Binoculars or Common Core. Which Choice Will Allow Creativity to Flourish and Allow School Districts to Operate on Budget?

The video "Give Your Kids Binoculars and Get Out of the Way" with Neil deGrasse Tyson contains advice on how to get kids interested in science.

Spoiler Alert.  It has NOTHING to do with the implementation/adoption of Common Core standards or more federal involvement in education. He believes parents (and maybe teachers, too?) should be getting "out of the way" and encouraging children's curiosity.  He contends children create disorder in the lives of the adults around them and what do adults do?  They stifle the child's curiosity. 

Will Common Core will help kids explore and feed their curiosity...or just put them in a common box like everybody else?

From the video transcript:

********************************************

Neil deGrasse Tyson: I'm often asked by parents what advice can I give them to help get kids interested in science? And I have only one bit of advice. Get out of their way. Kids are born curious. Period. I don’t care about your economic background. I don’t care what town you’re born in, what city, what country. If you’re a child, you are curious about your environment. You’re overturning rocks. You’re plucking leaves off of trees and petals off of flowers, looking inside, and you’re doing things that create disorder in the lives of the adults around you.

And so then so what do adults do? They say, “Don’t pluck the petals off the flowers. I just spent money on that. Don’t play with the egg. It might break. Don’t....”  Everything is a don’t. We spend the first year teaching them to walk and talk and the rest of their lives telling them to shut up and sit down.

So you get out of their way. And you know what you do? You put things in their midst that help them explore. Help ‘em explore. Why don’t you get a pair of binoculars, just leave it there one day? Watch ‘em pick it up. And watch ‘em look around. They’ll do all kinds of things with it.

For me at age 11, I had a pair of binoculars and looked up to the moon, and the moon wasn’t just bigger, it was better. There were mountains and valleys and craters and shadows. And it came alive. Not the full moon because there are no shadows cast when the moon is full; got to wait for it to be half moon or crescent moon, and look at the edge between light and dark with a simple pair of binoculars. 

I was transformed by picking up a pair of binoculars and looking up, and that’s hard to do for a city kid because when you look up you just see buildings -- and really your first thought is to look in people’s windows. So to look out of the space -- out of living space -- and look up to the sky, binoculars go far, literally and figuratively. That’s what got me started on the universe. It might get some kids you know started the same way.

********************************************

I guess buying binoculars would be too expensive for school districts to buy.  Oh, no, wait.  Kirkwood School District decided it needed iPads for all their students to the cost of almost $2 Million by 2015.  How long will these iPads be appropriate before they are outdated due to new technology?  From kirkwood.patch.com:

With an estimated total of roughly $1.8 million for the cost of the project, the first phase will cost $325,000. The price includes an iPad Mini, a case and basic applications on the device. Students in 3rd grade and higher will be able to take the iPads home.  

What wasn't mentioned in this article was the move to use iPads is part of Common Core implementation.   For approximately 5,000 students in the district, the cost comes out to $360.00 per iPad.  A good pair of binoculars cost less than that and they don't have software that becomes obsolete in a few years.  But binoculars  aren't part of Smarter Balanced Assessment Common Core technology requirements, are they?  How much will new applications cost the district?  How much insurance will KSD parents have to pay for 3rd graders who have trouble locating their coats much less an iPad?  Did KSD understand that the iPads are only one part of required technology by SBAC?

From Smarter Balanced Releases Technology Strategy Framework and System Requirements Specifications:
 

This framework provides two levels of technology specifications: minimum requirements for existing devices and recommended guidelines for new purchases. Students using technology that meets only the minimum specifications may experience periods of slowness during the assessment, while technology consistent with the recommended guidelines will likely result in a more fluid testing experience.

In addition to the hardware and bandwidth requirements, eligible devices must also have a 10” class screen, a mechanical keyboard, headphones, wired or wireless Internet access, and administrative tools to temporarily disable features, functionalities, and applications that could present a security risk during test administration. The technology specifications apply only to the Smarter Balanced assessments and should not be considered minimum specifications to support instruction, which may require additional technology.

Is there any more hardware, bandwith, device, other technological expenses the district will need to incur for Common Core implementation?  How much additional money is needed to support instruction?  These are questions to ask the district at the June 4 Common Core meeting in Kirkwood and if there is a bond increase wanted by the district, how much this increase is due to Common Core implementation.

Those binoculars are sounding better and better. They are cheaper and are student directed as opposed to the top down standardized consortia owned standards and assessments.



Details on Kirkwood School District meeting:

06/04/13
North Kirkwood Middle School Library, 11287 Manchester Road
6:00pm - 7:30pm

Dr. Williams, superintendent of schools, is hosting a school/community conversation on Tuesday, June 4 from 6-7:30 p.m. in the North Kirkwood Middle School Library, 11287 Manchester Road.  Dr. Williams and administrative services team will answer questions and listen to suggestions from the school community.  The community is encouraged to attend.

  

The Chesterfield City Hall Common Core Panel Has Opened the Door for Public Common Core Discussion

Common Core has become a hot topic of discussion in Missouri.  Linked below is an article from the Eureka-Wildwood Patch about the recent panel presentation centering on CCSS adoption, implementation, ramifications, data retrieval and legislative update on SB210 and HB616.

Unfortunately the reporter did not attend the meeting so he cannot report on what actually was said by the panelists.  However, his article has created a slew of  reader comments on the facts vs the talking points of the standards.  These comments also address the alleged intent/financial backing/political leanings of those who do not support the adoption and implementation process of CCSS.

Feel free to make your own comments on Senator Nieves Speaking Out Against National Education Standards.

I'd like to see the research and data on how Common Core is best practice as intimated by a teacher in the Kirkwood School District:

As a teacher in the Kirkwood School District I can assure you that many educators (you know...the people actually doing the work) welcome Common Core. All this other "stuff" is just personal political agendas. Do you seriously think that a high performing district such as Kirkwood would welcome Common Core standards if it thought it wouldn't be great for all students? Do you seriously think that the Kirkwood School District would dummy down curricula to meet the standards? I'm sorry. I am going to trust the people that do the actual work-day in and day out. The people that have spent their lives educating themselves on best practices for kids. Where were you people when Bush implemented No Child Left Behind....which has been extremely unsuccessful?

Didn't No Child Left Behind also have Ted Kennedy's prints all over it?  The Democrats might as well share the blame of a terrible educational reform policy. 



 

Head Start and Universal Preschool: No Great ROI?

From Reason.com and Failing Head Start Needs No More Funding:

On Wednesday, The Center for American Progress released their proposal to increase funding for the already failing Head Start Project. The progessive thinktank is lobbying to increase funding from 7,200 dollars per student to 10,000 dollars per student. That’s nearly 40 percent more than what we're spending now.

What are the facts and data about Head Start?

Key findings:

In summary, there were initial positive impacts from having access to Head Start, but by the end of 3rd grade there were very few impacts found for either cohort in any of the four domains of cognitive, social-emotional, health and parenting practices.

Impact on Children’s Cognitive Development:

There is clear evidence that Head Start had a statistically significant impact on children’s language and literacy development while children were in Head Start... However, these early effects dissipated in elementary school, with only a single impact remaining at the end of 3rd grade for children in each age cohort: a favorable impact for the 4-year-old cohort (ECLS-K Reading) and an unfavorable impact for the 3-yearold cohort (grade promotion).

Conclusion?

That means spending almost 40 percent more per participant to leave our children’s circumstances unchanged or even worse than when they when they first entered school.

You can read more of the article here and the complete Head Start study here.  

We wrote about Head Start and the push for universal preschool previously and it is worth an reread.  Taxpayers need to be ready for their school boards when the preschool plan is unveiled in the next bond issue and the cry goes out, once again, that it's "for the children" and "educational equity".  Ask your board members and superintendents to show you the research that district kindergarten children have outperformed those students not attending kindergarten.

Ask them to read the Head Start report and provide data for their proposals.  If these education reformers are so keen on being data driven and require 50% of teacher evaluations be based on student data, then they should be more than happy and provide the data you request so you can make an informed decision to fund a seemingly failing blueprint for education.

For more reading on the universal preschool plans, read David Frum's The Potential Pitfalls of Universal Pre-K in the Daily Beast.  The readers have quite a lively discussion about the need/wisdom on universal preschool, just as the writers quoted in the article express.  One issue I did not see in the article or in the comment section is the question: who is primarily responsible for the caretaking/education of the young child, the parent or the state?  If universal preschool shows no long term benefit educationally and in fact, may be harmful to the child, then why is the government asking for more funding to increase it to a wider audience?  From the Frum article:

Megan McArdle of the Daily Beast expands upon this issue of quality and also proposes that universal Pre-K should be aimed only at those who are considered 'at-risk.'

There's no evidence that I'm aware of that pre-school helps middle class kids; it helps poor kids because it makes up for the stuff that middle class parents do (reading readiness, for example), and poor parents can't or don't. So if we're going to pass a big expensive new program aimed at helping poor kids with serious deficiencies in their home environment, I want to target it on those kids, to make sure that they get as much benefit as possible.

Taking a completely different approach to question the effectiveness of Pre-K, Rachel Ryan of the Huffington Post describes the effect of children who are prematurely separated from their mothers.

A study released by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development found that the "more time children spent in child care from birth to age four-and-a-half... the less likely [they were] to get along with others, as more assertive, as disobedient, and as aggressive."

Head Start and Hurricane Sandy: Expensive Disasters?

Disasters:  Some are man-made and some are natural. 

Who would have thought federal funding for Hurricane Sandy victims would include money for Head Start? Why was more money for Head Start included in this package when it has been admitted by Health and Human Services (HHS) the programs has been a failure in creating long term educational results for children?

According to Jay P. Greene in Head Start Revealed:

Despite the obvious effort to delay and conceal the disappointing results from the official and high quality evaluation of Head Start, the Wall Street Journal shines the light on the issue in today’s editorial.  DC’s manipulating scumbags might want to take note that efforts to hide negative research might just draw more attention.  It’s comforting to see that the world may sometimes look more like Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment than Woody Allen’s Crimes and Misdemeanors.

The Journal reveals that Head Start supporters have not only ignored the latest study, but they are trying to sneak an extra $100 million for Head Start into the relief package for victims of Hurricane Sandy.  They also note that the most recent disappointing Head Start result is just the latest in a string of studies failing to find benefits from the program despite a cumulative expenditure of more than $180 billion.

Heritage Foundation reports on the study:

The timing of the release raises questions about whether HHS was trying to bury the findings in the report, which shows, among other outcomes, that by third grade, the $8 billion Head Start program had little to no impact on cognitive, social-emotional, health, or parenting practices of participants. On a few measures, access to Head Start had harmful effects on children.

Now that the report has finally been published, the findings of the scientifically rigorous evaluation that tracked 5,000 three- and four-year-old children through third grade should inform federal policymakers who allocate billions of dollars annually to Head Start. Moreover, Congress will soon vote on a supplemental aid package to Hurricane Sandy victims that includes $100 million in additional Head Start funding. The Senate Appropriations Committee notes that 265 Head Start centers will receive the funding, which equates to more than $377,000 per center.

...President Obama has pledged to use only one test when determining which education programs to fund: “It’s not whether an idea is liberal or conservative,” Obama stated, “but whether it works.”   HHS’s third-grade follow-up evaluation makes it unequivocally clear that Head Start fails that test.

HHS has released definitive evidence that the federal government’s 48-year experiment with Head Start has failed children and left taxpayers a tab of more than $180 billion. In the interest of children and taxpayers, it’s time for this nearly half-century experiment to come to an end. If the federal government continues to fund Head Start, policymakers should allow states to make their Head Start dollars portable, following children to a private preschool provider of choice.

So why is the Federal Government funding a program (slipping it into a hurricane relief package) that does not deliver the desired results?  In Texas, the clamor in the legislature for more federal funding for education gives you an idea of this type of government thinking and doling out money.  From texastribune.com:

The 83^rd Legislature started with good news from the state comptroller: Susan Combs told lawmakers they’d have more than $101 billion to spend in the next session. Education advocates are already asking for more dough to head to Texas classrooms, including preschools.

Kara Johnson, with Texans Care for Children, a child advocacy group, quotes a 2006 study from the Bush school at Texas A&M University that shows it’s smart budgeting to support early childhood education.

“What the study found was that when you invest in high-quality care — the key is high quality — you get a 350 percent return on your investment," Johnson said. "Every dollar invested $3.50 back for local communities. And that’s at a minimum.”

Education is a good return on investment....to whom and for whom?  Local communities receive a 350% in what manner?  More bureaucratic jobs?  What does the child receive?  A "head start" in schooling that disappears by third grade?

The study Ms. Johnson references is not linked so it is difficult to determine exactly how many children were tested, if they had learning disabilities, were ESL students, low income, etc...and how these results were reached.  It is also impossible to determine if these children were followed after preschool and if so, how long the children were tracked.  There is also no definition of what is "high quality" and who/what agency determines the measurements.

Is an additional $100 Million Head Start investment and the increased call for universal  preschool for all children a good investment in education for the students or is it a good investment for the providers of mandated/federally funded initiatives?  As the WSJ article states in Greene's article:

Like so many programs directed at the poor, Head Start is well-intentioned, and that’s enough for self-congratulatory progressives to keep throwing money at it despite the outcomes. But misleading low-income parents about the efficacy of a program is cruel and wastes taxpayer dollars at a time when the country is running trillion-dollar deficits.

A government that cared about results would change or end Head Start, but instead Congress will use the political cover of disaster relief to throw more good money after proven bad policy.

That  proven "bad policy" of enrolling children in preschool seems to be overlooked by Kirkwood (MO) School District as well.  From The Kirkwood Webster Times:

Kirkwood Early Childhood Center Principal Melissa Sandbothe presented the board with an update on the center.

Sandbothe has her sights set on the future with the goal of developing a pilot design for universal preschool in Kirkwood. The purpose of the initiative is to give parents meaningful choice and assistance in choosing the child care and education arrangements that are right for their family when preparing their child for kindergarten. (MEW note on bolded sentence: Is Sandbothe stating preschool is ultimately a child care arrangement since the educational gains do not last much past 3rd grade?) The primary goal is to provide a community-wide system of quality early childhood options that allow every age-eligible Kirkwood resident student to access one year of high quality pre-kindergarten education. The estimated budget for implementing such a pilot program is $825,000.

Sandbothe, who stressed that the initiative is still just a vision, said she wants to implement the program so all children have an opportunity to attend preschool.

"The goal is to provide access to children who wouldn't otherwise have it - that's my long-term goal and vision for the community," she said. "I know there are a lot of questions and I don't have all of the answers, but I want to start the conversation."

Greene's article had one comment that may answer "why" Congress, school districts and states are throwing more good money after proven bad policy.  They might want to ponder the reason "why" before more time and money are spent on programs that have been proven not to attain their goals:

I find that the history of Head Start made far more sense once I knew Professor Mastery Learner that became Outcomes Based Education, Benjamin Bloom, was also the father of Head Start.

I also found it interesting that Head Start officially added a social and emotional learning component last year just like the real Common Core implementation where it is coming in as PBIS under RTI and the federal disabilities law, a Positive School Climate executive order, and many of those NCLB waivers to the states.

That SEL provision to Head Start also dovetails to the timing of AdvancED, the accreditation holding company, beginning to accredit early learning programs. Since the K-12 Quality Standards are all about the physical, emotional, and social needs of students with no mention of intellectual, we can expect something comparable for the little tykes. That’s a lot of years of affective manipulation as part of the student Growth and achievement being measured.

Am I the only one who tracks back to the definitions of the terms being used? It puts the Common Core in a completely different but accurate light than the hype.

The reader may have a valid point.  Reformers are trying to corral 3 year old children under Common Core like standards to gather student data for a managed workforce and/or to supply "free" daycare.  Outcome based education and state run daycare may finally be realized.  Maybe this is what Texans Care for Children, school districts and legislators have in mind for the ROI on money spent on preschoolers. 

Transition To Local Control Likely To Be Painful

If those opposed to Common Core are to be successful, local school districts may have more control than they've had in years. Are they prepared for it?

Kirkwood school district, one which could be locally controlled today since so very little of their operating budget comes from the state, has taken what has come from the state as a matter of course. Like many school districts they have enjoyed modest increases in their budget for a number of years, and have had the benefit of being able to pass bond issues or tax increases with relative ease because of their property values and demographics.

In fact, getting property tax money from Kirkwood residents has been so easy that they have a veritable war chest in their "maintenance" fund. In August 2010 they went to the voters with two bond initiatives which each needed 57-58 percent to pass.  Prop 1 built new classrooms across the district, new cafeterias, and science labs, passed by a margin of 400 or so votes.  Prop 2 which would have built a new swimming pool complex, new track at a middle school, turf fields for lacrosse, baseball and softball (which also had planned dugouts), plus a host of football stadium renovations only got 48 percent of the vote, way below the 57 needed to pass. No problem. Kirkwood was flush with funds in their maintenance budget so last year, they went ahead and put in the new track at the middle school as well as the dugouts at the baseball and softball fields.

That woke the public up, so this year, when the school board tried the same end run for the stadium renovations, the public showed up en mass to remind the board that the public specifically voted these projects down in 2010. Unfortunately the transition to local control is not complete and school boards still run somewhat unfettered by the public will. The decision to spend the money on the football stadium passed last night in Kirkwood 5:1.

It will take an active aware public to really make local control work. School boards can expect a lot more public scrutiny.  Being able to just push things through like they have is a thing of the past.

A little further west, the Rockwood School District, the third largest in the state, is also dealing with a public who is not going to go along easily. A bond issue failed in the August 2012 election which leaves the district with between a $5-$6 million deficit going forward. They hired a fancy consultant to figure out what went wrong and used public"listening sessions" to figure out how to sell what they want to the public better next time. They have whittled down the proposals to a choice of two, both including additional new teachers and full day kindergarten. The only difference is how the district will pay for these things and other operational needs, with a bond or not.

The problem seems to be that the public is awake, educated and cranky. They are tired of the school board constantly coming back for another dip at the public trough. Only 19 percent of the district has children currently in school. The other 81 percent are made up of private school families and mostly empty nesters who are being hit by the economic downturn, living on fixed incomes and looking at permanent property tax increases from the recent Special School District tax levy and Library Levy. Looming over all of this is the expected though not completely known impact of the Health Care law going into effect next year. These combine to make a very cranky electorate.

Making the sale all the more difficult are the district's own numbers which show things like a static or declining student population, very good student test scores under current conditions and a request for a staggering 10% budget increase with few concrete details as to where that money is going. One of the facilitators even said at a recent public meeting that they tried not to confuse things at the public sessions by providing a whole bunch of confusing "numbers." From the questions in the room it seems like the public has taken the time to educate themselves about the numbers and is ready to talk about them. If only the district were.  All detail questions seem to be answered on a one-to-one basis through follow up after the meetings making such clarifications as were sought available only to individuals, not the public.

The public is only going to get better at this which should throw the Missouri School Board Association into a tizzy as they retool their school board member training program. MSBA should keep in mind that the public will be empowered by local control as much as the school boards. "After cutting through all the rhetoric, what today’s critical and inquiring public truly demands is an honest, unguarded representation of facts, figures, recommendations and actions that are not masking ulterior motives or hidden agendas." Michael T. Adamson Transparency and Good Governance

Local School Boards should also remember that the public is not as illiterate as the national media paint them, that local school issues easily cross party lines allowing for greater public coalitions and that there are an awful lot of us college educated mommies out here who have no problem analyzing a budget. We have also been known to be quite clever when it comes to raising money (just look at any PTO, Booster organization or private philanthropy) or stretching a budget,  so maybe they should start listening to us for a change.

If you're tired of your school board not listening, today is the opening of the filing for school board positions. The filing period runs through January 15th.

Teacher Says "I QUIT": The (Un) or Intended Consequences of Common Core?

One more bullet point: Ask school administration how much Common Core mandates had to do with the resignation. Explain that to a small child: a "one sized fits all" education is good enough for her.

Parents, when you go to conferences, take a copy of a teacher's (Kris Nielsen) letter below and ask your child's teacher and administrators their thoughts on what this teacher has written.  Ask:

• how common core has affected their teaching and district autonomy
• how a top down centralized "one size fits all" program actually "fits" all the students they teach
• if they agree with this statement: "The silence of our professional organizations plus complicity of the unions has made Common Core a done deal." —Susan Ohanian (and maybe write an email to your state NEA and ask its statement about Ohanian's comment)
• your principal if he/she can provide a school/district that educates to its mission statement and what that mission directed education looks like with the common core standard model in place 

I would wager to guess most mission statements are similar to my district, Kirkwood School District in Missouri:

The mission of Kirkwood R-7 schools, a personalized educational network rich in tradition and energized by future possibilities, is to create environments characterized by a passion for learning, purposeful discovery and expectations of excellence in order to guarantee that each learner achieves personal goals, academic success, and becomes a leader in society.

Personal goals have to be secondary to common goals now as Kirkwood School District and the majority of public school (and charters) are now under common core standards.  That "passion for learning" is increasingly being overtaken by a passion for testing.  Missouri schools are under the same standards/assessment mandates as North Carolina schools where this teacher taught.  Find the mission statement of your district and send them our way.  It would be interesting to compile a list of mission statements and figure out how districts will accomplish them with top down mandates.

The letter below should be shared with your teacher/administrator/superintendent.   You can follow the teacher at his twitter handle, @klnielsen74.

 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

Dear North Carolina Public Schools: I Quit

October 26, 2012 7 Comments
 

Thanks to all of my friends who have already published this on their sites.  Let’s get our schools back!

To All it May Concern:
I’m doing something I thought I would never do—something that will make me a statistic and a caricature of the times.  Some will support me, some will shake their heads and smirk condescendingly—and others will try to convince me that I’m part of the problem.  All I know is that I’ve hit a wall, and in order to preserve my sanity, my health, my family, and the forward movement of our lives, I have no other choice.

Before I go too much into my choice, I must say that I have the advantages and disadvantages of differentiated experience under my belt.  I have seen the other side, where the grass was greener, and I unknowingly jumped the fence to where the foliage is either so tangled and dense that I can’t make sense of it, or the grass is wilted and dying (with no true custodian of its health).  Are you lost?  I’m talking about public K-12 education in North Carolina.  I’m talking about my history as a successful teacher and leader in two states before moving here out of desperation.

In New Mexico, I led a team of underpaid teachers who were passionate about their jobs and who did amazing things.  We were happy because our students were well-behaved, our community was supportive, and our jobs afforded us the luxuries of time, respect, and visionary leadership.  Our district was huge, but we got things done because we were a team.  I moved to Oregon because I was offered a fantastic job with a higher salary, a great math program, and superior benefits for my family.  Again, I was given the autonomy I dreamed of, and I used it to find new and risky ways to introduce technology into the math curriculum.  My peers looked forward to learning from me, the community gave me a lot of money to get my projects off the ground, and my students were amazing.

Then, the bottom fell out.  I don’t know who to blame for the budget crisis in Oregon, but I know it decimated the educational coffers.  I lost my job only due to my lack of seniority.  I was devastated.  My students and their parents were angry and sad.  I told myself I would hang in there, find a temporary job, and wait for the recall.  Neither the temporary job nor the recall happened.  I tried very hard to keep my family in Oregon—applying for jobs in every district, college, private school, and even Toys R Us.  Nothing happened after over 300 applications and 2 interviews.

The Internet told me that the West Coast was not hiring teachers anymore, but the East Coast was the go-to place.  Charlotte, North Carolina couldn’t keep up with the demand (why did this city need over 300 teachers?)!  I applied with three schools, got three phone interviews, and was even hired over the phone.  My very supportive and adventurous family and I packed quickly and moved across the country, just so I could keep teaching.

I had come from two very successful and fun teaching jobs to a new state where everything was different.  During my orientation at CMS, I noticed immediately that these people weren’t happy to see us; they were much more interested in making sure we knew their rules.  It was a one-hour lecture about what happens when teachers mess up.  I had a bad feeling about teaching here from the start; but, we were here and we had to make the best of it.

Union County seemed to be the answer to all of my problems.  The rumors and the press made it sound like UCPS was the place to be progressive, risky, and happy.  So I transferred from CMS to UCPS.  They made me feel more welcome, but it was still a mistake to come here.

Let me cut to the chase: I quit.  I am resigning my position as a teacher in the state of North Carolina—permanently.  I am quitting without notice (taking advantage of the “at will” employment policies of this state).  I am quitting without remorse and without second thoughts.  I quit. I quit. I quit!

Why?

Because…

I refuse to be led by a top-down hierarchy that is completely detached from the classrooms for which it is supposed to be responsible.

I will not spend another day under the expectations that I prepare every student for the increasing numbers of meaningless and expensive tests.

I refuse to be an unpaid administrator of field tests that take advantage of children for the sake of profit.

I will not spend another day wishing I had some time to plan my fantastic lessons because administration comes up with new and inventive ways to steal that time, under the guise of PLC meetings or whatever.  I’ve seen successful PLC development.  It doesn’t look like this.

I will not spend another day wondering what menial, administrative task I will hear that I forgot to do next.  I’m far enough behind in my own work.

I will not spend another day wondering how I can have classes that are full inclusion, and where 50% of my students have IEPs, yet I’m given no support.

I will not spend another day in a district where my coworkers are both on autopilot and in survival mode.  Misery loves company, but I will not be that company.

I refuse to subject students to every ridiculous standardized test that the state and/or district thinks is important.  I refuse to have my higher-level and deep thinking lessons disrupted by meaningless assessments (like the EXPLORE test) that do little more than increase stress among children and teachers, and attempt to guide young adolescents into narrow choices.

I totally object and refuse to have my performance as an educator rely on “Standard 6.”  It is unfair, biased, and does not reflect anything about the teaching practices of proven educators.

I refuse to hear again that it’s more important that I serve as a test administrator than a leader of my peers.
I refuse to watch my students being treated like prisoners.  There are other ways.  It’s a shame that we don’t have the vision to seek out those alternatives.

I refuse to watch my coworkers being treated like untrustworthy slackers through the overbearing policies of this state, although they are the hardest working and most overloaded people I know.

I refuse to watch my family struggle financially as I work in a job to which I have invested 6 long years of my life in preparation.  I have a graduate degree and a track record of strong success, yet I’m paid less than many two-year degree holders.  And forget benefits—they are effectively nonexistent for teachers in North Carolina.

I refuse to watch my district’s leadership tell us about the bad news and horrific changes coming towards us, then watch them shrug incompetently, and then tell us to work harder.

I refuse to listen to our highly regarded superintendent telling us that the charter school movement is at our doorstep (with a soon-to-be-elected governor in full support) and tell us not to worry about it, because we are applying for a grant from Race to the Top.  There is no consistency here; there is no leadership here.

I refuse to watch my students slouch under the weight of a system that expects them to perform well on EOG tests, which do not measure their abilities other than memorization and application and therefore do not measure their readiness for the next grade level—much less life, career, or college.

I’m tired of watching my students produce amazing things, which show their true understanding of 21^st century skills, only to see their looks of disappointment when they don’t meet the arbitrary expectations of low-level state and district tests that do not assess their skills.

I refuse to hear any more about how important it is to differentiate our instruction as we prepare our kids for tests that are anything but differentiated.  This negates our hard work and makes us look bad.

I am tired of hearing about the miracles my peers are expected to perform, and watching the districts do next to nothing to support or develop them.  I haven’t seen real professional development in either district since I got here.  The development sessions I have seen are sloppy, shallow, and have no real means of evaluation or accountability.

I’m tired of my increasing and troublesome physical symptoms that come from all this frustration, stress, and sadness.

Finally, I’m tired of watching parents being tricked into believing that their children are being prepared for the complex world ahead, especially since their children’s teachers are being cowed into meeting expectations and standards that are not conducive to their children’s futures.

I’m truly angry that parents put so much stress, fear, and anticipation into their kids’ heads in preparation for the EOG tests and the new MSLs—neither of which are consequential to their future needs—in addition to the all of the other testing that happens almost weekly.  As a parent of a high school student in Union County, I’m dismayed at the education that my child receives as her teachers frantically frontload trivial information in preparation for more tests.  My toddler will not attend a North Carolina public school.  I will do whatever it takes to keep that from happening.

I quit because I’m tired being part of the problem.  It’s killing me and it’s not doing anyone else any good.  I will now take my place among the rest of the American educators, parents, citizens, and children who are dedicated to getting our schools–and our future–back.

Farewell.

Civics Lesson in Voting. Your Vote DOES Count. Maybe Your Candidate will Effect Some Meaningful Contribution if Elected, Rather than Just Being a Mouthpiece for the System.

Missouri had elections on Tuesday and several of the races turned out to be whoppers.  The differences were razor thin in determining winners and losers.  The lesson learned from April 2, 2012: Every Vote IS important.  Take a look at some of these contests:

DIRECTOR KIRKWOOD SCHOOL DISTRICT R-7
          (Vote for )  2
              (WITH 29 OF 29  COUNTED)
           ANDY STEWART  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,401   31.90
           HAMID R. HAMRAH  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       413    3.87
           SCOTT ANDERSON.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,414   32.02
           SARA KING  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     3,405   31.94
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        29     .27

 (Note: Hamrah withdrew shortly after filing)   

DIRECTOR LINDBERGH SCHOOLS
          (Vote for )  2
              (WITH 46 OF 46  COUNTED)
           JAMES GOSS .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,000   11.44
           KAREN SCHUSTER.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,806   32.11
           KATE HOLLOWAY .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,460   28.15
           GEORGE REZABEK.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     2,445   27.98
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        28     .32 

DIRECTOR NORMANDY SCHOOL DISTRICT
          (Vote for )  2
              (WITH 50 OF 50  COUNTED)
           DRYVER HENDERSON .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,179   30.46
           JOYCE R. McRATH  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,186   30.64
           SHEILA WILLIAMS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     1,484   38.34
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        22     .57

TRUSTEE JUNIOR COLLEGE SUBDISTRICT #3
          (UNEXPIRED TERM)
          (Vote for )  1
              (WITH 104 OF 104  COUNTED)
           BOB BURNS  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     6,209   49.61
           JOAN H. McGIVNEY .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .     6,233   49.80
           WRITE-IN.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .        74     .59

More exciting election results from St. Louis County can be found here.

Students of civics (now I know I say that tongue in cheek since students rarely learn how government works these days) and jaded registered voters should look at these results and hopefully come away with the conclusion that indeed, "my vote DOES count."   Out of 10,220 votes cast for three candidates, 13 votes separated those candidates.  Barring any recounts affecting the difference, that is an amazing result.

So when it's a "cold, rainy, hot, you can find something else better to do kind of day"...and it happens to be Election Day, remember these races and get out and vote.  Your candidate might need your vote to put him/her over that edge.   Maybe your candidate will work hard to restore authentic local control to your school district, rather than just existing as a participant in the only roles available currently to school board members:

• The hiring of employees
• The refusal to renew an employment contract for an administrator and hiring a replacement without posting the job, creating ire and unanswered questions of district residents
• Maintaining/expanding school properties

Maybe these lessons on voting and exactly how school districts operate need to be imparted to the 86 % of registered voters who didn't bother to show up and make their voices heard in this election.  If you didn't like the results, the manner in which your school district operates and didn't bother to vote...you have no reason to complain:

SUMMARY REPORT        GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION       UNOFFICIAL FINAL
RUN DATE:04/04/12     ST. LOUIS COUNTY, MISSOURI
RUN TIME:03:46 PM     TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 2012

                                                       VOTES PERCENT

           PRECINCTS COUNTED (OF 817).  .  .  .  .       817  100.00
           REGISTERED VOTERS - TOTAL .  .  .  .  .   652,857
           BALLOTS CAST - TOTAL.  .  .  .  .  .  .    90,828
           VOTER TURNOUT - TOTAL  .  .  .  .  .  .             13.91

 

Four Missouri School Districts Indicate Suspicious Test Scores According to Atlanta Journal Constitution

The Atlanta-Journal Constitution has written an in-depth investigation about the Atlanta public school cheating scandal by the superintendent, principals, and teachers.   The scandal stems from cheating of educators as job accountability is now determined from student scores.  The AJC also uncovered some questionable testing results from other states.

The newspaper writes in a follow-up article:

Suspicious test scores in roughly 200 school districts resemble those that entangled Atlanta in the biggest cheating scandal in American history, an investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution shows.

The newspaper analyzed test results for 69,000 public schools and found high concentrations of suspect math or reading scores in school systems from coast to coast. The findings represent an unprecedented examination of the integrity of school testing.

The analysis doesn’t prove cheating. But it reveals that test scores in hundreds of cities followed a pattern that, in Atlanta, indicated cheating in multiple schools.

Here is a link taking you to an interactive map of districts nationwide with scores resembling Atlanta's inconsistent test scores.  The red circle (districts noted as "A") indicates:

A district with a high percentage of classes flagged at least one year since 2008 and that follows a pattern of both unusually high and unusually low scores that is similar to Atlanta.  

Click on Missouri and four school districts are listed with the pattern similar to Atlanta:

• Hannibal School District
• Kirkwood School District
• St. Louis City School District
• Special School District

The concern listed about these red circled districts:

In any year, a typical (non-cheating) district might expect to have about 5% of its classes flagged for unusually high or low performance relative to their performances in the previous year. Districts which consistently have 10% or more of their classes flagged or which have an extremely high flag rate in a particular year certainly deserve further examination. Districts in the "A" category having multiple years with a high percentage of classes flagged should be of most concern. Districts - especially smaller districts - with a high percentage in a single year may warrant further investigation, but are of lesser concern.

Here is the explanation of the methodology used:

HOW TO INTERPRET:

In this list, we show the percentage of classes that were flagged in each district for each year, 2008 through 2011. A class is a group of students in the same school from one year to the next. For example, fourth grade students in 2009 and fifth grade students in 2010. A "flag" only indicates a test-score shift outside the norm. Please refer to the article on our methodology to see how a class was flagged. Smaller districts with fewer than 20 classes were not included. 

Missouri Auditor Tom  Schweich is instigating an audit into testing irregularities according to KSDK.  This nationwide investigation apparently has caused concern not only for parents but garnered the attention of School Board News:

Is cheating prevalent in our public schools? Posted: 29 Mar 2012 01:25 PM PDT The the following was also posted on the National School Boards Assocation’s Center for Public Education blog, The Edifier. Articles this past weekend by the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) and the Associated Press  strongly suggest the answer is yes.  AJC attempted to answer this question by analyzing state standardized test scores from all 50 states to identify districts and schools that had statistically unusual fluctuations in their year to year test scores which is an indicator that cheating may be taking place. Although the unusual fluctuations do not prove there was cheating it does point to the strong possibility that cheating is in fact taking place. As a matter of fact, the newspaper used a similar methodology in 2009 which helped uncovered extensive cheating in Atlanta public schools.    But is cheating as prevalent across our public schools as the articles strong imply? The answer is quite simply no. When you actually look at the data from AJC you see that about 200 out of the nearly 15,000 school districts (which includes charter school districts and other special districts) analyzed by AJC had suspicious test scores like those found in Atlanta. This represents just 1.3 percent of all school districts nationwide. Keep in mind, even within these districts most schools showed no signs of cheating. In fact, when AJC calculated how many individual students were likely to be directly impacted by cheating, just a tiny fraction (less than 1 percent) of the 13 million students examined were enrolled in the grade level within the schools where cheating likely took place. Of course any cheating at the school or district level is not acceptable but the data does show that the AJC’s assertion that the results “…suggest a broad betrayal of schoolchildren across the nation” is not only overblown but outright wrong.  In fact their data shows that cheating is limited to a small proportion of districts and even smaller proportion of students nationwide. So parents and the general public should be confident that teachers and administrators in close to 99 percent of districts act in an ethical and professional manner. Does this mean cheating shouldn’t be a concern? Of course not.  More work needs to be done by state and district leaders to ensure that the integrity of the test results are not compromised and that struggling students are appropriately identified so they receive the support and resources they need to actually improve their performance.  In the case of the districts identified in the article they need to look further into the data to determine if in fact cheating is going on in their schools. Or whether the fluctuations are due to highly effective instruction in high scoring grades and ineffective instruction in following low scoring grades. Either way, districts need to know why there are such fluctuations so they can either eliminate any cheating or focus on improving instruction in grades where test scores drop. While statistically large fluctuations in scores indicates a strong possibility of cheating, as anyone who has seen the movie Stand and Deliver, great teaching can lead to unpredictable increases in student achievement. And those teachers should not be considered guilty until proven innocent. But it also doesn’t mean that such indicators of cheating should be ignored either.  Either way, the actual data shows that cheating is limited to a small number of schools nationwide contrary to what the AJC and Associated Press articles imply. If your district (as mine does) appears on the "A" list of questionable scores, your school superintendent and school board should advise the taxpayers of that district the methodology used in its testing results and explain testing procedures in the district.   If cheating is indeed limited to a small number of schools nationwide as School Board News contends, taxpayers still should require an investigation to determine if their district test scores are indeed valid.  Testing irregularities similar to the Atlanta pattern cause concerns for taxpayers and parents.  If accountability for teacher and administrator jobs depend on student scores, this sort of testing irregularity may occur more frequently in the future.

Kindergarten Rigor in Connecticut and the Kirkwood School District

What do you remember about kindergarten?  Was it the coloring?  The playing of games?  The songs?  The end of the  year recital?  I remember playing the triangle for a song in an "orchestra" and being dressed up in a crepe paper flower costume my mother made for the finale presentation.  

I don't remember rote activities, assessments and rigid expectations.  Probably most parents today don't think of kindergarten in those terms either.  Before parents get all excited about free all day kindergarten in their district and are eager to send their child for a magical experience, they might want to read this from the educational blog in the Washington Post, not known for conservative views:

There is no end to the bad ideas advanced in the name of school reform. Here’s one that will ensure that kids learn to hate school even earlier than usual: In Hartford, Conn., the superintendent of schools wants to extend the school year for some kindergartners to 11 months of the year. 

And these kids aren’t having a laugh riot at school as it is.

Some kindergartners there go to school from 7:45 a.m. to 2:45 p.m. — with no time for naps and no time to play, according to this story in The Hartford Courant.

“Play? No. No, no, no. This is no longer the case. Even in pre-K, for us, it’s no longer the case,” Immacula Didier, the principal at Betances Early Reading Lab School was quoted as saying by The Courant.

 
These students are being robbed of opportunities to learn through play that is carefully constructed, which early childhood experts say is the best way for them to develop their social-emotional and academic learning skills.

Think this won't happen at YOUR kindergarten class in your district?  Ask the kindergarten teachers about the expectations of the standards and assessments on kindergarteners thanks to the Common Core standards.  Better yet, ask to see them so you can read what is expected and assessed on a 5 year old child.  See how much time is dedicated to playing and exploring just for the fun of it.

Do you think your child might want to experience half day kindergarten instead? It's an uphill battle in the Kirkwood School District.  The district instituted "free" all day kindergarten (which is of course ludicrous as it's taxpayer funded) and have informed the parents who had been sending their children to the half day program this option was not an option any longer.  Apparently it's an issue in which the educators know best.  Silly parents.

Who would want their 5 year old on the fast track for being assessed to standards that may or may not apply to their particular learning style or ability at such a tender age?  If you are a parent who looks upon kindergarten time as free day care, you probably don't give such a question any thought whatsoever.  

I hope the half day parents stand firm and demand what is best for their children, not what is helpful for their own personal schedule or the mandates the school must follow.   After all, there is plenty of time for a child to be educationally tracked by the government to determine his/her data set and how that data is best suited for particular employment.  


From the Post:


Now all we hear is about getting kids ready for the rigors of rigor at school (“rigor” being an operative word today in education, even for 5-year-olds). That includes subjecting 5-year-olds to test after test.

Ask the superintendent if KSD is under these same tests.  Ask the kindergarten teacher to show you how your child will be assessed on test after test.  Is this really want you want for your child?

Kirkwood School District and Washington DC School Council Have a Common Thread: Education Equity

 We wrote about Washington DC's idea about mandating and paying for all students to take the ACT/SAT and apply for college:


Mandates are in the works for universal preschool and the Washington DC council may be taking the first stab at mandating mandatory post-secondary education.  A bill has been introduced that will mandate that everyone apply to at least one post-secondary institution and take either the SAT or ACT. It apparently doesn't matter if the individual doesn't want to attend a post-secondary institution, he/she will be compelled to apply to a college, trade, seminary or vocational program.  


Kirkwood (Missouri) School District administrators believe in education equity for all students even if they can pay for half-day kindergarten or ACT testing. 

The Kirkwood Patch reported Kirkwood School District's administration wants to offer the ACT test to all junior beginning next year at the cost to the district of $17,000.  Principal Mike Havener wants every junior to take the test for "free", which is somewhat disingenuous as the district will pick up the cost. Why does the district want to provide the test to all students, regardless of their ability to pay?  It is evident the vast majority of students have found a way to pay for the test in past years:

“My goal is to provide opportunities for all of our students to be successful,” Havener said. “We are telling our students that we are preparing them for college – we need to back that up.”


Many Kirkwood students already take the ACT and some take it multiple times, but Havener said that as many as 20 to 30 percent of students don’t take the test at all, for a variety of reasons, including cost.

“This would give all the students at least one opportunity to take it for free,” Havener said.
He said he hoped it would inspire some students to go on to college who might not otherwise have considered it. It also might give students confidence that they could score better on a subsequent test, he said.

Kirkwood is not a high poverty area in Missouri.  Here is  2010 Census information from Wikipedia:

As of the census of 2010, there were 27,324 people, 11,894 households, and 10,276 families residing in the city. The population density was 2,993.5 people per square mile. There were 12,895 housing units at an average density of 1,333.7 per square mile (514.8/km²). The racial makeup of the city was 89.4% White (88.2% Non-Hispanic White), 7.0% African American, 0.1% Native American, 1.4% Asian, 0.0% Pacific Islander, 0.4% from other races, and 1.6% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 1.8% of the population.


The median income for a household in the city was $70,261, and the median income for a family was $89,219. Males had a median income of $51,515 versus $36,235 for females. The per capita income for the city was $32,012. About 2.8% of families and 4.6% of the population were below the poverty line, including 6.1% of those under age 18 and 3.6% of those age 65 or over.


Why would the school administration with an area poverty level of 6.1% of those under age 18 living in Kirkwood offer to provide ACT testing for ALL high school juniors at an additional cost of $17,000 to the taxpayers?  The district has just implemented "free" all day kindergarten (half day was paid for and mandated, full day was not funded nor mandated) for ALL residents, regardless if they were above that 6.1% poverty level.  This will cost the district $850,000 to implement the program with continuing costs every year. The superintendent explained in an informational meeting with citizens this was an issue of "educational equity".  Regardless if a family could pay the way for their child to attend kindergarten, it was incumbent on the taxpayers to foot the bill for this unmandated program.  I suppose "educational equity" for kindergartners should be expanded to "educational equity" for high school juniors.  Has the district considered:

• Not all students WANT to go to college. 
• Not all students SHOULD go to college.  
• Not all students ARE READY to go to college. 

Why should the taxpayers foot yet another wealth redistribution program for students whose parents can well afford the $34.00 for the test?  Why should the taxpayers pay for a test some students have no desire to take?
  

If the administration wants ALL students to take the test and it is a financial problem for some students, then maybe the PTOs or the Kirkwood Foundation (a private fund raising group supported by citizens in the district), could raise funding for those students  unable to afford the test.  To burden taxpayers with a cost for test taking because it is "educational equity" is poor financial planning especially as the tax base is shrinking.    Kirkwood School District funding: 

• 92.60% local, county and Prop C monies
• 5.10% state funds 
• 2.30% Federal funds

 KSD relies heavily on local taxes for its operating budget.  The school spends $12,200 per student, well above the average Missouri per pupil expenditure of $9,619.13. If the district is determined to provide this test for all high school juniors, it could review its expenditures in education and see if it can eke out $34.00 per pupil from this $12,200 per pupil yearly figure to accomplish its goal.


If this plan goes to the School Board for a vote, the voters must ask the existing School Board members and the candidates running for election in April their thoughts on this proposed expenditure.  The voters should also ask this administration if applications to colleges (as in Washington DC) should be considered "education equity" as well and if that's the next "free" offer from Kirkwood School District.