The National School Board Association and Bill Gates

We posted this morning on the puzzling legislation NSBA crafted pushing back against the Department of Education.  The NSBA wants to reclaim local control in school districts.  We couldn't figure out why the NSBA would push for more local control while supporting common core standards.

I tweeted the link and received a tweet in return from education researcher extraordinaire Susan Ohanian that many of you might find interesting:

It's been 3 1/2 years since NSBA got $755,603 from Gates. Maybe they're angling for more.

Maybe that explains the ambivalence?

NSBA Pushes Back Against Arne Duncan but Supports Common Core Standards?

National School Board Association issues press release:

Alexandria, Va. (Jan. 29, 2013) – More than 700 school board members and state school boards association leaders will be meeting with their members of Congress and urging them to co-sponsor legislation, developed by the National School Boards Association (NSBA), to protect local school district governance from unnecessary and counter-productive federal intrusion from the U.S. Department of Education.

...“We must ensure that the decisions made at the federal level will best support the needs and goals of local school systems and the communities they serve,” said Gentzel. “Local school boards must have the ability to make on-the-ground decisions that serve the best interests of our school districts.”

The NSBA is pushing back against Arne Duncan's policies mandating school district policies.   It has prepared draft legislation stopping the increasing Federal encroachment into local districts and states:

The proposed legislation would ensure that the Department of Education’s actions are consistent with the specific intent of federal law and are educationally, operationally, and financially supportable at the local level. This would also establish several procedural steps that the Department of Education would need to take prior to initiating regulations, rules, grant requirements, guidance documents, and other regulatory materials.

“In recent years, the U.S. Department of Education has engaged in a variety of activities to reshape the educational delivery system,” said Thomas J. Gentzel, NSBA’s Executive Director. “All too often these activities have impacted local school district policy and programs in ways that have been beyond the specific legislative intent. School board leaders are simply asking that local flexibility and decision-making not be eroded through regulatory actions.”

This press release sounds encouraging for those against CCSS.  I particularly like this on page 3:

Ensure that national policy in education is established by Congress
through specific legislation.

Congress wrote a blank check to the Obama administration for education reform but legislation for this reform was circumvented. This proposed legislation would ensure such massive federal programs like RTTT would not occur again without legislative approval and sounds promising.  But take a look at this NSBA powerpoint presentation, Getting Ready for the Common Core.  It is not a presentation on how to resist CCSS.  It doesn't urge districts to not implement the standards/assessments.  It is a presentation for districts on how to use CCSS and promote them in your school district and business community.  

I'm curious.  How can NSBA want less federal intrusion into local school district policy and programming and then support CCSS which mandate standards, assessments and ultimately the curricula necessary to use with these standards and assessments?  The two consortia are supported by Federal funding and contain federal mandates.  Should states/districts be able to choose what Federal intrusion is "good" and which should be resisted?  Or should the Federal Government be involved in a state's educational direction/delivery for any reason?

Diane Ravitch's readers had quite a lively discussion on her blog about the role of the Federal government in education and federalism.  Perhaps it's time for NSBA to rethink its support of these national standards that aren't really "state led".  Private corporations own the copyright to the standards and assessments that the "states" were allegedly crafting.  The school districts/states can't change them even if they prove destructive to student learning and achievement.

Shouldn't the NSBA be supporting the revocation of the CCSS since they have been proven to be the blueprint of private organizations using taxpayer money to create a managed workforce?  How can the NSBA support CCSS when it strips local districts of autonomous decision making abilities and governance?   We applaud NSBA for the proposed legislation but urge them to call for the rescinding of CCSS as well.
********************************


Susan Ohanian Tweets - "It's been 3 1/2 years since NSBA got $755,603 from Gates. Maybe they're angling for more."

National School Board Association Concerned about Unfunded Federal Mandates. Common Core Unplugged?

Common Core MANDATES: Unproven, Untested, Unconstitutional and UNDERFUNDED.  Unless you live in Missouri.  Missouri taxpayers are special.  Our common core implementation will have no additional cost.

 

Are the local school districts going to refuse to implement the Common Core mandate because of cost?  Forget that they are unproven, untested and unconstitutional...they are also severely underfunded and will cause tax increases to school districts.  The National School Board Association writes how unfunded mandates impact local districts and how this lack of funding will mean unsuccessful implementation of federal laws:

The National School Board Association’s (NSBA) President C. Ed Massey, a member of the Boone County, Ky., school board, spoke to his local Rotary Club about the need to relieve local school systems from inflexible federal laws that do not come with enough funding to successfully implement.

Massey explained the need for local school board members and other education advocates to become involved in lobbying their members of Congress in a presentation to members of the Florence, Ky. Rotary Club last week.

“A lot of congressional members just get snippets of information,” he said in a story published at the Cincinnati Enquirer’s community website. “Because they are not educators, they don’t understand the issues in depth.”

The Boone County school board and members of the Kentucky School Boards Association have recently worked with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on issues related to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization.

This doesn't coincide with the information published in Missouri last year about the cost of mandates.  From "FAQ-CCSS-2-10-2011", produced by Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2.11.11 and now pulled off the Internet.  (Contact the Commissioner's office at comedu@dese.mo.gov to receive a copy of the entire FAQ pdf).

Q. What about cost? 

As stated earlier, the Department has not requested additional or new funding for the implementation or professional development associated with revised standards and assessments. Though the Department’s staff has been reduced significantly in the past few ears, the efficient use of technology, including webinars, teleconferences, and other tools is allowing us to communicate with stakeholders and provide support. Districts also should not have additional costs over and above their current investments in ongoing curriculum and professional development. These costs are built into current budgets and devoted to current activities related to instructional improvement. In addition, districts will be able to use the new tools and resources available to them—model curriculum, learning activities, interim and benchmark assessments—which many districts have to spend time and resources developing, or pay a vendor for now.

 Maybe the president of the NSBA remembered history and accessed the 2005 Department of Education in Virginia's study on the cost to districts to implement previous federal mandates in NCLB.  From its report on the cost of fullfilling the requirements of NCLB Act for School and the Congressional testimony provided  on the cost:

Even the federal funds that reach school districts are not immune from the administrative compliance burden. Reports from school districts provide real-life examples of the administrative burden felt from heavy-handed federal regulations. A Fairfax County, Virginia, school district, for example, noted:

―The school division lengthened the standard teacher contract from 194 days to 195 just to allow for extra [NCLB] training time. The cost of setting aside a single day to train the roughly 14,000 teachers in the division on the law‘s complex requirements is equivalent to the cost of hiring 72 additional teachers. The law also affects paraprofessionals: an extra day‘s training equates to the cost of hiring about ten additional instructional assistants. There are roughly 1,000 administrators who require training as well. A day‘s training represents the cost for four additional assistant principals. Thus, each day out of the year that is set aside to explain the law results in a missed opportunity to assign 86 instructional personnel year-round to interface directly with the community‘s children and work directly to address their academic needs.

and

In 2006, the Office of Management and Budget found that No Child Left Behind cost states an additional 7 million hours in paperwork at a cost of $141 million.


There is no difference between the training needed for NCLB and Common Core....the teachers and administrators must be taught the new standards and assessments...just like they had to when NCLB started. It is stunning to see the costs associated with NCLB in 2005 and it is even more stunning that DESE states it will cost nothing in 2012 to implement Common Core standards and the waiver just granted in Missouri. Many of these new reforms have been labelled "NCLB on steroids" and it is indefensible for bureaucrats to tell legislators, taxpayers and school districts these reforms will not cost money.

You can access the Pioneer Institute white paper detailing costs to states here.


School districts could in the past decide what assessments they wanted to use for testing and teacher evaluations. Now they have no choice. They will have to have the computers or hand held devices (provided by the school districts) for student assessments (those assessments will account for 50% of teachers' accountability calculations) because that is what is mandated.   Assessments can be done every 3 weeks. The high stakes testing will be an endless cycle.  The cost of the MAP testing was about $1.80 per student. These new assessments are projected to cost about $19.00 per student in Missouri. That's a cost to the districts.

It's time for the school boards and districts to push back and refuse to implement or even partially fund these federal mandates that will not reform education. These reforms and mandates will bankrupt districts. Look how well NCLB worked for education reform (states begged to get out of the mandates) and cost. Now the same districts are having to pay for even more onerous and costly mandates via RTTT and Common Core standards. Don't repeat the same Federal experiment twice. It won't work.