Post Dispatch STL Today's Disingenuous Editorial on Common Core Standards. Susan Ohanian Chimes In.

The definition of disingenuous amply sums up the St. Louis Post Dispatch's editorial on Common Core standards and the recent meeting DESE held "informing" the public on the initiative.  From a google search of the word:

dis·in·gen·u·ous  

/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/

Adjective Not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

Synonyms insincere - false - devious - hollow-hearted

You can read the editorial here.  The readers' comments are overwhelmingly against the PD's stance and the paper's integrity is called into question. Those with any factual knowledge about Common Core and who have read more than what the Post has published about CCSS will recognize this editorial as reprinting talking points about the initiative from either CCSSO or the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.  There are no facts in this editorial piece to back up the editorial board's statements, but why should a newspaper let facts stand in its way?

Susan Ohanian wrote about this disingenuous attempt by a newspaper board to dismiss people who don't agree with the adoption/implementation of the standards.  From her post Paranoia about 'common core' is a lousy way to fix schools:

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

NC Reader Comment: I am sit on the Parent Advisory Board at my child's school, I have volunteered there for years, I regularly attend School Board meetings. My State, NC, was awarded 400 million dollars by Race to the Top and we committed to Common Core without any public notice at the local level. I can promise you that

Ohanian Comment: Calling Common Core opponents paranoid reveals a lot of editorial ignorance. Why should parents be polite to people who mouth Common Core boilerplate? Count how many words in this uninformed, biased editorial that repeat boilerplate right out of press releases from the National Governors Association, Achieve, et al, that is to say, repeat misinformation:

• bipartisan


• competing in a global economy


• National Governors Association initiative


• much public discussion


• a very public process


The only factual part of the above list is bipartisan. To the shame of both parties, they followed lockstep with the corporate initiative.

The competitive global economy is so important to these editorialists that they used it twice.

The editorialists claim there have been no secrets about the Common Core. Ha! I wonder if the editorialists know who paid for the Common Core --or who wrote the Standards.

When bureaucrats and politicos won't listen, then maybe shouting is the only option. Calling opponents paranoid isn't much of an argument. And trying to brand conservatives opposing the Common Core as nut jobs is just an attempt to drive a wedge between people of different political persuasions--so they won't join hands in fighting the Common Core. I am very far from being a Glenn Beck fan, but I watched one Glenn Beck show about the Common Core and I agreed with about 75% of the points made.

I found only one word to agree with in this editorial: Yes, the Common Core received bipartisan support. That's no surprise. Most politicos are much more eager to look to corporate moneybags than to their own constituents. My bumper sticker reads: Republicans/Democrats: Same shit/different piles. Kathy Emery, my co-author for Why Is Corporate America Bashing Our Public Schools? noted, "When Ted Kennedy and George Bush agree on something, you need to worry about who the man behind the curtain is." While writing our book, it became clear to us that the men behind the curtain are the members of the Business Roundtable.

You'd find out more by reading Missouri Education Watchdog comment on this editorial than by reading the editorial itself.

Editorial

Imagine a school conference that begins like this:

The teacher explains to the parent the progress being made by his child, based on grades of various tests and homework. Those results stem from a curriculum posted on the school's website for all parents to see.

The parent gets angry. Really angry.

"Tell the truth!" he or she screams at the teacher, who tries to calmly explain the rationale for the curriculum and grading.

Not satisfied, the parent strikes out again.

"Are you using my kid as a science experiment? Why are you trying to control his thoughts?"

This was the actual scene the other night at the Lindbergh School District as a supervisor with the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education tried to explain the various elements of the new "common core" curriculum standards being adopted in Missouri and 45 other states.

The anger is being fueled by conspiracy theorists, including some in the Missouri Legislature, who see the common core movement as some evil federal takeover of schools, rather than the thoughtful and bipartisan attempt that it is to raise standards and unify them across state lines so that the United States can do a better job of competing in a global economy.

For too long, schools from district to district and state to state have had wildly different standards and tests that make it harder for some students to compete and harder for parents and educators to get a handle on how well schools are performing.

The bipartisan effort to develop common core standards in reading, writing and math grew out of a National Governors Association initiative. The standards were developed over a several-year period of much public discussion at the local, state and federal level.

Missouri's Board of Education adopted them in 2010, and the state has been working with local districts to implement them ever since.

The meetings held at Lindbergh and seven other sites statewide last week were an attempt to appease Republican lawmakers who have been trying to put the brakes on the Common Core Standards. Some, including Sen. John Lamping, R-Ladue, argue there hasn't been enough information made available about the standards.

To them, we say: Perhaps you shouldn't have skipped your child's school conference.

The Missouri Board of Education holds open meetings. It's been very public about its process. Governors in nearly every state have been touting them. There have been no secrets about the common core.

Fact is, a few Republican politicians, including Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, have decided "common core" is the new "Obamacare," a wedge to be used to divide a nation that seems to be easy to divide these days.

The Glenn Becks of the world are telling their gullible radio listeners that the common core standards are part of a federal and international socialist brainwashing plot. Mr. Cruz, a magna cum laude graduate of Harvard Law School, likely doesn't believe that, but when he signs a letter asking the federal Department of Education to delay its implementation, he sends a signal to those motivated right-wing activists that he's one of them.

Education policy should be above such low-brow political antics, but, unfortunately, it's not.

The good news about the Missouri Legislature is that a bill to block common core standards is unlikely to pass. Rural superintendents still hold enough sway to keep lawmakers from extremely conservative districts from supporting measures that will damage local schools.

The enemy here is not the standards, and it's not the educators trying to find a way to prepare our children for the competitive global economy.

It's people who believe that shouting down a bureaucrat at a public meeting accomplishes anything. Ever.
— Editorial Board
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
May 02, 2013
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/columns/the-platform/editorial-paranoia-about-common-core-is-a-lousy-way-to/article_3544941c-3b8c-58ad-ab94-1fd59


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

So let me get this straight.  The Post Dispatch in an editorial encourages the Occupy Movement, folks demonstrating against entrenched privatization and that's acceptable behavior and motivation:

The result is "a feeling of mass injustice," says the Occupy Wall Street manifesto, which includes a long and eclectic list of specific causes and grievances — which an asterisk notes is not intended to be all inclusive. Mortgage foreclosures. Corporate bailouts. Executive bonuses. Factory farming. Animal cruelty. Corporate control of news media. And so on. (MEW note: see below)

You never know when a moment will become a movement. On Wednesday, Nov. 30, 1955, Rosa Parks rode a Montgomery, Ala., bus home from work without incident. The next evening she refused to give up her seat. The cause was right, but the struggle continues. Lasting change takes courage, persistence and dynamic leadership.

The Occupiers aren't there yet. But they've started.  

The same newspaper belittles parents and taxpayers who are feeling the same frustration at the educational industry.  The "And so on" from the above editorial apparently doesn't include taxpayers railing against the corporate/private takeover of education and the silence and/or complicity of the politicians and bureaucrats allowing it to happen.  I'd call that disingenuous, wouldn't you?

For more articles from citizens who attended the Lindbergh DESE meeting, click here.  To sign the petition to slow/rid Common Core implementation in Missouri, click here.

Why does the Post Dispatch Want More Funding for Education?

Where is education funding going?  To schools or bureaucrats?

There is an editorial in the St. Louis Post Dispatch this morning bemoaning the lack of money for education.  Here is an excerpt:

When St. Louis businessman Dave Spence, the Republican candidate for governor, visited the Post-Dispatch editorial board last month, he clearly had done his homework in one key area.

For months, this page has been arguing that Missouri's incredibly low rankings in terms of education funding are at the root of many of the state's ills, not the least of which is a moribund economy.

The numbers tell the story. Various rankings put the state among the lowest in the nation, somewhere between 45 and 47 in higher education funding. And while K-12 funding continues to slowly rise from year to year, it's not keeping pace either. National studies of education funding always put Missouri in the lowest third of states in the nation.

Mr. Spence agreed with us. But he offered not a single solution to the problem.

We asked, in as many ways as we could think of, how he would increase education funding, or even whether he definitely would commit to doing it. He said he'd find some efficiencies. Maybe. That's it.

The Post Dispatch consistently argues that the state needs more money for good education.  I ask in forums, on this blog and in conversations with others...why is that the STL city schools receive $16,000 per student and my district spends $12,000 per student, yet my district consistently scores much higher than the STL city school district?  Is the first response to educational reform and an increase in test scores answered by throwing more money at the current educational system?

I don't think it is and I suspect Mr. Spence doesn't think it is either.  Let's look at how much money has been spent on federal programs for education.  From Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation in "Reducing the Federal Footprint on Education and Empowering State and Local Leaders":

In fiscal year (FY) 2011, the federal government will spend nearly $25 billion on the more than 60 competitive grant programs and some 20 formula grant programs that currently fall under NCLB.[1] This wide range of programs strains school-level management as states and school districts must spend their time completing applications, monitoring federal program notices, and complying with federal reporting requirements.[2]

 

Demonstrating compliance with the numerous programs through which federal education funding flows has required significant work by state and local education agencies over the decades. According to a 1994 report by the General Accounting Office (GAO), the burden on states to comply with federal regulations caused states to hire 13,400 employees to oversee these programs. The GAO noted that in 1994, while just 7 percent of education funding was provided by the federal government, 41 percent of the paperwork burden imposed on states was due to compliance with federal regulation.[3]

 

No Child Left Behind, the eighth ESEA reauthorization, compounded this federal-compliance burden and further entrenched the role of Washington in education policy. Estimates from 2006 found that the new guidelines and regulations created by NCLB increased state and local education agencies’ annual paperwork burden by 6.7 million hours, at a cost of $141 million.[4] According to Representative John Kline (R–MN), chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, the federal burden has continued to grow since that time. “States and school districts work 7.8 million hours each year collecting and disseminating information required under Title I of federal education law. Those hours cost more than $235 million. The burden is tremendous, and this is just one of many federal laws weighing down our schools.”[5]

One Virginia school district reported that “the cost of setting aside a single day to train the roughly 14,000 teachers in the division on the [NCLB’s] complex requirements is equivalent to the cost of hiring 72 additional teachers.”[6]

Representative Duncan Hunter (R–CA), chairman of the Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education Subcommittee, made similar observations:

Currently, the paperwork burden imposed by the Department of Education is larger than that of the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Justice. From 2002 to 2009, the Department of Education’s paperwork burden increased by an estimated 65 percent—an astounding number that continues to grow.

In addition to program compliance, states and school districts must monitor the numerous program regulations handed down from Washington. The U.S. Department of Education has issued guidance on K–12 education programs in more than 100 separate instances since NCLB was authorized in 2002.[7]

 

Washington’s ever-expanding role in education—evident most recently in No Child Left Behind—has been paralleled by a significant growth in non-teaching staff at the school level. Since the 1950s, the number of teachers as a percentage of school staff has declined from 70 percent to approximately 51 percent. Over the same time, administrative support staff increased from 23.8 percent to 30 percent.[8] In the mid-20th century, public schools employed 2.36 teachers for every non-teacher on their rolls; today, the ratio is closer to one-to-one.[9]

Moreover, the federal government is an inefficient provider of education funding; it filters taxpayer money from the states through the Department of Education, back down to state education agencies, and, ultimately, to local schools. Each step along the way diminishes the funds that are available to serve the needs of students. A 1998 estimate suggested that just 65 cents to 70 cents of every education dollar leaving Washington makes it into the classroom.[10]

Burke details how funding could be cut to many of the 150 federal education programs creating mandates for state agencies and local districts, control handed back to the states (although I didn't see a mention of the elimination of common core which is a concern) and how education could become more effective in terms of dollars and test scores.   She puts forth recommendations on education reform (read the article for the specifics on the A-Plus program):

Recommendations for National Policymakers

• Allow states to opt out of federal K–12 programs authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and direct funding to the programs of their choice. Congress should give states more freedom in how federal education dollars are spent so that state and local leaders can use those resources in a way that will best serve student needs. The A-PLUS approach would create direct accountability to parents and taxpayers, aligning the incentives of states with the needs of families, not compliance with Washington. By allowing states to opt out of ESEA and consolidate the many federal programs operated under the law, state leaders would be able to direct funding to the most pressing education needs. It would also reduce federal red tape, limit the bureaucratic compliance burden and associated man hours and paperwork, ensure transparency, and provide direct accountability to parents and taxpayers.
• Reduce the federal footprint in education by eliminating and consolidating programs. In conjunction with measures such as A-PLUS, federal policymakers should streamline the many programs operated through the Department of Education. Instead of funneling money to the states through more than 100 competitive and formula grant programs operated by the Education Department, federal policymakers should scale back the number of programs and consolidate funding among many others. The vast majority of competitive grant programs operated within the Department of Education should be eliminated,[25] and formula grant programs that are similarly structured should be subsumed under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In addition to the numerous competitive grant programs, there are also a handful of miscellaneous programs that should be eliminated entirely: the National Writing Project, Advanced Certification of Teachers, and Reading is Fundamental are a few examples of the miscellaneous ESEA programs that should be cut. These programs should not be under the purview of the federal government.
• Simplify Title I and consolidate formula funding programs to better target funding to needy students. The Title I funding formula should be simplified using a set per-pupil allocation to ensure maximum funding reaches poor children, rather than diluting it due to formula complexity and administrative requirements. Many existing formula grant programs should be consolidated to more efficiently target funding to needy students. Eleven of 18 formula grant programs base funding on the number of low-income children in a state, similar to how Title I dollars are allocated. Following program elimination called for by the Obama Administration, these programs should be consolidated with Title I, and the formula should be simplified to ensure maximum funding reaches poor children.[26]
  
  Instead of requiring states to complete numerous applications for these federal funding streams, program consolidation would simplify state application to Washington for funding for disadvantaged student populations, reducing the paperwork burden. It could also mean a reduction in reporting requirements, further reducing the time local schools must devote to bureaucratic compliance, which could instead be spent on classroom instruction or time with students.

Congress should also permit states to make Title I funding portable, allowing funding to follow a child to the school of his parents’ choice—public, private, virtual, or otherwise.

Whether or not you agree with Burke's opinions, she makes a strong case that the Federal Government is mandating programs creating massive state debt.  Four decades of federal intervention hasn't moved test scores (they are stagnant) but it sure has decimated state budgets and created a bloated administrative bureaucratic level that is financially unsustainable.

If the Post Dispatch would get past the tired old mantra of "more money, more money, more money for education" and ask "why do we need more more money to pay for programs that don't work?" a serious and substantive  discussion could ensue and the start of real education reform could begin.

The Post writes:

We asked, in as many ways as we could think of, how he would increase education funding, or even whether he definitely would commit to doing it. He said he'd find some efficiencies. Maybe. That's it.

Maybe Mr. Spence could articulate some of the efficiencies noted in Ms. Burke's article.   I don't know why Missouri wants to spend more money for mandates voters never get to vote for while it's obvious the Federal government's educational mandated programs aren't working.

. 

Is Getting Rid of "Ineffective Teachers" THE Panacea to Education Reform?

Firing all those bad teachers hasn't helped Riverview Gardens scores. Oops.

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch letters to the editor August 19:

Absolutely failing students

Regarding "First day of school, report cards are in" (Aug. 14): Well, I guess all those bad teachers were not the problem at the Riverview Gardens School District after all. Since the state of Missouri hijacked the district two years ago under the auspices of No Child Left Behind, firing dozens of dedicated, experienced teachers, what has been accomplished there? Riverview Gardens' test scores are the absolute worst in St. Louis County, and the district's measurable academic achievement surpasses that of only a handful of the city's charter schools. One might suppose it's on the upswing, but the article on MAP scores tells us, "Riverview Gardens ... had a decline in the percentage of students passing communication arts, to less than 18 percent." The district has only 4 of the 10 points needed to gain accreditation.

What is going on in Riverview Gardens? This is not just "another unaccredited district," as the article identifies it, but rather a ward of the state of Missouri. The state, under the leadership of Riverview's former superintendent, Education Commissioner Chris Nicastro, is absolutely failing in its duty to the students there and needs to be held accountable for its educational neglect. This abject failure warrants more than a paragraph.

What's really behind this second year of abysmal scores that all of our state taxes are paying for?

Lisa M. Hummel • University City

Former teacher at Riverview Gardens

Riverview Gardens is now under the authority of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) and appointed a 3 member board for the school's daily operation.  This district had many problems including incredible corruption by the superintendent who plead no contest on two counts of felony theft and three counts of tax fraud.    The St. Louis Post Dispatch article noted in 2010 three particular issues plagued the district: 

The 6,500-student district in north St. Louis County lost its accreditation in 2007, the result of financial problems, low student achievement and corruption.

We wonder if DESE and Education Commissioner Chris Nicastro has an answer to Ms. Hummel's question.   Should DESE and the 3 member board , like some fired teachers, be deemed "ineffective" and deserve termination?  Why are the fired "ineffective" teachers in Riverview Gardens blamed for low student achievement...and the low (and lower) student achievement still exists two years later?

Maybe Wendy Kopp's Teach for America teachers with their 5 weeks of experience haven't been as effective as hoped in Riverview Gardens to improve test scores:

Placement schools range from North County's Hazelwood, Riverview Gardens, and Normandy School Districts to more central locations like the St. Louis Public Schools.

Could we have a serious discussion from DESE, Chris Nicastro and state legislators about the reasons (note the plural of "reason"...it's not just that a school needs "great teachers") why abysmal scores are unchanged or trending downward?  Why is there only reform that creates mandates pushed by special interest groups?  These groups take money funneled through taxpayers and meanwhile, education "reform" can't move test scores for some schools.  Could it be that getting rid of the "bad" teachers isn't the only problem plaguing failing schools?

 

Stories of Grace and the Sunday Education Weekly Reader 04.22.12

As noted in a previous article, stories abound with the terrible treatment of children and adults by governmental agencies and private citizens.  

It was a delight to read in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch stories of grace and compassion present in two women's lives and actions.  Where did these women learn about grace and compassion and why do they want to help people who are not related to them?  After reading the articles, do you think gracious people are those who have discovered there are obstacles in life and life is not always fair?  Do physical and emotional hardships (in their own lives or experiencing it with others) impart knowledge and emotional depth to those who have experienced grief that no data set can measure?

One is a story of listening.  That's about all an elderly woman can offer her own caregiver.  What a gift to give to someone in need.  From "Caregiving Doesn't Have to be One-Way":  

"She's changed my life," Donna told me.  

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

The second is a story of providing acknowledgement of women's special gifts, even when these gifts may not fit into a prescribed data set to ensure "success" in life.  From "Miss Amazing Pageant Celebrates Women and Girls with Disabilities":

"Everyone in the audience was either smiling the whole night or either crying or laughing," she said. "I think every girl should get an opportunity to feel beautiful and important."

This second link includes a video about the experience headed by a young college student who wants to give girls the opportunities she has had that they don't.  How has she developed this interest?

A love of pageants and working with people with disabilities came together recently for Lindenwood University junior Ellie Lorenzen.

She organized Missouri's first Miss Amazing Pageant, an event for girls and women with disabilities held April 14 at Lindenwood.

Lorenzen, 21, has been competing in pageants for five years. Her oldest brother, Jordan, 27, is severely mentally disabled. She describes him as a prankster and full of life, but he will never be able to live on his own.

"He has really shaped my family," she said. "My brother and sister and I really live our life to the fullest knowing how much of a blessing he is."

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

Thanks to the Post-Dispatch for these stories of grace from a dying elderly woman and a young woman in college.  Both have touched lives in countless ways.  These articles are educational lessons in compassion, grace and love.  Maybe these are ultimately the most important lessons we all need to learn and practice.  How will they be measured on a data set? 

An Education in how the Nanny State Operates

 

Guest commentary: Will my child be allowed to work on my farm?

This is a sad and alarming guest commentary from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on the control the American government wants over your children.  It doesn't stop at the school door.  It's in your home, on your farm,  in the packing of your child's school lunch.

 

What is the belief of the elitists in the government?  The American parent is incompetent.  Leave it to the government to dictate to you how to raise your children.