Category Archives: Education Reform

Volume Control

Posted on by
Reply

Ever testify at a public forum? If you are an education activist, at some point you will have to do so because that is part of how we “govern” schools — based on political decorum.

The Common Core issue in Idaho revealed a whole other aspect of how our representative form of governing education “works” and how the voice of the People is controlled.

Knowing there was growing discontent with the Core, instead of the usual open “hearing,” our Idaho lawmakers decided to convene a panel supposedly based on the idea that it would give “citizens a chance to ask questions on that issue.”

The public was allowed to submit questions ahead of time “so the panelists could research and prepare their answers.” It was reported that over 200 people attended the exhibition and many of us watched online. It was all very controlled. No debate or real discussion ensued and there was not enough time to answer all the questions. That should have made lawmakers wonder.

A week later, a “listening session” was scheduled for lawmakers to hear what the people had to say about upcoming education policies but at that time – no policies had been written — for the public to review. And it was made clear that “People may address the committee on any education topic except Common Core.” Just as it was made clear that at the Common Core session “No public testimony will be taken.”

This type of action by officials is effective volume control. The real pro’s and con’s on Common Core from the People’s perspective has yet to be heard openly for the undecided but caring in Idaho to hear for themselves.

And it seems to have become common practice to limit “speech” to three minutes. On the surface, it seems practical. If there is a multitude of people feeling so strongly about a topic that they come to the statehouse or board meeting, how else do they all get a chance to be heard? Think about it, “a” chance. And in those situations, is the “panel” – be they lawmakers or a school board – really listening?

Instead journalistic glimpses are seen or heard allowing the dissenters to become open prey for the propagandists who have the microphone.

Turn it up!

Turn it up!

The only option left for dissenters is to turn up the volume.

 

“Just” Standards

Posted on by
2

“These standards are just that—they are standards.” These are the words used by Luci Willits of Idaho State Department of Education, Chief of Staff to Tom Luna, as she introduced Common Core to our Senate Education Committee (1/19/11). And you will hear that sentiment parroted by others;

“The standards are just that: standards.” Bill Gates (2/12/14)

But when you look further, you can find the claim that,

“When the grant [Race to the Top] was put forth, the State Department of Education went to the colleges to ensure that any student who passes these standards will be able to go to any college without the need of remedial training.”

Standards DON’T “ensure” student success. Somehow, these standards became magical standards. And all of Idaho’s major colleges and universities stood with arms locked in testimony to the Core.

Standards are “just” guides. But these standards —The Common Core Standards — are much, much more. They are the Trojan Horse of systemic transformation.

But Idaho’s department of education went even further in claiming…

“There is also tremendous cost-savings associated with these standards; Idaho will be able to get the test it has always wanted but never been able to pay for.”

Who will pay? The same magician sprinkling fairy dust, or, will we all be paying the pied piper?

Lawmakers across the country are being asked to judge whether this is the change that is best for children, families, and communities. How will they make the call when the horse is so attractive?

Expose what is in the belly of the beast. The foundational principles, or the assumptions that are made by those in power, are what is important to understand.

Look inside!

Look inside!

  • The State will decide what education outcomes are important based on economic data.
  • Local control is a barrier that can be gotten around by training school board members properly (decided by the Broad Foundation?).
  • Lay-citizen participation in governance of schools should be weakened “in favor of control by politicians, especially governors, elected positions in general government.” (Marc Tucker, Governing American Education, page 44)

Real school improvement involves “lay-citizens.” But that is not how it is seen from above.

I know many people believe that private industry can do a better job than public institutions. But please think about what happens when private associations and organizations are using the law to their benefit – monetarily or for political power – what will be the true cost to taxpayers?

In Idaho, as it would seem to be the case across the country, the seemingly innocent policy of strategic planning and training of school boards is being put into law. It is putting the governing of schools at the local level in jeopardy.

Strategic planning is not necessarily a school improvement process; it all depends on who does the “training” and what “curriculum” they are using. What will those in control be “leveraging” our board members to do?

Close the gate (so to speak). Keep the Trojan Horse out!

Decide how schools will be governed. It matters!

Mr. Gates & Common Core Myths

Posted on by
3

Dear Mr. Gates,

About your “myths”:

Myth: Common Core was created without involving parents, teachers or state and local governments.
In calling this a myth, you are making an assumption that governors and school officials represent parents’ views.
“Each of the 45 states that have adopted them used the same process used to adopt previous standards?” NOT true here in Idaho.

Myth: Common Core State Standards means students will have to take even more high-stakes tests.
It isn’t the number of “high-stakes tests” that we dissenters object to; it is the detrimental effects of high-stakes testing. THAT is the biggest problem with the No Child Left Behind philosophy of “education reform.”

Myth: Common Core standards will limit teachers’ creativity and flexibility.
This is the first I have heard this “myth” worded like this so it must not be far-reaching. Standards do limit curriculum when tied to high-stakes testing so that might be where you misinterpret the “myth.”

If you and all others like you, Mr. Gates, understood the real basis – original findings – of Effective Schools Research, you would see that standards aren’t the deciding factor at all in school improvement and how it is accomplished.

There is value in consistency – in national guiding principles (philosophy of pedagogy, school culture, curriculum guidelines, benchmarks, roles of each level of the governance structure, standards of practice, ethics, responsibilities and expectations of each “player” being defined).

Mr. Gates, when you first began focusing on education, you said you would “read up” on the topic. I tried my hardest to be heard by you but your gatekeepers proved formidable. But the reality is, there is a huge problem here in my thinking that I need to be heard by you rather than by MY OWN government.

Common Core is “inspired by a simple and powerful idea: Every American student should leave high school with the knowledge and skills to succeed in college and in the job market.” That is EXACTLY what was being said here in Idaho prior to No Child Left Behind. I still have the old documents to prove it.

Study harder, Mr. Gates. You missed the history of the failures of reforms. Doomed to repeat them?

Regrettably,

The crucial voice of the people?

The crucial voice of the people?

Dr. Young – Parent, former public school patron, long time advocate for public schools, researcher, author – and one more voice unheard by the powerful.

 

Masters of Deception

Posted on by
1

Actions speak louder than words.

May 2009 Governor Otter and Idaho State School Chief Tom Luna signed a memorandum of agreement with the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) agreeing to the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) in addition to defining the federal role in education for us.

But they said they did so “with the understanding that these standards are not mandatory.”

August 11, 2010 The Idaho State Board of Education approved Common Core with Mr. Luna in attendance.

Mr. Luna campaigned – not on Common Core and Students Come First laws – but on how good a job he had done and that Idaho was on the “right track.”

November elections Yes, Idaho is one of few states that elect the person to head education (because the politics are so great and politics drives school improvement so well?). Mr. Luna was re-elected.

December 15, 2010: Luna named president-elect of CCSSO with his term beginning in November 2011.

January 2011 – Idaho legislative session begins. Lawmakers and the public heard – for the first time – the introduction of what would come to be hated as the Luna Laws (Students Come First –ha). For our Idaho lawmakers, it began on January 12th with a presentation of The Pillars of Student-Centered Education.

Testimony proceeded with heated debate on both sides of the issues. The pillars – technology-replacing teachers through a one-on-one laptop program with online graduation credits required, pay-for-performance, and limiting collective bargaining.

Among a docket full of rules reviews and hearings on budget items plus the

As our attention was focused on the Luna Laws, the Common Core Standards agreement signed in 2009 was quietly pushed into law. And the Luna Laws held our attention.

As our attention was focused on the Luna Laws, the Common Core Standards agreement signed in 2009 was quietly pushed into law. And the Luna Laws held our attention. Image from Boise Weekly.

unfolding of the details of the Luna Laws, on January 19th mid-afternoon in front of ONLY the senate education committee, Mr. Luna answered questions asked previously of him on a variety of statistics including class size, teacher pay, funding for new assessments, internet conductivity issues in rural areas, laptop issues, outsourcing of IT services, and just a slew of concerns…yawn…. Then, after a short story about how Common Core began with “an impromptu discussion about common achievement standards among states,” Luna’s Chief of Staff, Luci Willits, introduced Rules Governing Thoroughness; Common Core Standards (Docket #08-0203-1003).

Ms. Willits is the same person who explained, “When the grant was put forth, the SDE [State Department of Education] went to the colleges to ensure that any student who passes these standards will be able to go to any college without the need of remedial training.” And she said, “These standards are just that—they are standards.” Hum?

Since when can people read a set of standards on math and language arts and say “passing” them (the tests I assume) will “ensure” student success without remediation? Given the information they had at the time. is that possible?

Anyway, very few but good questions followed this brief presentation to the Senate Education Committee prior to adjournment for the day. Without further discussion and no testimony from the public (who knew – those watching the session were caught up in the Luna Laws debate), on the afternoon of January 24th Senator Winder moved to approve Docket #08-0203-1003. The motion passed with unanimous consent.

Mar.-Apr., 2011: Governor Otter signs Students Come First Legislation (S. 1108, 1110  & 1184). Then, the fight in Idaho to remove those laws kept the public’s attention for two years.

I think this is a great example of Card Stacking that employs all the arts of deception by stacking the cards against the truth. It uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to dodge issues and evade facts. It uses half-truths.

Cards Stacked ; Game Rigged

Cards Stacked ; Game Rigged

Truth about Common Core? It is built on a foundation of lies and deceit. And it isn’t just standards; it is a package of reforms of which we have only seen the surface. There is much more below the surface if you care to dig. It includes linking the pieces to the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (CCSSO again!) and training of all our education “workers.”

I’d rather see us stop a moment.

Public education needs to first fix its foundation of trust and base real reform on proven and ethical principles.

Reign of Error

Posted on by
Reply

Dear Diane Ravitch,

The title of your book, Reign of Error, describes perfectly the tenure of Idaho’s twice elected Chief School Officer Superintendent Tom Luna.

Mr. Luna chaired the Idaho commission that developed academic standards for all grades and subjects from 1997 to 2000. Then from 2000 to 2002, he chaired our assessment and accountability commission to create a test for new standards. Plus, as the state superintendent, he created the switch from the “needs improvement” rankings of No Child Left Behind to a rating system based on “stars.”

Seventeen years of directing change in education in Idaho, really?

Against the urging of one of his closest allies in education reform, Governor Butch Otter who said “Don’t make these decisions when you’re getting beat up by the editorial vigilantes,” Luna will not run for another term. He will, however, with the time left in his term, continue to push for the same “changes” he pushed previously.

Those changes were sold as reform, modernization, and innovation with Luna now being credited as the innovator. Those familiar with the Michelle Rhee StudentsFirst political agenda will see this for what it is —unbridled standardization and privatization by limiting collective bargaining, implementing test-based teacher accountability, and getting more technology into every students hands without regard to costs. In a state that is dead last in per-pupil spending, this is irresponsible not innovative. Class size be damned!

Voters resoundingly defeated these “Students Come First” laws, yet, they are back in another form and their first defeat is already being rewritten in history. “I believed (Luna’s teacher pay proposal) and Students Come First were exactly what students of Idaho needed,” Shackett [a local superintendent] said. “Unfortunately, the public was, I believe, duped into thinking otherwise by a strong campaign against the initiatives.”

Lawmakers now are poised to set the people straight by passing the same initiatives using different terminology and Common Core as the next best tool in the box.
Seventeen years of following the same test-based theories of reform and their diagnosis is we need higher standards, better tests with them secured to teacher pay, and the best technology we can buy (obviously forgetting we are the state with the highest percent of minimum wage jobs and the lowest per-capita income).

Not to appear to be a bullying Mr. Luna after having been a long-time editorial vigilante, I have tried in earnest – multiple times – to have conversations with him even going as far as offering to help write our Race to the Top grant in hopes – I will admit – of working in effective schools research to help struggling schools. I feel bad that I have to “go after” this one person but I do.

His reign of error won’t end with the end of his term if his chief reform philosophy is embedded in law.

Standardized test-based accountability does not “work” to improve schools. But the error of Mr. Luna’s ways doesn’t end there. He is continuing to use double-speak to pull the wool over people’s eyes. If people believe he has done Idaho schools such a great favor in implementing his accountability schemes for a generation of students, how can they ignore the findings of the system created by this philosophy?

“By far the biggest problems, based on the reports, are found in Mississippi and Idaho, which seem to be struggling most with how to help the 15 percent of their schools with the lowest test scores and the largest achievement gaps.”computer-159320_150

Mr. Luna and his supporters say we need Common Core, tests, technology, and teacher pay tied to tests; I hear differently from people in the trenches and say we need a “needs assessment” and analysis of our lowest-performing schools done by independent, highly-qualified, outside evaluators. These schools are the same ones we have identified in three different ways now — how can we think we need to do it again with “higher standards and better tests”?

The Reign of Error must end!

Respectfully and with Thanks,
Dr. Victoria M. Young

Propaganda Pitfalls

Posted on by
4

So as not to be misunderstood, propaganda is technically defined as the promotion of one’s ideas to further a cause. Label me a propagandist in this sense and I will now gladly stand beside Thomas Paine.

thomas-paine-arguing-600x305(Quick reference to a list for those not wanting to read this blog.)

Researching Paine for my first book, I had decided then that the last person I wanted to be like was he. He was labeled a revolutionary propagandist. But now that I’ve had some time to look into the topic of propaganda and thought about some of the ideas presented by Ronald B. Standler  (and others), I can see Standler’s point in that propaganda is an essential tool for leaders but it is equally as essential that we recognize when propaganda techniques are being used. Only then can we think our way clear of the pitfalls.

As Standler explained, “Rhetoric is the art of persuading someone…Propaganda is a subset of rhetoric, in which the speaker/writer attempts to manipulate the audience with emotion or fallacious reasoning.” Defining a propagandist like this, I hope I’m not labeled this way. I have written some emotional things, because I am passionate about educational improvement. But I have not attempted to manipulate any of my readers. I have tried to unite not divide.

Standler felt that “the us vs. them posturing is particularly damaging to society, in that it is inherently divisive and erects barriers to working together to solve problems that affect everyone.”

You can go online and find multiple authors explaining propaganda techniques. I randomly chose Rickety’s examples to summarize here:

Name-Calling is a device to make us form a judgment without examining the evidence. It appeals to our hate and fear.

Glittering Generality is a device to make us accept and approve without examining the evidence. It appeals to our emotions of love, generosity, and sisterhood.

Transfer is a device by which the propagandist carries over the authority, sanction, and prestige of something we respect and revere to something he would have us accept (nationalism and religion being examples). Symbols are used to stir emotions both for and against causes and ideas.

Testimonial is a device to make us accept.

Plain Folks is a device to win our confidence by appearing to be just plain folks like us.

Card Stacking employs all the arts of deception by stacking the cards against the truth. It uses under-emphasis and over-emphasis to dodge issues and evade facts. It uses half-truths.

Bandwagon is a device to make us follow the crowd, to accept the propagandists program en masse. The theme is: “Everybody’s doing it” and our emotions push and pull us on to the Band Wagon.

Please go read the examples others have written. It is up to each of us to recognize when propaganda is intentionally being used in misleading the public or discrediting those fighting the good fight.

When I wrote, They Have Plans for U.S. Children, I can see why some people instantly refused to hear what I had to say because of my choice of “art” to decorate that page and attract more attention to the article. Many feel that Nazism is too “inflammatory” a topic for “rational discussion” and there is of course “Godwin’s law”  that whoever makes an analogy to Nazism has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress, losing “credibility” in the discussion. That worries me because the gentleman that came up with that theory talked of “inappropriate” analogies. Who is to be the judge of that? And isn’t that “labeling” of a person as “non-credible” – a form of name calling?

Be aware, think, make your own informed decisions, and resist conformity without valid reasons.conformity-final-1

Our country is embarking on a propaganda campaign in education of the likes that we have never seen — over Common Core. Those of us taking a stand against the Core will be targets.

The political season is upon us and the topic of education has the attention of much of the nation as never before. Be careful out there; watch for and avoid the pitfalls!

STANDARDIZED & PRIVATIZED

Posted on by
6

Are Americans sure they want a standardized and privatized system of “public” schools? Does the public understand what is happening?

Dismantling through standardization and privatization. That is what is being done using

Hard to See. That's why they call it Hidden Privatization.

Hard to See. That’s why they call it Hidden Privatization.

the crowbar of outcome-based “reforms.”

Long ago political leaders of both parties began allowing and fostering policies that the arrogant and greedy have used to their advantage and to our detriment. We are allowing a widely recognized destructive and over-reaching federal law —No Child Left Behind (NCLB)—to go unchecked and unchanged. (As of December 2015 the name was changed to the Every Student Succeeds Act – ESSA- but it is still an outcome-based (test-based) federal law.

NCLB celebrated its 12th birthday. It is officially six years overdue for revision—according to its own statute. Why? Is it because Congress can’t get it right, or, is the law doing exactly what it was meant to do?

What we know it did:
1.    Narrowed the curriculum,
2.    Produced cheating scandals,
3.    Gave use data without real results,
4.    Diminished local control and divided communities.

What we know it did NOT do:
1.    Increase accountability for results,
2.    Narrow the achievement gap.

It appears that NCLB also opened the policy door for full standardization and privatization with policies promoted as putting “students first” and the latest new tool for undermining the system — Common Core.

The Idaho task force recommendations* rely heavily on Common Core, the Luna Laws, and outcome-based theory (upon which NCLB was based). R&D – research and development (not Republicans and Democrats) – recommends differently.

*Note: Idaho has its Governor’s “Task Force for Improving Education” putting forth 20 recommendations that the public knows little of in the way of details – but the “preview” is well written. Poised to repeat the mistakes of the past!

*****Double Note for the Nation*****Beware the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Who controls “leadership” and school board “training”? It is in our soon to pass laws – better check yours.

This was originally written for and published in the Idaho Statesman January 30, 2014.

I’m sharing it here because I believe – we must share what we know to be the truth. Also consider, To Privatize or Not to Privatize

And for those brave enough to want to consider the global scale of this, check out Hidden Privatisation. Here’s a one page brief.

Thank you for caring….Now let’s stop this destruction!

Words Are Not Enough

Posted on by
3

Flotsam is the wreckage of a ship or its cargo, worthless things, unemployed people.

Jetsam is that part of the cargo thrown overboard to lighten a ship in danger.

The only reason I looked those words up in a dictionary was because Martin Luther King, Jr. hit a chord with me when he spoke these words: “I refuse to accept the idea that man is mere flotsam and jetsam in the river of life unable to influence the unfolding of events which surround him.” Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, 1964

And knowing that the “March on Washington” in 1963 was organized to urge Congress to pass John F. Kennedy’s civil rights bill calling for equal opportunity in employment and education, I have thought long and hard about the children in this country being treated like flotsam and jetsam.

I know MLK was more focused on the unemployed adults at the time that he spoke those words, but children are people too, and much less likely to be able to influence events that can engulf them and take them under. They need us so desperately to do the right thing and stop ignoring the challenges they face that we can influence.

The March is Unfinished.

The poster says it all.

The poster says it all.

Today we celebrate his birthday of January 15, 1929. And many of his words will forever be recalled. But words are not enough.

“Let us move on in these powerful days, these days of challenge to make America what it ought to be. We have an opportunity to make America a better nation.” April 3, 1968

RIP April 4, 1968

2014 and The Governing of Reform

Posted on by
Reply

After reading the Mike Petrilli blog about “universal proficiency by 2014,” it prompted recall of these words that are so central to our success:

“What is absolutely crucial in replication is that the assumptions, conceptions, values, and priorities undergirding what you seek to replicate are clear in your head and you take them seriously; you truly accept and believe them, they are non-negotiable starting points.”  Seymour B. Sarason

The following is an excerpt from The Crucial Voice of the People, Past and Present posted here in an attempt to clarify parts of Dr. Sarason’s statement.

CONCEPTIONS: THE GOVERNING OF REFORM
Like most words, the word “conceptions” has different meanings. When applied to the replication of effective practices in education, both a “formulation of ideas” and the “beginning of some process” (Webster’s, 1976) seem applicable.

The governing of education is legally a state responsibility. The reality is that some states do a better job fulfilling that responsibility than others. Partially, it is because of differences in the way they are governed. For example, as the result of a lawsuit against the state of Massachusetts, a ruling was made that “all children must get an adequate education” and their 1993 Education Reform Act was created. The goals were to equalize funding among districts and improve all student performance.

The state chose to use these instruments for change (as outlined by Minnesota):

  1.  increase state spending on education,
  2.  create curriculum frameworks that set high expectations for student learning,
  3.  create student performance assessments aligned with the curriculum frameworks.

But there was something else very important to Massachusetts’s success, the process. In section 3 of their law, they set up advisory councils in the following areas: early childhood education; life management skills and home economics; educational personnel; fine arts education; gifted and talented education; math and science education; racial imbalance; parent and community education and involvement; special education; bilingual education; technology education; vocational-technical education; global education; and comprehensive interdisciplinary health education and human service pro- grams. And the law specified “a reasonable balance of members,” that they should “be broadly representative of all areas,” and it described specifics for each advisory council.

We must continue to remind ourselves that we cannot take one piece of the equation for educational success or one aspect of a successful “model” without considering all the other factors that contribute to success. Summaries or “briefs” as presented here can never do justice to the bigger picture.

Massachusetts used their available experts and a broad range of interested community members to form councils that established their success factors. It couldn’t have been easy. Democratic processes never are. But “democracy is not attained through osmosis. It works because people recognize their responsibilities in it and put forth the effort to make it work through their actions” (Minzey & LeTarte, 1994, 88). And some states took note, like Minnesota, and followed suit. How their stories end, we can’t know. What we do know is that too many states are making uninformed decisions, are not using researched practices, are not using “experts,” are not adequately funding education, and are not using a democratic decision-making process. Some states fail to meet their responsibility.
*****

We must focus on the problems in order to solve them.

We must focus on the problems in order to solve them.

Today, America as a whole is not yet facing the fact that No Child Left Behind was based on faulty assumptions. We have paid a heavy price — made heavier the longer we ignore the fact that we have not been clear in demanding the best alternative for reauthorization.

Our non-negotiable starting points must guide us if we are to “get it right” (“it” being No Child Left Behind). Do we still value the ideals undergirding President Kennedy’s “twin goals”: “a new standard of excellence in education and the availability of such excellence to all who are willing and able to pursue it”?

The governing of the process by which we set —not standards, but— a standard of excellence matters. State responsibility, yes, but what of “local control”?

The Little Engine That Could

Posted on by
Reply
I think we can.

I think we can.

I think we can; I know we can. The question is, will we?

We can move from test and punishment “reforms” — the No Child Left Behind prescription — to policies and practices that concentrate on helping schools improve.

To do so:

“American education, that great engine of the democracy, does not drive itself. It must be guided, not by one but by many, into a future of incalculable promise.” Francis Keppel, 1966, pg. 163 of The Necessary Revolution in American Education