The Network for Public Education launches

Diane Ravitch and a host of other pro-public education supporters have launched a new and exciting endevour to counter corporate education reformers - The Network for Public Education

Here's their announcement

Our public schools are at risk. As public awareness grows about the unfair attacks on public education, parents, teachers, and concerned citizens are organizing to protect our public schools.

Public education is an essential institution in a democratic society. We believe that we must stand together to resist any efforts to privatize it.

We must also stand together to oppose unsound policies that undermine the quality of education, like high-stakes testing and school closings.

High-stakes testing takes the joy out of learning. It crushes creativity and critical thinking, the very qualities our society needs most for success in the 21st century. High-stakes testing does not tell us whether and how well students are learning or teachers are teaching; it does waste precious time and resources.

No school was ever improved by closing it. Every community should have good public schools, and we believe that public officials have a solemn responsibility to improve public schools, not close or privatize them.

The movement to support public education is growing every day:

From teachers in Seattle who are boycotting the MAP test, to students testifying in Washington about the devastating effect of school closures, to children, parents and teachers standing together in Chicago, to voters in Indiana, to students organizing against excessive testing in Providence, Rhode Island, and Portland, Oregon; from school boards in Texas opposing high-stakes testing; parents, educators, students, and other citizens are taking bold action to speak out for our schools.

We reject phony reforms that undermine our schools and set them up for failure and privatization. We oppose the constant increase in testing, with ever higher stakes attached to them. We have had enough of school closures, and the rapid expansion of selective charter schools.

Our public schools need our support. Our schools are part of our democratic heritage. They should be anchors of stability and hope in our communities.

We believe in keeping public education public. We oppose efforts to transfer public funds to private corporations. We oppose the transfer of public funds and students to for-profit corporations. We say to big business: hands off our public schools!

Today we are launching a new organization, the Network for Public Education. This group will serve to connect all those who are passionate about our schools – students, parents, teachers and OTHER citizens. We will share information an research on vital issues that concern the future of public education. We hope to inspire one another as we work together and learn together about how to resist the attacks on public education.

We are many. There is power in our numbers. Together, we will save our schools.

We hope to help support the growing social movement to support public schools. When you join this network, you will become a part of this movement. We will send out regular bulletins, and use our website to share the latest information about what is happening around the country. We will link activists, grassroots organizations, and bloggers from coast to coast, and whenever possible, support one another.

Our neighborhood schools are not just a local concern any more. It took the work of many before us to build our schools, and it will take the work of many more of us to make sure they are standing for the next generation. Let’s get started.

HB555 FAQ for teacher evaluations

We've just got our hands on this document put out by the Ohio Department of Education. It's an updated framework for teacher evaluations based on the changes that were slipped into HB555 in the dead of night.

Is there a more ridiculously convoluted and complex framework for evaluating any other professions job performance? How is any teacher expected to understand all this enough to know where to focus improvement efforts, especially since the Value-added formula itself is secret and proprietary.

HB 555 FAQ with regard to teacher evaluations by

Double down on failure

No Child Left Behind introduced the idea of high stakes education. Few today doubt it's failure.

More Americans think the No Child Left Behind Act, which has governed federal education grants to public schools for a decade, has made education worse rather than better, by 29% to 16%. Thirty-eight percent say NCLB hasn't made much of a difference, while 17% are not familiar enough with the law to rate it.

That rejection is across all demographic groups.

People know failure when they see it. But, rather than re-evaluate the consequences of pushing for ever higher stakes, corporate education reformers have doubled down.

We haven't even begun most efforts, but we've already lost the State Superintendent to scandal, have delayed critical school report cards because of an invesitgation into erasures, have an evaluation system few are going to be able to figure out - let alone implement, a voucher privatization scheme few parents have been interest in, and all in an environment of massive and reackless budget cuts, and appointments of college quarterbacks with no education background to the State Board of Education.

Shady group secretly plots against voters

According to Gongwer, a "by-invitation-only" meeting of lobbyists and political insiders was held Tuesday morning at a private club in Columbus by a group seeking to oppose the Voters First Amendment.

The meeting was sponsored by Protect Your Vote Ohio. Voters First responded to this new revelation

"Today's backroom meeting at a private club is yet another example of the broken political system where politicians, lobbyists and insiders rig districts for their own benefit-and exactly why we need this reform," Ms. Turcer. "The hosts of this meeting are the same people who spent months in a hotel room they called 'the bunker,' drawing political boundaries to benefit themselves. It's no surprise that they'll say or do anything to protect their own power."

The Dayton Daily News gets the scoop on who some of the people are who are forming this shady group

Protect Your Vote solicited the help of state lobbyists Tuesday during a private event at the Capital Club in Columbus, according to an invitation obtained by the Dayton Daily News. The campaign organizers listed on the invitation include fundraisers and others with ties to the Republican elected officials who had a hand in drafting the new boundaries.

Campaign Manager Brandon Lynaugh declined Tuesday to comment on the fundraiser and other Protect Your Vote activities.

One of the finance consultants listed on the invitations, Ray DiRossi, was paid $105,000 to assist elected officials in drawing the boundaries last year. Another consultant, Pamela Hashem, is a major fundraiser for U.S. House Speaker John Boehner, R-West Chester Twp.

Secrecy is no stranger to these people and the politicians they serve to keep the political system working for everyone but voters.

According to the Ohio Redistricting Transparency Report released this afternoon, Republican lawmakers at the state house implemented a strategy of deliberate secrecy to withhold information from the public about redistricting efforts. The documents paint a picture of lawmakers who purposely operated in a legal gray area to prevent their actions from ever being made public.

For months, Republican lawmakers and staff meet in secret to work on redistricting efforts in possible violation of Ohio’s open meetings law. The documents show a Republican party that are so obsessed with privacy that they used taxpayer dollars to rent a secret hotel room in Columbus that was used as a location to meet on redistricting issues.

You can read the report and all the shady secret dealings that went into drawing Ohio's new political boundaries, here.

Shaming teachers

The efforts by corporate education reformers to shame teachers by publishing value-add scores and evaluations is coming under mounting pressure. First Bill Gates penned an op-ed in the NYT titled "Shame Is Not the Solution, now comes 2 new pieces. The first is research from the National Education Policy Center, that finds the LA Times controversial efforts to shame California's teachers was grossly error ridden

In its second attempt to rank Los Angeles teachers based on “value-added” assessments derived from students’ standardized test scores, the Los Angeles Times has still produced unreliable information that cannot be used for the purpose the newspaper intends, according to new research released today by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder

Dr. Catherine Durso of the University of Denver studied the newspaper’s 2011 rankings of teachers and found that they rely on data yielding results that are unstable from year to year. Additionally, Durso found that the value-added assessment model used by the Times can easily impute to teachers effects that may in fact result from outside factors, such as a student’s poverty level or the neighborhood in which he or she lives.

“The effect estimate for each teacher cannot be taken at face value,” Durso writes. Instead, each teacher’s effect estimate includes a large “error band” that reflects the probable range of scores for a teacher under the assessment system.

“The error band . . . for many teachers is larger than the entire range of scores from the ‘less effective’ to ‘more effective’ designations provided by the LA Times,” Durso writes. As a consequence, the so-called teacher-linked effect for individual teachers “is also unstable over time,” she continues.
[...]
These failings have rendered the Times’ rankings not merely useless, but potentially harmful, according to Alex Molnar, NEPC’s publications director and a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder.

“The Los Angeles Times has added no value to the discussion of how best to identify and retain the highest-quality teachers for our nation’s children,” Molnar says. “Indeed, it has made things worse. Based on this flawed use of data, parents are enticed into thinking their children’s teachers are either wonderful or terrible.”

“The Los Angeles Times editors and reporters either knew or should have known that their reporting was based on a social science tool that cannot validly or reliably do what they set out to quantify,” Molnar said. “Yet in their ignorance or arrogance they used it anyway, to the detriment of children, teachers, and parents.”

Their full report can be read here. Meanwhile in New York, which has long been at the cutting edge of corporate ed reform efforts has passed legislation that would eliminate this kind of teacher shaming

Senate Republicans agreed to take up Cuomo’s bill on the final day of the session. The bill will make public all teacher evaluations, without names attached. Parents would then be able to obtain the specific evaluations of their own child’s teacher. Assembly Democrats had already agreed to pass it. Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos says it’s a reasonable compromise.

“It strikes a good balance between parents’ right to know and some form of confidentially,” Skelos said. Some GOP Senators were concerned that the bill would inadvertently result in the disclosure of the identities of teachers in small rural schools.

Senate Education Chair John Flanagan calls it a “work in progress,” and says the message of intent accompanying the bill will attempt to make clear the need to protect teacher privacy. “I’m hoping that if you’re in a small school and they release data by class, subject and grade that there’s some type of interpretation to protect people’s privacy,” said Flanagan.

Ohio's legislature should pass similar efforts in Ohio.

Choosing blindly

As we continue to explore areas of education reform currently under discussed, we wanted to bring this recently released study from the Brookings Institute's Brown Center on Education Policy, titled "Choosing Blindly: Instructional Materials, Teacher Effectiveness, and the Common Core", to your attention.

Students learn principally through interactions with people (teachers and peers) and instructional materials (textbooks, workbooks, instructional software, web-based content, homework, projects, quizzes, and tests). But education policymakers focus primarily on factors removed from those interactions, such as academic standards, teacher evaluation systems, and school accountability policies. It’s as if the medical profession worried about the administration of hospitals and patient insurance but paid no attention to the treatments that doctors give their patients.

There is strong evidence that the choice of instructional materials has large effects on student learning—effects that rival in size those that are associated with differences in teacher effectiveness. But whereas improving teacher quality through changes in the preparation and professional development of teachers and the human resources policies surrounding their employment is challenging, expensive, and time-consuming, making better choices among available instructional materials should be relatively easy, inexpensive, and quick.

Administrators are prevented from making better choices of instructional materials by the lack of evidence on the effectiveness of the materials currently in use. For example, the vast majority of elementary school mathematics curricula examined by the Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse either have no studies of their effectiveness or have no studies that meet reasonable standards of evidence.

Not only is little information available on the effectiveness of most instructional materials, there is also very little systematic information on which materials are being used in which schools. In every state except one, it is impossible to find out what materials districts are currently using without contacting the districts one at a time to ask them. And the districts may not even know what materials they use if adoption decisions are made by individual schools. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which has the mission of collecting and disseminating information related to education in the U.S., collects no information on the usage of particular instructional materials.

This scandalous lack of information will only become more troubling as two major policy initiatives—the Common Core standards and efforts to improve teacher effectiveness—are implemented. Publishers of instructional materials are lining up to declare the alignment of their materials with the Common Core standards using the most superficial of definitions. The Common Core standards will only have a chance of raising student achievement if they are implemented with high-quality materials, but there is currently no basis to measure the quality of materials. Efforts to improve teacher effectiveness will also fall short if they focus solely on the selection and retention of teachers and ignore the instructional tools that teachers are given to practice their craft.

The full report can be read here.