technological advances. Very unfortunately, we do not live in an ideal world.

We need only look as far as the state of Maine to see what the ugly reality of competency/proficiency based education looks like in real schools with real students and teachers. Maine has plunged ahead with this agenda, helped along with money from the Nellie Mae Education Foundation (a grantee of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation), though there is no research (peer-reviewed or otherwise) that justifies transforming teaching and learning into a digital/online enterprise. Emily Kennedy Talmage is a teacher in Maine who has researched the roots of this agenda and written extensively about it in her blog, and it is unnerving. (http://emilytalmage.com/2015/04/26/save-maine-schools/) My take is that the PR for so-called proficiency based, personalized learning is riddled with code words that translate into outsourcing education to ed-tech vendors and “community partners,” marginalizing classroom teachers, holding students accountable to pre-determined, inappropriate standards (Common Core or Core-like), not allowing them to progress until they have achieved “mastery” of these inappropriate standards, feeding them game-like academic programs that foster zombie cognitive processing rather than real learning, and using extrinsic motivation like rewards and badges, all the while scooping up reams of sensitive data that will go who knows where and be used for who knows what.

While co-opting the language of the Civil Rights Movement with terms such as Equity and Opportunity, those pushing this digital innovation agenda are not sending their children to this brave new educational world. Private school students will still have small classes valuing interaction between teachers and students and students with peers, and rich curricula with the arts, languages, history, and social studies. Other people’s children will be seated at computer terminals, isolated from each other, eyes focused (or not) on screens which will be adjusted second by second to their keystrokes, the data siphoned off into cyber-space. (By the way, the federal Department of Education, the supposedly secure place where all public school students’ personally identifiable information will be channeled via the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems, recently received a very poor grade for data security from the Office of the Inspector General.)

We need to ask Cui bono? Is this rush to digital learning truly for the benefit of the overwhelming majority of the children in America who attend public schools? Or is it a bonanza for the hedge funders and edtech entrepreneurs who will rake in an exorbitant amount of money directly or indirectly on learning modules of dubious quality?

School voucher bill wording lifted from ALEC model legislation


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

SPN_exposed_redBefore the ink was dry on the highlights of the conference Transforming and Democratizing Public Education: An Activist Summit, Rhode Islanders concerned about the survival of public education were confronted with a threat from the General Assembly.

Senate bill 607, benignly titled THE BRIGHT TODAY SCHOLARSHIP AND OPEN ENROLLMENT EDUCATION ACT, was heard in the Senate Education Committee on May 20, and the companion bill (H 5790) was heard in the House Finance Committee on May 27. This egregious bill would provide state education tax dollars to any family in Rhode Island that believes their child would benefit from any other school than the one designated by their residence—any other public school in or out of their district, a private school, religious school, online virtual school, or home school. The scholarship that the family could obtain would have a cap of $6,000 (except for special needs students), but would be awarded according to a sliding scale of family income.

All families deserve fully funded and resourced neighborhood public schools with well-prepared and experienced teachers who make teaching their career. Families who choose to do so certainly have the option to send their children to private schools, religious schools, or to home school their children. But the overwhelming number of children attend public schools. Public schooling, though beset with many problems, is the foundation of a just and civil society. Public schools are overseen by local school boards, whose actions and decisions are accountable to the public. It is antithetical to our shared values to have public money siphoned off to private schools, particularly if the schools are religious in nature. Providing “scholarships” for students to attend non-public schools will wreak havoc on the public system, particularly at a time when public schools are already under assault from the neoliberal, free-market approach to schooling, with the expansion of charter schools, incessant standardized testing, and evaluating and sanctioning students, teachers, and schools by test scores on invalid standardized tests such as the PARCC.

The bill includes “scholarships” for students to participate in virtual, online schools, which have had an abysmal record in other states. This bill also includes “scholarships” for students with special needs. These students are entitled to a free and appropriate PUBLIC education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Unfortunately, under-resourced public schools have not always provided the full range of supports that these students need and deserve. Sending them to private schools that likely do not have the resources to meet the plethora of diverse needs of students with learning challenges will make this situation worse.

This bill is being heavily supported and promoted by the RI Center for Freedom and Prosperity. This group has made a number of rosy claims about the bill’s benefits not only to families but also to taxpayers and to public schools. I have read some of their reports and did not see any evidence that they have been peer-reviewed or critiqued by qualified authorities. The impetus stems from the Milton Friedman ideology of free-market/privatization reforms that have been devastating to education in other countries. Further, a few minutes of Googling turns up the undeniable fact that parts of this bill have been lifted almost word for word from “model bills” from the playbook of the American Legislative Exchange Council, also known as ALEC.

For those who are unaware of ALEC, this insidious group promotes the collusion of legislators and corporate moguls to write model legislation to be stealthily introduced into state houses across the country. This goes against the most fundamental rights of Americans to live in a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. Please see this great clip from an Atlanta, GA TV station that exposes how ALEC operates:

As evidence of ALEC’s influence on the wording of this bill, please check this link.  If you scroll down the list of “Bills Affecting Americans’ Rights to a Public Education,” you will see two bills that are represented in the language of the RI bills. The first is 2D16 The Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act Part 1 Exposed. The second is 2D21 The Special Needs Scholarship Program Act Exposed. The yellow highlights that you will see are in the original from ALEC Exposed, provided by the Center for Media and Democracy.

During the Senate Hearing, Senator Sheehan clearly stated the reason that I believe proves that this bill needs to die in committee: This bill is for the purpose of the privatization of public schools, he said.

How to end corporate education reform


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

education civil rightMark your calendars! An event May 16 will address the shameful state of public education that is due not to bad teachers and low expectations, but to a decades long, relentless regime of standardized curricula and incessant testing in order to measure, rank, and sort children for a new world order amenable to manipulation by corporate interests.

The struggle to wrestle power out of the hands of the billionaire technocrats who have a dystopian vision for public schools is ongoing and gaining steam. Those who are determined to transform and democratize public education for the benefit of our children, our schools, our communities, and our democracy have a herculean task ahead of us.

The maxim attributed to Gandhi comes to mind: First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win! True public education advocates are now engaged in fighting against the faux-reformers, those who use their money, power, and influence to make the lives of children and teachers miserable in the name of lifting all boats and preparing all children for their slot in the glorious technocratic future – a future that exacerbates the obscene wealth inequality in the United States of America.

braveheartRhode Island as well as states across the country have been witnessing the awakening of the group of people who have the most personal stake in the outcome of public education—the parents. As parents become informed about the true nature of the education reforms of the Common Core State (sic) [Stealth] Standards and the incessant testing (PARCC here in RI, SBAC in other states), as they see the poor quality of the class work and home assignments that their children come home with, compared to the enriching materials and activities their older children had in the past, they know something is terribly amiss. Opting their children out of the PARCC is the first and best strategy for now to bring attention to the flaws with the Common Core/PARCC agenda, as well as to deny the state and numerous ed tech companies the data that would flow from this test.

Now that Opting Out/Refusing is catching on, thanks to the tremendous work of many education activists doing the research and informing the public, the federal DoE and RIDE are scratching their heads and figuring out vindictive ways to squash this rebellion that after all, upsets their apple cart and stands to lose money for global corporations like Pear$on. Imagine—threatening to lower the rating of a school because more than 5% of the parents determine that the PARCC is counter-productive for their children and Opt them out. These parents should be applauded for engaging in their child’s education and using the means at their disposal to make a strong statement about a policy that is wrong for children, wrong for teachers, and wrong for communities.

The Coalition to Defend Public Education (Providence) and the SouthEast MA/RI Coalition to Save Our Schools will be hosting an education activist summit: Transforming and Democratizing Public Education on May 16 at the Southside Cultural Center, 393 Broad Street in Providence from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. (lunch included!) There will be no expert presentations, though the activists in attendance will come with tremendous expertise and drive. This event will begin with a sharing of struggles and successes among parent, teacher, and community activists discussing the following topics:

  • Testing refusal – empowering curriculum
  • Parent Organizing/ Communities of Color
  • Charter schools
  • Teachers unions
  • Student organizing
  • Higher education

The afternoon session will focus on a vision for the future—brainstorming on strategies to transform and democratize our public education system so that it truly provides the well-rounded, well-researched curriculum and inspiring environment that our children so desperately need and deserve, and our democracy depends upon. Come join us and be a part of those bravely standing up to the corporate education juggernaut that reduces and dehumanizes unique human beings to a single digit.

Pro PARCC post in Gist memo is propaganda piece


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
gist test cartoon
by Wendy Holmes

In her recent field memo of April 3, 2015 Commissioner Gist took the unusual step of quoting an entire blog post.

“I’m a mom,” it begins. “And the happiness of my children, now and in the future as they go on to start careers and families of their own, is on my mind all the time.”

The post was written by a mother from Florida who is in support of the Common Core State Standards and the accompanying testing. She is also an attorney and president & CEO of the Multicultural Education Alliance.

The blog on which it appeared is put out by the Foundation for Excellence in Education, a Jeb Bush creation, which states on its website: “The 21st century economy is the most competitive in world history. It is an economy that requires a growing number of educated and skilled workers. Yet, on international assessments, American students rank 21st in science and 26th in math, behind their peers in countries like Singapore, Japan and Canada. We need to reverse this trend if America is to continue its dominant role.”

In other words, the goal of education is to provide a workforce with the skills to meet the needs of the global corporate economy and maintain America in a dominant world position. Does this goal resonate with most parents of preK-12 students?

The website for the EdFly blog has as its web address ExcelinEd.org. According to the 2014 donor page for ExcelinEd, those at the top of the donor list include (no surprises here):

Greater than $1,000,000:

  • Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust
  • Walton Family Foundation

Between $500,001 and $1,000,000:

  • Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
  • GE Foundation
  • News Corporation
  • Charles & Helen Schwab Foundation

Between $250,0001 and $500,000:

  • Laura and John Arnold Foundation
  • Bloomberg Philanthropies

Between $100,001 and $250,000:

  • Eli & Edythe Broad Foundatio
  • Jeb Bush & Associates

It is no coincidence that Commissioner Gist herself as a Chief for Change, a group also created by Jeb Bush, would choose this particular blog post to send to all RI superintendents. That she has used her position of authority to single out this one blog post, which can reasonably be assumed to be propaganda for the position she has espoused since assuming the role of commissioner, is very unfortunate and does a disservice to the hundreds of RI parents and other concerned citizens who have researched the Common Core and PARCC testing in depth and decided they are not in the best interests of our children.

While it is true that many prominent civil rights groups, including the National Council of La Raza, do support the allegedly “rigorous” Common Core Standards and testing for accountability of students, teachers, and schools, one can only wonder whether the members of these groups have confronted the reality of the harm this agenda is actually having on traditionally under-served children and youth. It is understandable that those concerned about children of color, children from diverse ethnic and linguistic backgrounds, children with special learning needs, and children living in poverty, should be alarmed by the very real lack of advancement of many of these children in the public schools.

This is a complex issue and needs to be addressed comprehensively. The starving of financial resources to the schools that serve these children is one culprit. The steady diet of reading and math test prep for the past dozen years of NCLB is another. For an excellent and thorough explanation of why civil rights advocates should reject market-based (i.e. corporate pushed) reforms, please read “Why People of Color Must Reject Market- oriented Education Reforms: A Compilation of the Evidence” by United Opt Out National.

Commissioner Gist continues to defend her stance on the Common Core Standards and PARCC testing, and chooses not to truly listen to the voluminous concerns that have been raised by parents, teachers, and administrators both here in RI and across the country.

Even so, the Opt Out movement is growing. Parents who have become aware of the big picture of the ramifications of the full corporate agenda for public education in America will continue to stand up for their children and their children’s future by rejecting the scripted learning of the Common Core and the meaningless accountability of the PARCC testing that drain public funds and jeopardize children’s full flowering as unique members of a diverse society.

America does not need cohorts of test-takers to march into corporate slots for the sake of global competitiveness. America needs self-actualized adults with civic-mindedness and the knowledge and ingenuity to tackle the very real challenges we all face. The Common Core rhetoric of fostering critical thinking and problem-solving is Orwellian double-speak, not reality.

Hopefully the general public will wake up to this before it is too late. Will the Commissioner take the time from her double duties in RI and in Tulsa to respond?

Coming soon: charter schools for the unvaccinated


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

No shots, no problemIt’s inevitable. I am anticipating that one of the many shrewd companies in the “education reform” business will roll out a chain of charter schools for unvaccinated kids.

Why should parents have to produce proof of immunization before their little darlings are admitted to public school when they have the “freedom of choice” to send them to a school more consistent with their beliefs.

If ever there were two “movements” that are destined for merger, it’s the anti-vaxxers and the school choice mobs.

They are linked by the belief that personal “choice,” even when it is not justified by facts or logic, trumps the public interest. They are also linked by total indifference to the costs and consequences their choices have on everyone else.

Each group claims the moral high ground, flying the banner of “freedom of choice.” Yet what they really want is the privilege of making their choice without consequence or cost to themselves. They expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.

This is especially obvious in the so-called “school choice” issue being debated by some in Rhode Island right now. School choice adherents talk as if they don’t already have a choice when in fact they do. For as long as we have had public schools, we have also had private and religious schools.

When I was a child in the 1950s and 60s, my parents wanted me to go to Catholic school, and I did because they had the right to choose, doing twelve years of hard time under the tutelage of nuns and later, the Brothers of the Sacred Heart.

In those days, the parish school didn’t charge for the lower grades, but long-gone Sacred Heart Academy in Central Falls did charge tuition. Because of my parents’ choice, I ended up putting up my earnings from paper routes, bussing tables at local bingo halls and clerking at the local drugstore into my tuition.

I can’t say whether my parents’ choice was the right one or the wrong one, but I do know they made it. And they made it knowing there were going to be costs and consequences.

It’s no different today. Parents still have the same freedom of choice. They can even choose to home school their kids. But the real question behind “school choice” is not the choice itself, but who pays for it.

Chariho vs. charters

Where I live, the Chariho School District (Charlestown, Richmond and Hopkinton) has been in a long-running battle with the Kingston Hill Academy (KHA), refusing to pay to send Chariho students there because Chariho believes KHA cherry-picks students and sends special needs kids back to Chariho. Reliable sources have told me that this has been a long-standing problem at KHA.

Chariho Superintendent Barry Ricci escalated his battle when he sought new legislation in the General Assembly that would allow school districts to refuse to pay charter schools when those charter schools do not meet or exceed the standard of education provided at Chariho.

This attempt – which Superintendent Ricci told me in a January 6 e-mail he will not repeat – stirred up a firestorm from the “school choice” people, including the conservative Charlestown Citizens Alliance that has controlled Charlestown since 2008.

As amazing as it seems, these charter advocates were able to argue with a straight face that their “right to choose” should be honored with taxpayer money, even if it pays for an inferior education. After all, I suppose, “school choice” includes the right to make terrible choices.

Chariho’s fight with Kingston Hill goes back at least to 2009 when, according to a sworn statement by Superintendent Ricci, KHA’s principal admitted that KHA would not spend the money to hire a physical therapist and thus would not accept handicapped students whose education plan included physical therapy.

Later, Superintendent Ricci noted there is no sworn statement from KHA contradicting Ricci’s assertion. Click here to read the materials Superintendent Ricci submitted to the state.

Ricci got no sympathy or relief from soon-to-be ex-RI Education Commissioner Deborah Gist. In fact, Gist ruled in favor of Kingston Hill three times. Gist appointed her General Counsel David Abbott to the role of “special visitor” to examine the validity of Ricci’s charges against KHA.

Abbott’s report, submitted to Gist on October 27, 2014, went badly for Ricci. Click here to read that report.

Abbott reported no evidence to support the claims Ricci had made of earlier discrimination by KHA against disabled children, noting that even if he did, “none of the three allegations is dispositive,” given the age of the incidents. Abbott reports that he finds KHA to be currently in compliance with the law.

Having lost his fight with Kingston Hill, Superintendent Ricci asked to Chariho School Committee to add $53,745 to the upcoming year’s budget to pay for five more kids to go to Kingston Hill.

Even though Ricci lost his battle with KHA when charter school fan Deborah Gist ruled against him and when he couldn’t come up with parents willing to speak up about KHA discrimination.

But that is hardly a vindication for KHA – the verdict is not exactly one of “not guilty,” but more like “not proven.” Nor is it a vindication of charter schools.

Post-Gist public education

Public education is one of the cornerstones of our civil society. We need the best possible public schools we can create. Charter schools only distract attention and resources away from that critical mission. Casting the issue as “school choice” panders to the selfish few who want the rest of us to pay for their personal preferences.

Even though Gist will be leaving Rhode Island soon to take over as school chief in Tulsa, Oklahoma, the odds are that Gov. Gina Raimondo will appoint a new state education commissioner who is even more enraptured with charter schools.

I say that because Raimondo is married to one of the key corporate “education reform” national players, Andy Moffitt. Her campaign was funded in large part by corporate “reformers.” Her deputy, Lieutenant Governor Dan McKee, has been most famous for his fervent push for “mayoral academy” charter schools. Finally, Raimondo has appointed Stefan Pryor to head the state Commerce Department after Pryor’s disastrous tenure as Connecticut Education head where there were charter school scandals all across the state.

Yes, I’m afraid charter schools are about to undergo a boom in Rhode Island with such as cast of characters running the state.

Public school superintendents have made the point repeatedly that charter schools add an element of unpredictability that make it hard to create budgets, hire staff and maintain the proper infrastructure, and to do that knowing that you must serve all students, including all those who have special needs.

If “school choice” parents as these want a school that offers programs that tickle their fancy, then fine – send your kid there, but with your own money. If you want a school that doesn’t require you to present proof that your kids have had all their shots, then fine – send your kids to “Vaxless Academy” but with your own money, And keep those kids aways from everybody else.

Gist failed on ed reform agenda; B+ for funding formula


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

gistDeborah Gist came to Rhode Island guns blazing. She now seems destined to head west, to her hometown in the heartland. But she isn’t exactly riding off into the sunset. Gist is leaving her high-profile post as the state commissioner of education to become the superintendent of schools in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Recruited by union-bashers, Gist came to Rhode Island to take on the so-called status quo. And took it on she did. She supported mass teacher firings, she pushed hard for more charter schools and a new teacher evaluation system and she defended rigorously high stakes testing. A protege of Michelle Rhee, a student of Eli Broad and a member of Jeb Bush’s Chiefs for Change, Gist is a card-carrying member of the anti-union, so-called education reform movement.

Early in her tenure she seemed somewhat unstoppable. In 2010, she was named to Time magazine’s 100 most influential people in the world list – how many Tulsa school district employees can say that? But while the world celebrated her, she never made many allies locally. Teachers, bureaucrats and colleagues – not just labor unions – never warmed up to her and even upper management at RIDE often complained quietly about her stern management style as rank and file teachers did so more publicly.

Ultimately, of these four ed reform objectives, only charter schools flourished under Gist. There were 13 in 2009 and now there are 24 in Rhode Island. Mass teacher firings, as Angel Taveras learned the hard way, became a third rail in Rhode Island politics. High stakes tests were slated to be implemented last year, an initiative put into place before Gist came to RI, and during her tenure they were delayed several more years in spite of her strong support. Her U Penn doctoral thesis was based on her efforts to implement a statewide teacher evaluation system in Rhode Island, but like high stakes graduation requirements, this too was blocked by the General Assembly.

On the issues that seemed to matter most to Gist, she did not fare well. But aside from these high-profile issues, public education got a lot better during Deborah Gist’s time in Rhode Island. As much as she bears responsibility for coming up short on the ed reform agenda, she presided over much positive progressive change during her tenure.

It was under her direction that Rhode Island implemented its first ever statewide education funding formula. This reduced dramatically the politics legislative leadership was able to place on state education aid and replaced it with a more need-based system. Providence, Pawtucket and Woonsocket all got significantly more money as a result, though not enough to stave off a lawsuit from Pawtucket and Woonsocket insisting that the formula still was not equitable. It is the lack of resources in urban schools districts that plague public education in Rhode Island, not a plethora of benefits for teachers. And a fair, needs-based funding formula is the single biggest thing that can be done to reverse this inequity.

There’s plenty of evidence to suggest it’s working. Public education in Rhode Island became no less political under Gist’s leadership and organized labor didn’t seem to lose much power, but schooling did seem to become more effective for the poorest district’s in the state during her tenure.

Graduation rates increased by 25 percent in Central Falls and 24 percent in Pawtucket from 2009 to 2013; statewide all districts improved 5 percent during Gist’s time in Rhode Island. The percentage of new CCRI students who need remedial help because they didn’t know what they were supposed to have learned in high school dropped from 74 percent of all recent RI high school grads in the fall of 2009 to a much lower 62 percent in the fall of 2014.

The statewide graduation rate was 76 percent five years ago and last year 81 percent students graduated. The dropout rate was 14 percent five years ago and now its 8 percent. Both metrics – which ought be very important to progressive education activists, improved 5 percent during Gist’s tenure. The dropout rate among Black students fell 6.5 percent from 18 percent to 11.5 percent and the dropout rate for Latino students dropped 10 percent from 23 percent to 13 percent.

Deborah Gist failed at many of the ed reform initiatives she came to Rhode Island to accomplish. But in the process, she managed to preside over some successful progressive reform in that the state’s struggling urban school districts are doing better than they were before she got here.

Gist declined to be interviewed for this post, but the facts and figures were provided by RIDE.

About Andy Moffit


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Both candidates for governor are enthusiastic about the union of education and business. One of Republican Allan Fung’s proposals is to have a “Jobs and Education Cabinet” in which business and education leaders would work together to make sure that graduating students are employable, while Democrat Gina Raimondo would work from a different angle, concentrating on community college job training programs.

moffit-raimondoAnother difference between the two is that Raimondo has an expert coach in her corner. Her husband Andy Moffit is deeply involved in the business of education reform.

Moffit is a Senior Practice Expert and co-founder of the Global Education Practice at McKinsey & Company— consultants to CEOs, governments, companies, national foundations, and non-profits. He taught for Teach for America for two years, studied education law and policy at Oxford and Yale, and served on the board of Jonah Edelman’s Stand for Children.

In terms of corporate education reform, one prominent McKinsey-watcher and follow-the-money researcher puts the firm in a class by itself:

“They have been the leaders in crafting the dominant narrative of an education crisis for decades, and now deeply entrenched in education reform policies, they are reaping the financial and political benefits of marketing solutions to the problems they manufactured in the first place.”

Lacking a genuine crisis, various crisis-mongering claims about the failure of American schools will do, especially since these are generally supported by Arne Duncan’s Department of Education and widely publicized by the well-funded reform advocacy groups that promote charter school choice as an alternative to traditional public school education. McKinsey & Company are masters of packaging crises in high-profile reports, which they “launch” with prominent guest speakers and great fanfare. One education example is “How the world’s best school systems keep getting better” (2010) is focused on PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) test scores and what can be learned from the high scorers. Though not an author, Andy Moffit was credited for his work on this while Arne Duncan and Rhode Island’s Deborah Gist were panelists at its “launch.”

Along with Paul Kihn and Sir Michael Barber, Moffit was one of three authors of “Deliverology 101: A Field Guide for Educational Leaders” – a how-to-get-things-done manual for school districts and systems based on the management techniques Barber developed for British Prime Minister Tony Blair (1997-2007). Barber, former McKinsey Partner and head of their Global Education Practice, is now the chief education advisor for Pearson’s—the international giant of testing and educational materials and the preeminent beneficiary of the current testing mania. Paul Kihn left McKinsey’s in 2012 to serve as William Hite’s deputy superintendent in the Philadelphia school district, a position he held during the recent tumult of school closings, draconian budget cuts, and union wars, while Moffit has remained with McKinsey.

As Raimondo and Fung speak of getting business and education together, it is clear to those of us with an eye on the corporate reform movement that they are already together. It is naïve or disingenuous to discuss educational policy without dealing with the profit motive. Big data and standardized tests are at the core of an ever-expanding industry rife with new start-ups, collaborations, and consultations involving tests, testing materials, hard-ware and soft-ware, real estate, no-bid contracts, tax benefits, and venture philanthropy. Budget cuts to public education, combined with privatization, union-busting and the deregulation of schools and teaching credentials are the order of the day.

It would be interesting to know specifically which consulting projects Moffit worked on for McKinsey over the years but there is surprisingly little about him on McKinsey sites. Although he was nominated to serve on the R.I. Board of Regents by ex-Governor Carcieri, that was when the General Assembly was no longer approving such nominations. He withdrew his name after Chafee was elected, apparently because of differences in views. He withdrew from the controversial Stand for Children board very quietly, without comment, and he has kept a low profile in both Raimondo campaigns.

We know more about Raimondo’s deceased father than her husband. Of course because Moffit makes a living as an education consultant/reformer, supporting various Obama/Duncan initiatives, reorganizing urban school systems, and developing sustainability plans for the new Common Core tests, does not mean that Raimondo has the same opinions. But how would we know? Has she ever been asked?

The curious case of the missing U. Penn dissertation


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

proquest

Even though her publishing company says she is free to share his U Penn dissertation on teacher evaluations in Rhode Island, Commissioner of Education Deborah Gist, who based her research on her work here, said she won’t lift the embargo on her research.

“I have already spent more time on this than I have or care to spend,” Gist told me in an email today. “Figuring out how and when the embargo will be lifted and then making changes to the paperwork that I submitted to the university and ProQuest two years ago is a distraction from the work of improving educational opportunities for children in Rhode Island, which is what matters to me. My dissertation will be public when it is made public by those who currently hold the embargo.”

ProQuest, the publishing company used by the University of Pennsylvania to publish dissertations, said Gist can release the embargo, or her own version, if she likes.

“If she wanted to lift it,” said ProQuest customer service representative Sara Schreiber, “we would gladly do that.”

Schreiber added, “It’s her work. We are just the publishing company. We don’t own it or have any copyright to it.”

Teachers and union leaders have renewed a call for Gist to release her dissertation – “An Ocean State Voyage: A Leadership Case Study of Creating an Evaluation System with, and for, Teachers” – which she based on her working relationship with teachers implementing performance evaluations.

Those evaluations were pared back legislatively this year and friction about the issue became public when this website published a heated email exchange between Gist and North Kingstown state Senator James Sheehan, a high school teacher, who has persistently called for her to release the dissertation.

“You are mistaken in your understanding of the process,” Gist said to Sheehan in one of the emails. “I apologize for any confusion, but to be very clear I did not implement nor can I end the embargo. That action was taken by ProQuest, the organization that manages dissertations for the University of Pennsylvania. Contrary to what you stated, it is not ‘self imposed.'”

Later in the exchange, Sheehan said, “I am weary of the run-around and verbal obfuscations. Unfortunately, this request is generally representative of your leadership in my experience. I wish you well. But, I look forward to new leadership with the incoming governor.”

ProQuest said the dissertation would be published on September 9, 2015, unless Gist requests the embargo be extended.

Gist completed her doctorate in education in August of 2012, and requested a two year embargo, according to ProQuest. But they did not receive her dissertation until September 2013, according to Schreiber. Since June of 2013, Wendy Holmes, a URI professor emeritus in Art History and education activist, has been trying to read Gist’s research. In November 2013, she authored this post.

Tu-Quyen Nguyen, a graduate student registrar at U Penn, wrote in a June 21013 email in June to Holmes that Gist’s dissertation made it to the publisher a year late. He wrote:

Unfortunately, Deborah’s dissertation was mailed in a box that was never received by ProQuest. I discovered this in January 2013 when another student inquired about their dissertation publishing. I have notified the affected students and am working with ProQuest to have the missing dissertation re-submitted to ProQuest ASAP.

In order to resubmit the dissertations to ProQuest, affected students need to complete the publication agreement form again so that I can resubmit everything to ProQuest. I had initially notified Deborah in January 2013 by sending an email to her school email (the only email address we have on file for her), which, I found out yesterday from her program that she no longer uses. The program coordinator, Martha Williams, is now working with Deborah to submit the required publication agreement forms so that we can resubmit everything.

The reason why her dissertation is not available at the Penn VanPelt Library is because that copy is currently on my desk waiting for microfilm from ProQuest.

She also wrote: “Dr. Deborah Gist’s dissertation was successfully submitted to ProQuest on June 20th 2013,” two months prior to when ProQuest said they received it.

Nick Okrent, a librarian at the Van Pelt library at U Penn said in a separate June, 2013 email to Holmes that dissertation embargoes are “fairly common.”

“Many dissertations at Penn are currently under embargo,” he wrote in the email. “Some people are worried that making their dissertation public will hurt their chances of using their dissertation as a first book. Others are worried about patentable discoveries or privacy issues. One can speculate about the reasons for requesting an embargo, but the only way to ascertain the real reason is to ask the author of the dissertation.”

In November, 2013, Gist told RI Future she requested the embargo because she was having “hard time writing” about the incidents relating to her work between 2009 and 2011. An academic adviser suggested a public embargo might alleviate immediate ramifications of her research.

“And indeed it did help me write about my work,” she said.

Teacher group says no to NECAP as grad requirement


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

necapThe Rhode Island Teachers Advisory Council has recommended to the Board of Education that it halt its high stakes test graduation requirement policy.

“Assessments, such as NECAP, should not be used as a graduation requirement because such assessments have not been proven valid and reliable for high stakes purposes such as promotion and graduation decisions,” the Council said in a new report. “Research has also shown that these tests may narrow curriculum, and limit future educational opportunities, particularly for poor and minority students as well as English Language Learners and students with disabilities.”

The report says the NECAP test should not be used as a graduation requirement, and that its replacement – the PARCC – not be used either.

Standardized tests are designed to inform decision-making at the district level. For example, the NECAP scores from a fourth grade class in Pawtucket show that 80% of the students are either partially proficient or substantially below proficient in mathematics. The administration should be able to use the results as a “red flag” to show the need for a change in mathematic instruction for the next school year; i.e. an additional mathematics specialist/coach for the teaching team, smaller mathematic class sizes, longer mathematic classes, a change in curriculum or additional mathematic classes. When the needs are addressed at the district level our students will have access to the proper interventions leading to academic success later on.

The group was created by the legislature last year to improve communications between public school teachers and the state Board of Education.

The NECAPS and high stakes testing have been a scorching political hot potato in Rhode Island for more than a year. Teachers have long been opposed and last year Tom Sgouros wrote a blistering critique of the NECAP tests ability to measure individual performance. The Providence Student Union gave voice to student concerns and their Take the Test action showed a wide swath of politically-engaged adults how difficult the test can be. The legislature is considering weighing in on high stakes testing this session.

Through it all the Board of Education has declined to address the issue, even being chided by a judge for deliberating a request by the ACLU to discuss the matter in public.

The Board meets tonight and is not expected to have a formal debate on NECAPs in particular or high stakes tests in general.

Wingmen: NECAP, high-stakes tests, adequacy and accountability


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

wingmenWith so many students bombing the NECAP test, the state Senate moving forward with a bill that would put a moratorium on using the high stakes test as a graduation requirement and the Board of Education being chided by a court for having a discussion about all this in private, Justin Katz and I debate the matter on this week’s NBC 10 Wingmen.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

The NECAP standards aren’t that different than the Common Core standards


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

NECAP Logo Color Sm 100Elisabeth Harrison’s generally good story on the Common Core in Rhode Island contains this passage:

Marilyn Adams, an expert on early reading and a professor of cognitive and linguistic sciences at Brown University helped write the standards for early reading. She says the result is far from perfect, but she does believe it is better than almost any other set of state standards out there.

“And by the time you get to the upper grades, they’re stronger than anything out there, they really are,” Adams said. “In terms of literature, in terms of writing, in terms of thoughtfulness that’s expected to permeate the curriculum, they are intellectually stronger.”

When an expert’s comment is that a document is “far from perfect,” and then goes on to praise some of the parts furthest removed from her expertise, it is a bit of a tell.  While standards documents are extensive and tedious, individual sections are manageable, so let’s just look at the 11th and 12th grade reading literature standards in the Common Core and the current NECAP.  I’ve just shortened them up a bit by removing the number codes and parenthetical examples.

Common Core

  • Cite strong and thorough textual evidence to support analysis of what the text says explicitly as well as inferences drawn from the text, including determining where the text leaves matters uncertain.
  • Determine two or more themes or central ideas of a text and analyze their development over the course of the text, including how they interact and build on one another to produce a complex account; provide an objective summary of the text.
  • Analyze the impact of the author’s choices regarding how to develop and relate elements of a story or drama.
  • Determine the meaning of words and phrases as they are used in the text, including figurative and connotative meanings; analyze the impact of specific word choices on meaning and tone, including words with multiple meanings or language that is particularly fresh, engaging, or beautiful.
  • Analyze how an author’s choices concerning how to structure specific parts of a text contribute to its overall structure and meaning as well as its aesthetic impact.
  • Analyze a case in which grasping a point of view requires distinguishing what is directly stated in a text from what is really meant.
  • Demonstrate knowledge of eighteenth-, nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century foundational works of American literature, including how two or more texts from the same period treat similar themes or topics.
  • By the end of grade 12, read and comprehend literature, including stories, dramas, and poems, at the high end of the grades 11-CCR text complexity band independently and proficiently.

NECAP

Demonstrate initial understanding of elements of literary texts by…

  • Identifying, describing, or making logical predictions about character, setting, problem/solution, or plots/subplots, as appropriate to text; or identifying any significant changes in character, relationships, or setting over time; or identifying rising action, climax, or falling action
  • Paraphrasing or summarizing key ideas/plot, with major events sequenced, as appropriate to text
  • Generating questions before, during, and after reading to enhance/expand understanding and/or gain new information
  • Identifying the characteristics of a variety of types/genres of literary text
  • Identify literary devices as appropriate to genre

Analyze and interpret literary elements within or across texts, citing evidence where appropriate by…

  • Explaining and supporting logical predictions or logical outcomes
  • Examining characterization motivation, or interactions, citing thoughts, words, or actions that reveal character traits, motivations, or changes over time
  • Making inferences about cause/effect, internal or external conflicts, or the relationship among elements within text(s)
  • Explaining how the narrator’s point of view, or author’s style, or tone is evident and affects the reader’s interpretation or is supported throughout the text(s)
  • Demonstrating knowledge of author’s style or use of literary elements and devices to analyze literary works
  • Examining author’s style or use of literary devices to convey theme

Is one of these clearly intellectually stronger than the other?  Why should we think they would be, since the NECAP standards were published in 2006 and closely aligned to Achieve’s American Diploma Project standards, which were a direct precursor to the Common Core standards?  There was no breakthrough in our understanding of high school or collegiate English in the intervening three years.

In terms of writing, it depends on if you believe that being “intellectually stronger” requires an almost singular focus on one particular type of formal, logical, academic argument.  If you believe that writing for self-expression or aesthetic reasons makes you intellectually weak, you may agree with Dr. Adams and Common Core proponents.  On the whole, though, at the high school level Rhode Island’s old and new writing standards are more similar than different.

People don’t trust the Common Core because most of what what we have been told about the standards is obviously not true.  Some people are a bit confused about exactly which bits are the lies, but it is no wonder given the context.

Why it’s harder to get a better score on NECAP math retest


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Now that we are in the period of NECAP retesting for seniors who failed the test as juniors, it would be good to take a look at how the math test is constructed. Because that, after all, is the test most juniors failed in the first place. In the chart below you can see how students did, item-by-item, when they took the NECAP grade 11 math test in 2012.

2012 necap math test

The thing that shoots off the page is that the curve shown in the chart doesn’t look much like a normal curve. If you remember, a normal curve is described as a “bell shaped curve”, meaning it is symmetrical, highest in the middle, and slopes downward to the right and left. To see a bell curve, look at the reading test results shown below the math test: it’s not a perfect curve, being squished a little on the left, but at least it’s some version of a normal curve.

What we see above is definitely not symmetrical, nor does is slope downward to the right and to the left—to the right, yes, there is a long, straight slope, but to the left there is a precipitous drop. Altogether, it looks like a wedge with its thin edge to the right.

What does a wedge shape mean to a student taking the test? The numbers below the bars tell you how many students got a particular item correct and you can see that very few students only got item “1” correct. But thereafter, things change dramatically and the numbers of students getting very low numbers of items correct stacks up like 95 at rush hour. In fact, in the math test, the scores the most students got were between 7 and 11 items correct—out of a possible 64! More than 300 students only got 9 items correct.

What this tells us is that the math test has no lead-up of items that gradually get more difficult. Instead, it begins with difficult items and then makes each item more difficult, which accounts for the almost straight line of descending scores to the right. This design—hard items and then harder items—makes it difficult for students to do better without putting big resources into remediation efforts of doubtful long- term value.

Defenders of the NECAP math test say the problem is not the test but the education system—bad teachers, essentially. Part of their defense rests on showing questions that students who fail the test get wrong. Adults who see these items tend to solve them and think that of course most students should get them right. But this is a bogus exercise–the adults who see these items are never in the pressurized testing environment where students encounter them, so it should not be taken seriously as a defense of the math test.

Instead, look at the reading test, shown below. It’s hard to look at the two graphs and believe the reading and math test are constructed using the same design. In the reading test, the long tail to the left indicates a run-up of easier questions and, in this situation, improving performance between tests would be a much less difficult task. The remediation might not be any more educationally meaningful, but there would be less of it, it would be less difficult to provide, and it would divert much less time, energy and money. Indeed, that is what happened.

2012 necap math 2

Eva Mancuso stifles debate, wonders why debate went elsewhere


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

mancusoSusan Lusi, the superintendent of the Providence school department, has come out against the NECAP graduation requirement, and Eva Marie Mancuso, the chair of the Board of Education, has accused her ofgrandstanding” by presenting her concerns to the legislature rather than to her board.

Ha ha. This is funny because over the past year, Mancuso has maneuvered the Board and its agenda to shut down any possibility of real discussion of state testing policy. If Susan Lusi has chosen to use a different forum to make her concerns known, Mancuso might be the only person in Rhode Island who wonders why.

As I’ve written in the past, I have completely failed to find a forum in this state even for simply presenting a technical critique of the use of NECAP tests to anyone in authority. What’s remarkable about this is that a technical critique is more than just a statement of opinion.  It’s an opinion about how the future will unfold. What I observe is a natural consequence of arithmetic, statistics, and the choices of the test designers. The results are impervious to the attention they get. Whether anyone listens to the critique or not is irrelevant to whether or not its effects will be felt. To date, I have not heard or seen a single response to my critique that did not rely on purposefully misconstruing it, and it has been endorsed by people who know a lot more about testing than I do.

If my critique is correct, then lots of kids will flunk the NECAP test, pretty much no matter what. I don’t have to be heard at a Board of Education meeting for this to come true. If my critique is correct, then RIDE is wasting a lot of money forcing school districts to undermine the test they have spent so much money designing and promoting.  I don’t have to be on the radio for this to come true. If my critique is correct, performance on the NECAP test will not be well correlated with performance in college or a job. I don’t have to be called by a reporter for a response to RIDE’s many misstatements for this to come true.

These are serious consequences, with dollar signs attached to them. Not to mention thousands of damaged lives. Unfortunately, they are no longer just future possibilities. At this point, six hundred Providence students, along with over a thousand of their peers around the state, are at risk of not graduating from high school. To some extent their school systems have failed those kids, and to a large extent RIDE has failed them.

Policy makers have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their actions. Simply ignoring the possibility of bad consequences — precisely what has happened — is utterly irresponsible. Eva Marie Mancuso and Education Commissioner Deborah Gist, by doing everything they can to shut down debate over their policy, have demonstrated that they simply do not care about the consequences of their decisions. They claim to care about the students for which they are responsible, but belie those empty claims with their actions.

The rumors I hear are that Mancuso yearns to be appointed to the bench. Just the sort of judge we want: the kind who refuses to hear evidence. Gist wears her career ambitions on her sleeve, and they obviously extend far beyond our little state. Presumably advances in test scores will help her career after her contract here expires, and get her a lucrative book deal about how she turned around a little state. What are the lives and futures of a couple thousand kids when weighed against that kind of success and fame?

It is indeed true that having high school graduates who cannot do math is bad for our state. Is it not also true that having education policy makers who do not care about math is equally bad for our state?

Common Core, high stakes tests are under attack locally and nationally

ed deform flagAs a General Assembly committee considers today a bill that would suspend high stakes test graduation requirements and reevaluate Rhode Island’s commitment to Common Core, there is a debate raging both here and across the nation about whether such accountability measures account for more harm than good.

“The Common Core State Standards were hailed as the next game changer in education,” wrote NEA President Larry Purtill on this blog recently. “Unfortunately, the way it is going, they may ruin the game, not just change it.”

Time was perspectives like Purtill’s were easily dismissed as a special interest. But other special interests in Rhode Island – parents, students, taxpayers and civil libertarians – have also organized to fight these corporate-backed “reforms” to public education.

The ACLU of RI and underfunded urban school districts in Rhode Island have long fought these measures first implemented by George Bush and heavily backed by both corporate and Wall Street interests. But then something new happened here.

The Providence Student Union made national news when they made adults take the test teenagers face as a graduation requirement. And following their inspiration, a parent group from East Greenwich is fighting against these kinds of education “reforms.” That group is led by a former Moderate Party candidate for lt. governor who was an enemy of organized labor as a member of the East Greenwich School Committee.

Opposition to high stakes testing in Rhode Island has brought together the formerly disparate interests of tax-obsessed suburban parents, underfunded inner city students, social justice activists and educators.

“The current misuse of and over reliance on standardized testing in education is nothing short of unethical and immoral,” according to Parents Across Rhode Island’s website. “Standardized tests like the NECAP are simply not able to accurately measure the knowledge and skills of all students, yet they are being used for major decisions such as graduation, promotion and teacher evaluation.”

And it’s not just happening here in Rhode Island. All across the country (please read: “Education Uprising: the Myth Behind Public School Failure“) education activists are preparing to step up the fight from peaceful street theater and strongly worded blog posts to direct action and what might be considered civil disobedience.

A new national coalition known as Testing Resistance and Reform Spring made national news last week.

“The emergence of the alliance represents a maturing of the grassroots testing resistance that has been building for several years locally in states , including Texas, Florida, New York and Illinois,” wrote Washington Post education blogger Valarie Strauss. “Though many supporters of Barack Obama expected him to end the standardized testing obsession of George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind when Obama was first elected president, many now say that the Obama administration has gone beyond the excesses of NCLB to inappropriately make high-stakes standardized tests the key measure of achievement by students, teachers, principals and schools.”

According to the group’s website, it supports “a range of public education and mobilizing tactics, including community meetings, boycotts, opt-out campaigns, rallies, petition drives and legislation. TRRS will help activists link up, communicate and learn from one another. This will build a stronger national movement to overhaul assessment policies.”

The new umbrella group has affiliates all across the nation, including Rhode Island. The RI affiliate offers a detailed blueprint for opting out of the NECAP test and graduation requirement for parents and students.

“The RIDE policy does not allow exemptions based on a refusal to test,” according to a pdf on the site. “Therefore no exemption’ will be granted on these terms. Parents/student will have to state that they are REFUSING the test rather than requesting an exemption.”

It says so far, no Rhode Islanders have opted out of the NECAP test. But there was this comment on the site from a student: “Hi, I am an 11th grader in RI and I need to take the NECAP’s to graduate even though I and my parents are HIGHLY against high stakes testing. With the opt out, would I be able to not take the test and still graduate?”

What teachers think: Tara Walsh


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Tara Walsh
Tara Walsh

Administrators have a unique vantage point to observe policy changes, and how they impact students and teachers alike. Tara Walsh, the dean of students at North Kingstown High School, has seen first hand how an emphasis on high stakes testing has changed the high school landscape.

“For sure policy changes dictate directly how we talk to students about this plans for their futures especially, now with high stakes testing here in Rhode Island,” Walsh said in an interview with RI Future.

Walsh now spend her days disciplining North Kingstown’s 9th and 11th graders, but she was once a special education teacher.

“I worked with students that are cognitively delayed, there’s educational gaps. Now that they have to meet a certain standard on a test, they can fall behind for various reasons – social/emotional, academic. They’re behind the 8 ball when they get to high school. They don’t have the foundation information for these high stakes tests and they’re at a disadvantage to the point where they may not graduate high school with a diploma.”

Walsh went onto explain the repercussions for students that do not achieve proficiency the first time around. She said, “If you don’t achieve proficiency on your NECAP, you have to go into remediation after your junior year so it could ultimately affect classes they could take – like electives — because they have to take remediation to show growth in their testing.”

Testing isn’t the only thing limiting the options available to the students of North Kingstown – another being budget limitations. “When budgets are set, positions are redistributed,” she said, going on to describe the subsequent of the shift away from elective classes towards core academic classes.

She went onto express concern for students that aren’t on the “traditional” track.

“We’ve cut a lot of resources for children who don’t necessarily learn in a four wall academic building, we don’t have a strong vocational program and I feel there’s a detriment to students who aren’t college bound students,” she said. “We need to help provide them with an education that will help them down the road.”

See the previous posts in this series here:

Susan Weigand

Jen Saarinen

Four years later: Student achivement and Central Falls’ transformation


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

cfhsAs we approach the four year anniversary of the tumultuous firing of the the teachers at Central Falls High School (CFHS), regarded nationally as a watershed event in the Obama administration’s school reform efforts, we must once again consider the success or failure of what followed (and preceded).

Progressives and ed reform skeptics are somewhat hamstrung in this process, as we tend to discount the validity of reformers’ goals and metrics. It often seems like wiser strategy to not accept their premises. Yet, if we ignore this data, we risk unilaterally disarming our own arguments or simply lessening our own understanding of the situation.

With that preamble, consider some charts tracking Central Falls High School 11th grade NECAP proficiency rates, compared to the statewide 11th grade proficiency rate to provide perspective on overall trends. 2007 through 2013 covers all the years the 11th grade NECAP has been administered statewide, all data from RIDE’s website.

In all these charts, CFHS is in red, RI public schools statewide in blue, where applicable, CFHS transformation plan goals in yellow and RI statewide Race to the Top goals in green.

chart_1 (1)

RIDE triggered the crisis in Central Falls following the application of the 2009 NECAP, either immediately before or after RIDE received the 2009 scores (it is hard to say which would be more irresponsible). As you can clearly see above, CFHS was named “persistently low-performing” after two consecutive years of double digit growth in reading proficiency, with a higher proficiency rate and lower achievement gap compared to the rest of the state than they have achieved since the transformation.

CFHS’s transformation plan hoped to “to sustain the rate of growth experienced in the past few years” while focusing their attention on math and other issues. This clearly did not work, and it has taken the school four years to approach the status quo ante in NECAP reading proficiency.

We all still pay to administer the NECAP writing assessment, but since it was not used for No Child Left Behind accountability, it has mostly been ignored by RIDE. Despite the lip service they may give to “multiple measures,” they cannot even be bothered to consider all the tests they administer. Regardless, as a relatively low-stakes, straightforward and authentic ELA test, it helps to corroborate trends in reading scores.

chart_2

While both CFHS and RI writing proficiency jumped in 2013, the gap between the two is still 8% greater than it was pre-transformation.

Increasing math proficiency was the academic focus of the transformation plan.

chart_3 (1)

While the authors of the plan stated “we are confident that our targets are reasonable” after consideration of “historical CFHS NECAP data… the proportion of students on the cusp of proficiency levels, and… statewide NECAP averages,” in retrospect, that was wishful thinking (or a politically necessary exaggeration). In reality, getting CFHS up to 14% proficiency is a substantial improvement based on a tremendous amount of hard work by students and teachers. But it is not what reformers projected after repeatedly citing CFHS’s 7% proficiency rate in 2009 as a justification for firing all the teachers.

For the NECAP science exam, I shifted the year label back a year to match with the fall test cadres above, and included the goals from RIDE’s strategic plan. The results are depressingly similar to the math test.

chart_2 (1)

Taking a longer perspective on the CFHS data, a few things seem clear:

  • The school’s academic performance prior to the transformation was not as bad as reformers thought or presented it.
  • Rushing the process did not “save” the students in the school. The test scores of the student cohorts in the school during the process clearly suffered. They were worse off in reading and writing achievement according to the NECAP scores.
  • In the four years since RIDE named CFHS “persistently low performing,” the gap between CFHS and RI state proficiency rates has increased on all four NECAP tests.

CFHS has had success improving their graduation rate, but it is important to note that while the four year graduation rate jumped 20% between the classes of 2010 and 2013, when most students in those cohorts took the NECAP in the junior year, the class of 2010 outperformed 2013 in NECAP reading and writing (in fall 2008 and fall 2011, respectively). The class of 2013 did outperform the class of 2010 by 3% in math and science, but there is no evidence that the 20% improvement in graduation rate was driven by increased student learning as measured by NECAP.

In short, dramatic changes have not created dramatically different results on RIDE’s NECAP assessment. It does not mean that nothing can improve urban high schools in Rhode Island, in fact, our recent track record includes some notable successes, including some all too fleetingly implemented at CFHS in the past twenty years, should we choose to re-examine them. But the “fire ’em all” Central Falls transformation has not worked, on its own terms, by its own standards.

The NECAP math test is wrong


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Recent remarks in the Journal by the Commissioner of Education point a finger away from the NECAP and toward math education in this state, “Gist said that math is the problem, not the NECAP. ‘This is not about testing,’ she said. ‘It’s about math. It’s about reading.” (Jan. 31, 2014).

A statement like this puts everyone on notice. It tells our students they had better try harder; it tells our teachers they need to stay on track and get better results; and it tells our schools they need to raise their test scores. The subtext of the statement is that there is a big crises and just about everyone in the school system is to blame.

And just behind this subtext is the further ominous and obvious subtext that everyone in the schools needs to be held accountable until we get out of this mess.

But what kind of a mess are we in? What if our low math scores are the result of how we measure math instead of how we teach math? If that is the case, there is much less of a crises and the argument for holding everyone to high stakes accountablity–students don’t graduate, teachers get fired, schools get taken over–

has much less traction.

Since a lot rides on the answer to this question—is it the way we teach math or is it the way we measure math?—it’s worthwhile trying to answer it.

One way to go about this is to compare the performance standards set by different tests. A performance standard is sometimes expressed as a grade level, as in, “the proficiency level of the grade 11 NECAP is set at a ninth grade level”. In this case, a student demonstrating proficiency would show us that he or she has mastered the expectations of a student completing ninth grade. That is, the student would get most of the questions with ninth grade content and ninth grade difficulty right, but would get many fewer questions set at higher levels of difficulty or questions covering topics not usually taught until tenth grade or later.

The way this would show up on a test would be in the average score of the students taking the test—a test set at ninth grade proficieny would have a higher average score than a test set at the eleventh grade proficiency level if they are taken by the same group of students. That makes sense–the eleventh grade standard for proficiency is harder than the ninth grade level because students have covered more content and developed stronger skills.

Back to the basic question—is it the way we teach math or the way we measure math? If we look at the way the NECAP measures reading, we can see that in the two states that take the test in grade 11, New Hampshire and Rhode Island, about 80% of students achieve proficiency. If we say 80% achieving proficiency indicates the test is at an eleventh grade level, then we have to wonder about the NAEP results students in these states achieve because less than half achieve proficiency.

We then have to ask ourselves, what performance standard is NECAP using? Whatever it is, it is much lower than the performance standard NAEP uses because a much higher percentage of students pass. In fact. over 80% more students pass NECAP than pass NAEP, so you can think of the NECAP performace standard as almost twice as easy as the NAEP performance standard. The tests are using different performance standards.

math necap chart

If you look at math, the results are startlingly different—here the percentages passing NECAP and NAEP as very comparable, meaning both tests use the same performance standard. And if you look at the NAEP reading and math performance standards, they are pretty comparable, with reading a little higher than math.

It looks like NAEP, the national measuring stick, uses about the same performance standard for reading and math while the NECAP does not.

Now, you can argue that NECAP has set the math performance standard right and has used a reading standard that is too easy. Then, of course, we would have a reading and a math problem instead of just a math problem.

But either admitting the math standard is too hard or the reading standard is too easy would mean admitting that something is wrong with the way NECAP standards have been set, something the Department of Education and the Commissioner have steadfastly denied.

I think that, at heart, they have denied such an obvious fact because it is too costly to their policy agenda to admit that anything could be wrong with the tests.

To do so would be to cast doubt on the expertise of the test designers who are the ultimate source of authority in the accountability debate. If test designers are wrong and tests are fallible, then how we measure students, teachers and schools is up for grabs. RIDE loses its top down leverage.

In the same article, Gist said, “Now is not the time to rethink our strategy.”

“Holding students accountable is really important,” she said. “We cannot reduce expectations.” The Chairman of the Board of Education, Eva Mancuso echoed the thought, “We are on the right course.” This sounds like a comment from the bridge of the Titanic.

Nobody knows how to increase 11th grade NECAP math scores


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

The most prominent and persuasive argument for using the 11th grade NECAP math test as a graduation requirement in RI high schools has been the relative success of Massuchusetts’ use of their MCAS exam for that purpose.  Last year I prepared a graph showing how Massachusetts student’s math MCAS scores increased over time compared to the NECAP math scores of RI, Vermont and New Hampshire.  It is important to note that Vermont and New Hampshire score in the top tier of states by virtually every measure of math achievement.

NECAP vs. MCAS

See where the percentage scoring at least “2” on the MCAS  jumps about 20% between years three and four?  That’s the graduation requirement kicked in for juniors.  The same effect in theory should have kicked in in year six (last year) for the RI NECAP, but there was no corresponding jump.

The 2013 NECAP results, which have been partially released on RIDE’s website, continue the past trend.  The number of 11th graders statewide scoring “1” or “substantially below proficient” decreased just 4% to 36%.  This is simply not enough progress to show the policy is working.  If you dig down to individual districts and charter schools — demographic and other in-district breakdowns are not available — it is even more disappointing (past years’ data from here):

  • The state’s flagship turnaround at Central Falls High School has the same number of students scoring “1” in 2013, 73%, as in 2008.  After all the turmoil, expense, and the reformers’ best effort, no change.
  • Providence Public Schools has bumped the “1’s” down from  67% in 2008 to 63% in 2013.
  • Barrington High School has only improved 4% since 2008: 12% to 8% scoring a “1” (compared to 1% in reading both years).
  • Blackstone Academy, a small (about 40 in the junior class) charter with 85% economically disadvantaged students, has levelled off after some impressive progress with about a third of juniors not meeting the graduation standard.
  • Paul Cuffee Charter School, a well-regarded new high school in Providence, still has 52% of juniors not scoring above a “1.”
  • A few districts had noticeably fewer students at “substantially below proficient” compared to 2012: North Providence from 44% to 26%; Pawtucket, 63% to 52%; Westerly, 29% to 17%.
  • But a other districts saw increases in students not meeting the requirement since last year: Exeter-West Greenwich, +9%; Newport, +4%; South Kingston, +3%.

I should hasten to note that my point here is not to do the typical blame and shame.  What seven years of 11th grade NECAP math scores tell me is that nobody has figured out how to increase them, especially among disadvantaged students, to an degree comparable to the MCAS and by enough to make the test an appropriate graduation requirement.

This is not supposed to happen.  Two of the fundamental premises of contemporary school reform are that students will rise to the level of expectations, and that incentives drive results.  We’ve got the expectations, the incentives could not be clearer or higher stakes to students and all the adult stakeholders and… the results are just not there.

To replicate the MCAS success story, North Providence’s 18 point improvement would have to be the average gain statewide, not an outlier.  When your highest flying low-income charter still has a third of its juniors not on track to graduate because of a single test, that’s not normal.  If RIDE knows how to increase 11th grade math NECAP scores, why haven’t they told Central Falls?  We’ve been paying outside consultants, too, like The Dana Center, who know as much about aligning math curriculum to standards as anyone.  Apparently they don’t know the answer either.

Exactly why we — and New Hampshire and Vermont — don’t seem to be able to raise 11th grade NECAP math scores is beside the point.  My theory is that 11th grade NECAP math scores reflect “fluid intelligence” more than the MCAS and other standardized tests, and teaching “fluid” skills like analyzing abstract problems and thinking logically in school is difficult and poorly understood.

Or perhaps the difference is simply that the MCAS was a problem designed with its own solution in mind.  The test was developed in parallel with a curriculum framework.  For schools to raise their MCAS scores, they needed to do a better job of delivering the state curriculum, which was not necessarily easy, but it was straightforward and achievable.  There is no equivalent map for increasing NECAP scores.

At this point, the burden of proof should pass to the proponents of the NECAP graduation requirement to lay out an evidence-based strategy for increasing the “pass” rate for NECAP math statewide by 20% that amounts to something other than “stay the course.”  We can’t have a third or more of seniors not knowing if they’re going to graduate in February or scrambling for waivers.  For this to work, we need Barrington at 99% pass, Westerly and Blackstone Academy at 95%, and Central Falls and Providence  need to nearly double the number of students getting over the bar.  Maybe it is possible.  Tell me how.  I don’t see it.

And of course, it is a moot point since RI is moving off the NECAP as soon as possible anyhow. So… seriously, why are we doing this to ourselves?

Deconstructing ProJo education policy op/ed


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Ed Achorn is the editor of the Providence Journal op/ed page.
Ed Achorn is the editor of the Providence Journal op/ed page.

“…adult benefits, rather than the needs of students, often decide the way public education is administered in Rhode Island,” claims an editorial in today’s Providence Journal describing Education Commission Deborah Gist’s State of Education speech last week.

Those benefits? Well, a little later on the editorial mentions this, “Teachers are finally being evaluated.”

If there are others, the editorial does not mention them. My guess is this is an attempt to heap responsibility onto unionized teachers for the central issue cursing public education in Rhode Island: the achievement gap.

If you think teachers from all over the state are the cause of this massive achievement gap that exists between the affluent suburbs and the struggling cities here in Rhode Island you probably wouldn’t do too well on the critical thinking portion of the NECAP test.

The ProJo owes it to Rhode Island to have a more honest look at education policy in Rhode Island. There are very real issues affecting our children and our economy. Among them listed in the op/ed:

“…huge gaps persist between the performance of poor students and those in the middle-class. Low-income students have a four-year graduation rate of 66 percent, compared with 90 percent for higher-income students.”

Bullseye. And it’s so worth noting that this has absolutely zero to do with employee benefits trumping student need.

“Clearly, the dollars Rhode Island taxpayers are pouring into education are not being spent as effectively as they could be,” opines the op/ed.

I’d agree with this too. Last week, the East Greenwich School Committee approved giving new laptops to every high school student. Meanwhile, in Providence, Pawtucket and Woonsocket students still sometimes need to share outdated text books.

But is this because the adults in Providence, Pawtucket and Woonsocket are more greedy than their East Greenwich counterparts? Or is it because East Greenwich has a better ability to offer a more comprehensive education to its students than does Providence, Pawtucket and Woonsocket?

The op/ed says charter schools are proving “even poor students from the toughest neighborhoods can thrive in the right school environment.” The writer should really compare per pupil spending at charter schools compared to their entirely-publicly funded counterparts are accomplishing this.

In the meantime, one failure of education policy perseveres: our inability to have an honest conversation about solutions to the achievement gap between the affluent suburbs and the struggling cites.  It’s sad that such a conversation is being stifled by the state’s paper of record because of its obvious abhorrence of organized labor.


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387