How Common Standards & Data Collection Became Our Common Problem

Posted on October 15, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

Our common problem with test-based reforms began long ago.

Sold on the idea that common standards will benefit the nation economically, the public — not most teachers, not most parents — the public assisted in the adoption of Common Core National Standards. Together, we created a common problem.

Does the public know who owns them? Do we understand how much data is collected, where that data goes, and what it is and will be used for? And, is it vulnerable to abuse and misuse?

Please look closely at the who, what, and why of Common Core. The safety of children’s data demands we get answers. The answers —the truth— are why The Common Core “State” Initiative must be dismantled.

Who was at the Common Core development table?

On the official Common Core development team, there were numerous people associated with corporate information systems specialists. Information systems companies that already manage our national energy and defense information, data collection, and data mining were represented. That should give us pause.

Does the public approve of private industry holding student information AND being such an integral part of developing “THE” standards upon which the WHOLE public education system will function?

What are the plans for student and teacher data?

Many of the people at the Common Core table also sat on board of directors for Morgan Stanley, Smith Barney, Lehman Brothers, and were associated with Goldman Sachs Foundation. Remember the “too-big-to-fail” financiers? Recall – THEY DID FAIL!

Their failures wreaked havoc on our economy. Then, they ended up sitting on the Core standards development team along with testing, tech, and curriculum development specialists. And we trust them with our children’s data?

The data will be swapped just like real estate. It will be bundled and packaged. It will be traded and sold. It will be used to develop new education fads and products. Sales will line the pockets of those in the industries of testing, technology, and curriculum materials (yup, same industries that pushed “higher, common” standards). We know this is true because it is happening.

In the end, our public education system is to be but a cog in the business of “human capital development.”

That’s their terminology. Students are being seen as products. And teachers will be evaluated and sorted just like the students — based on data.

How much of this data is really necessary for use in our schools? Thus far, no one is demanding an answer. So the threat of standardization through the Common Core assessments and common data collection system has been allowed to become a common problem.

Despite objections and protests, why has Common Core (under a variety of names) continued to direct the education of our nation’s children?

We know why it was pushed; the pushers made money. And there is no doubt; the data being collected is to facilitate a complete P-20W (early learning through postsecondary workforce) system. Common Core is the heart of that system.

Why did we comply?

Beginning with the 1994 Clinton reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), “challenging” content standards and testing were federalized —cemented into federal law. Standards and assessments became the education (pretense of) reform rule of the land without question and, to date, without open debate of the truth. Then the 2001 Bush ESEA reauthorization, No Child Left Behind, took the concept further by federalizing national test-based accountability.

The sell job of test-based accountability was in the wording. Want “better student outcomes,” “higher achievement,” to “leave no child behind”? PLUS, you like the idea of “accountability, flexibility, and choice”? …Yes, yes, yes, and yes…. Thus, the public was duped. The nation’s schools complied.

Enter the Common Core “State” Initiative.

Billed as “new” and “unique,” the Core is neither. Promising to bring “success” and make students “college and career ready,” there has never been any proof of that. The truth is that standards alone —“just standards” — don’t improve student achievement. Learning is a much more complex process.

What the Core is certain to do is sell new curriculum materials, new tests, and new remedial materials and programs when students “fail” the tests… The pattern of deception continues.

And the Obama ESEA reauthorization (ESSA – Every Student Succeeds Act) has given the Secretary of Education a new federal tool — the ESSA State Plans approval process — to further our national movement towards The Common Core Workforce Development System.

PURPOSE OF PEER REVIEW.—The peer-review process shall be designed to—

‘‘(ii) promote effective implementation of the challenging State academic standards through State and local innovation…(page 22, PLAW-114publ95 – ESSA)

“Challenging State academic standards” is the tagline for Common Core as is the terminology “college or career ready.” It’s nothing new. Some congressional representatives have been pushing this for decades — ask Senator Alexander et. al.

The Common Core backlash took the developers by surprise so they had to change the name of this 2013 bill to pass it through in 2015 as ESSA.

This is the 2013 bill. Their plan never changed – just the title of the law and some words.

The hope now is that the public will see that at the core of this issue is not our agreed need for some commonality of knowledge; at The Core is conformity to a totalitarian workforce development system.

So how do we stop what has thus far appeared to be unstoppable?

We must challenge the authorities that put “challenging State standards” into federal law where it does not belong.

On the federal level, the challenge begins with the demand to stop implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

At your state level, that challenge begins with the demand to see what proof authorities have that the last 30 years of setting “higher standards” and using test-based accountability systems improved schools. Show us the proof.

In your schools, demand to know what data is being collected, where that data is going, what contracts with providers have been signed, and what steps you can take to refuse or opt your child out of testing.

Corporate interests pushed the federal overreach of our laws in order to profit from public education, not to benefit public school children. Their control of our laws is our common problem.

America: Why Not Stop the Corporate Abuse of Children?

Posted on September 27, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

For decades corporate abuse of children in our classrooms has gone unchecked. Sound overly dramatic? Think again.

The global education corporations running the show know exactly what they are doing.

They read information like this, Stressed out: the psychological effects of tests on primary school children, and continue about their business.

“The overall prevalence of test anxiety in primary school children is on the increase and it is fairly common for children at the end of primary school.”

Yes! Magazine Test-based accountability systems include competency-based, “personalized” learning, and social/emotional learning (SEL) to name a few.

The article tells parents and teachers what they can do to reduce test anxiety. But is accepting this advice the right thing to do?

Is the emphasis on testing justified?

Think about the results. Both quality time with parents and instructional time with teachers is lost to corporate rule in our classrooms.

Tests are taking precedence over commonsense.

Is this abuse of children, or not? Still believe all the testing is necessary? Well, consider this. If the quality of instruction is what is important, have the tests improved instruction?

“Is High-Stakes Testing Working?”

As Jonathan Supovitz reminds us, the cornerstone of U.S. federal education policy (NCLB 2.0/ESSA) is test-based accountability systems….based on theories.

The truth?

“The data from high stakes tests are…. insufficient for individual-level accountability and provide meager information for instructional guidance.”

Misuse is abuse.

So have you heard, “the tests are not good enough”? Do you believe “better tests”— the next generation computer-adaptive, personalized, more frequent (embedded) tests — are the answer? That has not been determined. Yet the testing has been bought. And, there are plenty of valid reasons to just say, “stop.”

“Research has long indicated that test anxiety impairs student performance. More recent research indicates that taking a test in a CAT [computer-adaptive test] format can affect the ability estimates of students with test anxiety. Inaccurate measures of ability are disconcerting because of the threat they pose to the validity of test score interpretation.“

Society has placed a high value on test scores; yet, their interpretation may not be valid.

What these “new, better” test do—with certainty— is profit corporations.

“…test sales have grown from approximately $260 million annually in 1997 to approximately $700 million today — nearly a threefold increase.” [or higher, now]

Profits up; student achievement flat. Test-based accountability isn’t being done “for the students,” as they say.

Has the public simply missed seeing the signs of corporate abuse in education reform?

CITIZENS: look closer, please. The abusive nature of testing is going way beyond whether or not a child can read and do math. In this data-driven world, every child’s future is at risk of being determined by an algorithm.

The venture capitalists of 21^st Century Schools pushed technology into classrooms to collect every bit of data they can — on the whole child.

The worlds’ “leading learning company,” Pearson (U.S. division McGraw-Hill), continues to lead us. Our lawmakers continue to follow. It’s coercion. It’s corruption. It’s corporate abuse of our political system…..and of our children! And there is more to come.

Pearson Acquires ADHD Testing Company BioBehavioral Diagnostics

On August 27, 2013, global education company Pearson plc announced it had acquired BioBehavioral Diagnostics (BioBDx) and its flagship Quotient System, a computerized attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) assessment and management system approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2002 to aid in diagnosing ADHD. Financial terms of the transaction were not disclosed.

For Pearson, the acquisition provides an entry into health care markets, . . .

Do you think the data collected on school children now could be used against them when it comes to …say… insurance costs in the future?

“We are taking immediate steps to strengthen support for current Quotient customers and expand our outreach to healthcare professionals,” … “We also look forward to introducing the Quotient ADHD Test to mental health and education professionals in both clinical and school settings.”

“ADHD is the most common neurobehavioral condition in children, and symptoms persist into adulthood in approximately 60 percent of cases.”

Knowing that ADHD “may have serious consequences” including “job failure,” can you see where data collected today could affect a child’s job prospects in the future?

Byron Hewett, Chairman and CEO of BioBDx, said,… “Our team has deep expertise in the diagnostic world, and we believe Pearson will benefit from that expertise in the years to come.”

No doubt, Pearson will benefit. The question is, should they benefit off American taxpayers in the name of public education reform? And is there any stopping them?

Protecting America from corporate abuse is about to get a lot harder

“From Enron to the financial crisis to climate change, the last two decades have seen abuses and failures of private industry on a world-historical scale.”

When Big Corp buys Congress, laws will perpetuate — not help solve — our problems. Everyone knows that, right?

But does the public understand the gravity in losing our public education system to the global corporate elite?

“Future Ready Schools” is supported by OUR U.S. Department of Education in the effort to have superintendents “commit to foster and lead a culture of digital learning.” Is this the public-private partnership we want to invest in?

Is this news that Americans have not heard? Is that why America is letting its public schools be taken over by groups like “Future Ready”……

….who are working to replace teachers with technology while calling it “a transition to personalized, digital learning”?

Folks, if you say “no” to these corporate abuses, forcing Congress to represent us is the only peaceful “check” on corporate power we have left….It won’t be easy. Congress needs to undo what they have done.

“Congress Passes Psychological Manipulation in an Education Bill”

Sound far-fetched? Not any more, it doesn’t. The education industry is showing their cards for all to see. And for the author of this article, Anita Hoge, this is deja vu….in nightmare form, I’m sure.

As a parent, she fought against outcome based education in the ‘90’s. She filed a complaint using the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment to stop the psychological and psychiatric testing and treatment in our classrooms . Well, IT’S BACK! And she is back in the fight. Here’s why:

“Speaker Paul Ryan pushed the passage of Every Student Achieves Act legislation through Congress along with Senator Lamar Alexander, Chairman of the HELP Committee.” …

Anita’s call to action…

“Parents — the social, emotional, and behavioral aspects of your children are being monitored, evaluated, and CODED.”

Where does the information go? What will it be used for, and by whom?

We don’t have the answers, do we? But we all know that data CAN’T be fully protected. That puts children at risk…for life. Seriously.

So Anita, parents, and citizens across the United States are requesting….

“…an immediate injunction to stop the implementation of social, emotional, and behavioral standards and interventions that have been codified in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).”

“…Secretary DeVos to immediately take steps to prohibit teachers from carrying out the intrusive psychological and behavioral techniques named in the legislation to be used in on America’s children in American classrooms.”

“… President Trump call for an immediate injunction to stop the implementation of ESSA by Secretary DeVos and to request a repeal of ESSA.”

After 15 years of No Child Left Untested, I don’t know why America hasn’t stopped the corporate abuse of children in our classrooms.

“…corporate abuse of our political system has led to abusive testing practices in our classrooms.”

THAT is the God’s honest truth!

Charter School Moratorium Makes Sense

Posted on September 14, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

In a world where very little has made sense recently, a charter school moratorium makes sense. That is, it makes sense if you base the decision on facts.

Facts? That’s the problem. Charter schools have been in existence in this country for 26 years. But when I did a Goggle search on “chart school facts” —as I was writing this—on the first page of results there was only one organization that I didn’t recognize as a pro-charter group. So that is where I went, to Niche. (You’ll see their graphs at the bottom.)

Even without all the facts, most people have heard the accusations. Privatization. Segregation. Fraud. Corruption. Accountability? Quality?

Why wouldn’t we call for a charter school moratorium— stop their expansion — to fully evaluate their worth before continuing to fund them as a public service?

It makes total sense to stop expanding a duplication of public services especially when there has been no reliable accounting of funds, no certainty of the quality of service, and documented discriminatory practices. It’s not right to fund expanding unproven (potentially detrimental) educational practices for our school children — in the name of reform!

There are plenty of reasons to question moving forward with multiplying these schools.

The NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) called for a moratorium on charter expansion. Here is what people told The Nation about the NAACP resolution:

It began as “a bottom-up revolt against years of corporatization of public education.”
The criticism that “public institutions managed by corporations with minimal regulation—[are] both unethical and socially damaging.”
We are being “warned that further expanding the charter sector would fuel institutionalized segregation, particularly under Trump’s shadow.”
“The question of who controls schools, and for whose benefit, is at the core of the debate.”
“Charters perform no better and in many cases do worse compared with traditional neighborhood schools, and often at great public cost.”
There have been “a barrage of scandals involving fraud and incompetent management.”

“At the NAACP’s hearings on charter schools…. a rare consensus on the issue: Ideology aside, privatization cannot be seen as a solution in itself, and ensuring every child gets the schooling they deserve requires comprehensive public investment.”

STOP RIGHT THERE! Go back. Ignore the photo and click-baited words. There is some “consensus”? Yes! That’s right.

We know we need “comprehensive public investment” in quality public education. We need fair and equitable funding…We are working with limited resources!!!!!! Every penny counts!

As the states are still trying to figure out how to judge the quality of their schools, how is the federal government defining “high-quality” charters? Is it the Secretary’s decision?…..You are looking at ESSA.

So with the new federal education law (ESSA) being given “appropriations” by Congress (H.R. 3358) to fund more charter schools (and less to magnet schools) PLUS the fact that the Secretary is given the authority to “support” charter start-ups, now is the opportune time to call for a charter school moratorium. Please support this effort. The NAACP and their supporters on this issue have waited long enough. Let’s stop and examine the facts.

As was stated in this October 15, 2016 Press Release, the NAACP clarified the long-standing problem…

“Additionally, in 1998 the Association adopted a resolution which unequivocally opposed the establishment and granting of charter schools which are not subject to the same accountability and standardization of qualifications/certification of teachers as public schools and divert already-limited funds from public schools.”

(Read the full resolution and official press release for more information.)

How long are we going to allow corporate rulers to trump reasonable requests by reasonable people? Please, make the charter school moratorium a reality. Call your representative and voice your support. It’s that easy.

What harm is there in actually taking the time to fully vet and address the problems that have been brought to light in the charter school system?

The education system is not going to fall apart tomorrow if we put a hold on any new federal charter school spending in this upcoming budget (currently called H.R. 3358 but that could be changed).

This country should not only support a moratorium on federal charter school expansion, but must clearly demand a HALT TO ALL NEW SPENDING on the Federal Charter School Program AND the NEW CHARTER SCHOOL SPENDING grants in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA).

We need to be clear; no more games.

ESSA is slated to fund not only start-ups but also new charters’ first year transportation costs, online charters with their related overhead technology costs, new pre-school (early childhood) charters, consulting and planning of new schools and the newest scheme — Pay for Success grants that are further fueling the unrestricted flow of public funds into private pockets.

Privatizing public education is not a solution. There is a better way.

Before more money is forever lost in failed attempts to start new schools, demand your federal representatives call for a charter expansion moratorium immediately. It will not affect already existing charters and the children in them. This is a reasonable request. This is a “do no harm” demand.

What each state does is their right but as a nation we need transparency, an accounting of funds and programs, and clarification on the role of the federal government in pre-K –12 education. We can’t afford to keep doing what we are doing. A moratorium makes sense.

No children will be harmed by this action. And given that expanding charter schools will “divert already-limited funds from public schools,” inaction will harm the public system.

“Historically the NAACP has been in strong support of public education and has denounced movements toward privatization that divert public funds to support non-public school choices.”

Help the NAACP to help all our public school children. Contact your representatives NOW!

#####

P.S. In pursuit of truth….remember that facts vary depending on where you live….but, at a glance, there is reason enough to question Congress: why did they cut funding for magnet schools, upped funding for charters (repeatedly over the years), and why is the federal government making these decisions to begin with?

DeVos Distractions & The Pursuit of Truth

Posted on September 12, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

Betsy DeVos joins the Lamar Alexander D.C. charter/voucher/privatization team. (Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Anticipating the Title IX speech by Secretary of Education DeVos, the media last week was abuzz .Their verbiage included words like “overturn,” “roll-back,” “scrap,” “rescind.” They stirred it up and the protests grabbed our attention. But, does that help direct us towards solutions, or create distractions? What’s the truth of the matter?

In pursuit of the truth, please consider this. DeVos is a shrewd political operative, more so than our typical political appointee. She has the means to create distractions.

POLITICO 2016 A Look at Betsy DeVos Charitable Giving (Campbell Brown needed “charity”?) The Partnership for Educational Justice joined forces with 50CAN who previously merged with StudentsFirst (Michelle Rhee’s original anti-teacher/pro-charter organization). The organization’s names are changing quickly as their power grows!

DeVos’ Title IX speech was impressively delivered. But the reporting that followed, some of her words, and the relative scarcity of facts within her speech fueled controversy.

The real controversy?

Those unfamiliar with Title IX, and the 2011 Office for Civil Rights (OCR) directives under the Obama administration, would be hard-pressed to find the time necessary to piece together the truth. Before last Friday, I felt under-informed on the issue.

So Friday morning, I spent 40 minutes before work searching for information. On Saturday, between putting up tomatoes, baking cookies, cleaning house, fixing dinner, and walking my dog, I spent hours reading a variety of news sources, listening to DeVos’ speech, and reviewing its transcript.

Can we really expect most people to have the time to dig for enough facts about public education to make a thoroughly informed decision? … Anyway…

Let me be clear at the onset: Title IX federal anti-discrimination law, which includes protection from sexual harassment and violence, is a serious matter. By insinuating that DeVos is creating distractions, using Title IX in the process, is not to say that the issue isn’t important or deserving of the media’s attention.

But the public needs less hype and more facts. Here’s what I can now tell you.

During the Obama administration, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent out a letter requiring colleges and universities to use a “preponderance of the evidence” to determine innocence or guilt in sexual violence or harassment cases. As the FIRE (Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) explains…

…a “preponderance of the evidence”…merely requires that it is “more likely than not” that someone is responsible for what they are accused of…it is our judiciary’s lowest standard of proof…50.01% certain that the accused person is at fault….a “more likely than not” standard…

…in a real court for any crime, no matter how minor, the more familiar “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard must be used, which means that the judge or jury must be virtually certain of your guilt.

So the question becomes, do the directives sufficiently protect the accused person’s right to due process as well as the victims’ rights?

The letter also resulted in creation of situations where …

…a judicial process …[could result in]…a student found innocent in a hearing [being] retried, even if the charges against him or her had already been proven baseless.

At the time, this letter was also criticized for failing to clarify free speech rights as previous OCR letters had done.

Did Betsy DeVos’ speech clarify those issues?

Well, yes, but…in all honestly, if I hadn’t read the FIRE article before listening to DeVos I would have been distracted by the stories she told. They were stories gathered from DeVos’ listening sessions with people. Listening is good. But it was the number of stories she told that I found distracting from the issues.

Was this DeVos’ best attempt at informing the public?

If clarity of the issues and swift resolution were the secretary’s main objectives, her inflammatory language and anti-Obama, anti-government rhetoric sprinkled into the speech certainly didn’t help. They were added distractions.

Truth be told. The problems aren’t that difficult to explain (explain, not solve) especially if your job depends on understanding the laws. Yet, they weren’t clearly explained. Reason enough to question whether or not there is something more to this story. Betsy DeVos isn’t stupid.

So what is the bigger picture?

As Frederick M. Hess & Grant Addison wrote,

“The balance and tenor of her remarks was just right.”

That’s EXACTLY right. DeVos did appear “just right.” She appeared “re-framed.” She was delivering her new image!

The secretary softly spoke well-chosen words. And her actions on the Title IX topic thus far —listening sessions, collecting opinions and stories—were the right way to go. She used the process just right.

But keep in mind; this is exactly what we experienced with President Obama’s secretary of education and the president himself — the promise to listen yet their actions only furthered the political agenda of the ruling elite.

The agenda is privatization of pre-K-12 public schools.

The truth: If you follow today’s Orwellian nature of the media and politics, you can feel the school choice movement advocates drooling over DeVos’ speech. People like Frederick M. Hess want the Trump/DeVos school choice agenda to appear dead. All distractions are welcomed.

They want the media talking about anything other than vouchers, charters, and the federal funding of them through ESSA (the Every Student Succeeds Act) and tax laws.

After all, creating distractions is standard operating procedure in American politics.

And all too often, what the country is hearing about education reform is scripted talking points, not the truth.

Now, that leaves the long-standing reform agenda in the hands of Trump, DeVos, and Congress. And America seems willing to follow these leaders.

As stated in Americans Have Given Up on Public Schools. That’s a Mistake…

Our secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, has repeatedly signaled her support for school choice and privatization, as well as her scorn for public schools, describing them as a “dead end”…

and claiming that unionized teachers …“care more about a system, one that was created in the 1800s, than they care about individual students.”

The agenda hasn’t changed. The following is one of the most succinct and accurate description of the agenda that I’ve ever read.

New Directions, Federal Education Policy in the 21st Century, 1999.

Note the reference to funding portability, vouchers, charters, testing, and the lack of respect for preserving the system. And there is always the promise “to educate children.” But what is the truth here? Do we think we can deliver on the promise of education as a public service — absent a public system? That IS privatization. Is that what we want?

1986 to today, the agenda remains the same.

Clearly we have not taken a better way forward.

In total, we’ve had 30 years of propaganda behind this never wavering political agenda.

There is a better way. It starts with refusing to blindly follow the leaders. It begins when we quit taking a wait-and-see attitude about ESSA — the law DeVos will execute.

ESSA was pushed through congress by Lamar Alexander without open public debate. This is the same man who proposed the first federal voucher legislation in 1992 as then Secretary of Education. He’s leading us full circle. It’s time to stop the spin.And thanks to the same media I am lambasting in broad strokes, I can connect some dots. My apologies to honest hard-working reporters who I am dumping into the same barrel as a bunch of bad apples (astroturf).

But our general lack of trustworthy media coverage of education issues is leaving America inadequately informed on KEY ISSUES. It has left us ill-equipped in the propaganda war being waged on public schools.

The truth: Betsy DeVos came into this politically appointed position with no intention of strengthening and improving the system.

Her history is one of disrupting already struggling public schools, dismantling them —and the system (community) surrounding them— and supporting privately run charters instead. That’s what she did in Michigan. Are we going to wait and see if she does the same to the country?

Many “school choice” proponents, who themselves write for the media, want you to believe that the Trump/DeVos/Alexander funding for school choice initiatives are going nowhere this year. Well, guess what is already in ESSA? Betsy knows. Alexander knows.

HERE’S THE KICKER!

If Congress fully funds ESSA —without restrictions on charter expansions—they fund the way forward for the Trump/DeVos/Alexander school choice/privatization plan.

If Congress includes tax credits —under any variety of names – opportunity, scholarship, tuition, etc. —as part of tax “reforms,” they fund the Trump/DeVos/Alexander de facto voucher/privatization plan.

What say you, Betsy DeVos?

“…we live in a country where an open debate of ideas is welcomed and encouraged.

But good intentions alone are not enough. Justice demands humility, wisdom and prudence.

[Justice] requires a serious pursuit of truth.”

Hear, hear; let’s do THAT!

Renegade Researchers: In Education Hell

Posted on September 2, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

Education hell has nothing to do with the afterlife. The hell created in our schools, in the name of education reforms, is a result of the fight between rhetoric and reality.

A living hell is created when the same empty rhetoric is used on the public over and over and over again. And it works!

It’s crazy! If you aren’t part of the education oligarchy —those who make the rules creating this education hell— your facts don’t count. It doesn’t matter what you know; it is who you know. Throw in who has been bought and what media is manipulated and you have created the hell on earth called education reform. And it isn’t reform!

But in education hell, the truth doesn’t matter.

Here’s an example from 1992.This is an article with the message to readers framed from the beginning with the words “Renegade Researchers.” And as you read, it sets up the false scenario of The Renegades versus The Scholars.

The word “renegades” implies “traitors” yet they are referred to as “the defenders of America education” (as if that is a bad thing?).

“I’m interested in a focus on the worst kids in the worst schools. Given the fact that everyone agrees that the bottom third of our kids are awful, they get very little spent on them.”

Was that the voice of a renegade?

Yes, a pesky researcher named Harold Hodgkinson (then director of the Center for Demographic Policy). And the counterattack from “the scholars”?

“The critics are wrong in saying the schools are just as good as they ever were. That is deeply damaging; it inspires complacency and a false sense of self-esteem.” A quote from then Assistant Secretary of Education, scholar, Diane Ravitch

The scholars were fighting for reforms based on developing “higher standards.”

Those ever-changing but “higher” standards formed the theoretical foundation of our education reforms for the last 30 years. Marc Tucker, the president of the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), has been the “unofficial consultant to the cadre of officials” who coerced the nations’ schools into using this reform theory.

Tucker is the artful dodger. He claims to be a researcher but is counted as a scholar. (It’s a bit murky if you haven’t read the script and don’t know the actors.)

But as the news article goes on to explain, “Many scholars argue that the researchers are right to say that schools have NOT gone downhill, but are drawing the wrong conclusions.” (?)

“It’s true, but it’s irrelevant,” said Tucker. “Doing as well or slightly better than we used to do is doing appallingly badly relative to the rest of the world.”

From the Sandia National Laboratories – The Sandia Report.

How is “appallingly badly” defined? In the case of Mr. Tucker and his education and the economy argument, his scholarly opinion was NOT based on solid statistical analysis.

The late, great statistician Gerald Bracey, as well as the Sandia National Laboratories researchers and others, demonstrated the flawed thinking of “the scholars.” Did the public know that? Nope.

Financed by the Department of Energy in 1991, Sandia research engineers ( not professional educators) were given our education statistics and asked to provide an “outsider’s’ look at the status of education in the U.S.” They did; those damned renegade researchers! They gave us their honest opinion.

The condition of education? Buried as quickly as possible! And the game continues, hide the truth and put out the spin. But the Sandia Report is not forever buried and forgotten. Gerald Bracey, for one, tried to keep the truth alive. He wrote.

David Kearns, former CEO of Xerox and then deputy secretary of education, said something along the lines of, “You bury this or I’ll bury you.”

And Bracey continued to point out the role of the media…

In February 1992 an international comparison in mathematics and science appeared. With enthusiastic help from Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander and Assistant Secretary Diane Ravitch, the media gave it a highly negative spin. (The 10^th Bracey Report on the Condition of Education, Page 2)

Vouchers and tuition tax credits were being pushed then. Vouchers and tuition tax credits are being pushed now.

This was all happening under the Bush administration —the first Bush administration under which Lamar Alexander served as secretary of education. Yes, the same Lamar Alexander that now controls the Senate Education Committee.

Was the manipulation of the media effective?

“The debate, both sides say, has crucial implications for education policy. The revisionists argue that exaggerating the crisis in all American schools distorts policies that should be focused on poor schools where children are really failing.”

So looking back at the Renegade Researchers article, by prefacing the above statement characterizing the renegades as “revisionists,” the author taints our view of what is said next — policies “should be focused on poor schools.”

That targeted focus is what the education venture capitalists — those looking to make a profit off of school children— never wanted the public to focus policy (or resources) on. REAL reforms would focus on the smaller number of schools needing attention. It’s a smaller market share. REAL public policy solutions wouldn’t have us restructuring the whole system like we are.

It looks like the media manipulation produced the desired results.

So What Can We Do?

Don’t take it anymore! Fight back against the lies. In his own way, Gerald Bracey did. He didn’t take being called a “revisionist” lying down. He continued to speak up.

Proudly remain, or become, a renegade researcher.

Few researcher are in the same class as Gerald Bracey, but, we are living in the same education hell.

Unfortunately when this debate was going on in 1992, I was just a public school parent unaware of the political shenanigans interfering with the progress we were making in my high-poverty schools. It was a living hell because schools and teachers were being asked to do things that made no sense! Way back then!

This problem isn’t going away on its own. As another parent researcher recently asked, “what new hell is this?”….. More rules, regulations, policies all promoting “higher” standards, different tests, altered accountability mechanisms, and technology to track a child’s every move…on the keyboard…..yes, all reality.

Anyway, I now have an answer to her question, what “new” hell is this? It’s not new; it is the same education hell where politically driven rhetoric overshadows reality. The lies have “crucial implications for education policy.” We are wasting money by doing the same wrong things over and over and over again.

So, as Duane Swacker reminds us in his book, Infidelity to Truth: Education Malpractice in American Public Education,

“…truth is ‘the control of belief by fact.’… Yes, truth matters!”

What we can do is insist that this never-ending political tit-for-tat debate ends NOW. Enough of the lies! Demand the truth be told and that our reality now guide education policies.

The education law of the land right now—the Every Student Succeeds Act—is based on decades of lies. If truth matters, let’s demand the facts be made transparent.

With standards-based education “reforms” in place since 1992, what have we got to show for having lived through, and paid for, this education hell? I honestly don’t know.

I do know one thing. It burns my ass to think that not one person involved in the lies surrounding the Sandia Report has ever worked like hell to set the record straight —for the public.

Oh, and speaking about truths, how are we doing with “closing the achievement gap”?

If education reform was really about closing the achievement gap, why did we change policies when we were making progress? Was it about something else?

FACT: We aren’t talking about what we were doing right in the 70’s and 80’s.

Orwellian Education Reform: Postmark 1985

Posted on August 12, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

George Orwell, author of “Nineteen-Eighty-Four,” was only off by a month when it comes to the rise of Orwellian education reform. As to the method that brought on this madness, he was right on.

“It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words,” says a character in 1984.

Gayle Greene chose that quote for “In the public schools, it’s been 1984 for quite awhile.” It describes the intentional, well-financed war of words used to discredit, undermine, and destroy the U.S. institution of public education.

“In Orwell’s dystopia,…

The Ministry of Truth spawns lies and propaganda, the Ministry of Love supervises torture and brainwashing, and the Ministry of Peace promulgates war and atrocity.

Turn the words on their heads, and you get a glimmer of the truth.

And the Ministry of Education? There is no Ministry of Education. So now we have a Secretary of Education who’s a dedicated enemy of public education…. Betsy DeVos…”

No Ministry of Education? … Truth be told.

On February 6, 1985, President Reagan swore in Bill (William) J. Bennett as the United States’ third Secretary of Education. Then, the saga of Orwellian education reform began in earnest.

”Bill Bennett is the first Secretary to understand the ideological and political possibilities of the office that were there from the beginning. In Bill Bennett we’re getting our first Minister of Education.” Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Bennett used his appointment to accelerate the political agenda of standards, assessments, accountability, flexibility, and choice. All those words, all those concepts, were turned on their heads. Orwellian education reform hatched and grew.

The Minister brought in his Three C’s —content, character, and “choice.” But we weren’t asking for “choice.” Almost 80% of parents were satisfied with their schools. And notably, we were saying smaller classes would make a difference to each and every one of our children.No! The Minister says we need “accountability.”

AND, we need “higher standards.”

Only 17% of us thought “higher standards” would improve public education. Then WHY? Why push the theory of outcome-based (standards/testing) reforms on the nation? WHY transform our whole system?

BOTTOM LINE: Do “higher standards” increase student performance? … In time that question is answered.

Because the public didn’t know the truth, the public didn’t fight the changes. Plus, Bennett said he cared about our students.

But at the time not everyone believed the Minister was sincere about his concerns for ALL our children.

“‘I think he [Bennett] still might be the subject of hearings if we had known during the [confirmation] hearing of his insensitivity toward the needs of students, particularly low- and low-middle income students who can only go to college because of federal aid,’ [Senator Robert] Stafford [R] said in a telephone interview from Burlington, Vt.“

While time marched on so did the Orwellian education reform movement. As Ms. Greene explained,

“A handful of billionaires and their foundations bankrolled and orchestrated a multibillion-dollar PR campaign to convince people that public education is broken and private interests can do it better….

A billionaire snatch and grab passed off as a push for racial equality, the destruction of public education… passed off as a civil rights issue.

The confounding of language at its most basic level reduces us to a state of civic catatonia: we can’t think about these issues, let alone discuss them or act against them, when they’ve been so obfuscated, when words have been so twisted.”

Thus, the “information age” hatched the “knowledge economy” which multiplied technology profits at every turn. And the first Minister of Education took full advantage of being in on fronting technology and choice as “reforms.”

Co-founder Bennett & The Truth About K-12, Inc.

“K-12’s spread across the U.S. is due in large part to its lobbying prowess and its political connections. Enabling legislation, written by the American Legislation Exchange Council (ALEC), has been introduced in nearly every state. “ALEC, … coordinates a fifty-state strategy for right-wing policy. How Online Learning Companies Bought America’s Schools, The Nation, December 5, 2011″

Ohhhhh…., too bad the D.C. revolving door of Orwellian education reform didn’t hit Mr. Bennett in the rear and knock him out of the circle of influence. The country was making real progress prior to being told we weren’t. ALL our children would have benefited from true education reform. But that isn’t how the story goes…Oh, so much truth to be told!

It is no secret that William Bennett and Lamar Alexander (Chairman of the Federal School Board) are buddies. They brought the Orwellian education agenda to exactly where it is today.

“Jack F. Kemp, William J. Bennett, and Lamar Alexander — All have been waiting in the wings as co-directors of Empower America [now called Freedom Works], the Washington think tank that promotes ‘progressive conservative policies….

After the [Bob Dole] campaign, Empower America plans to continue promoting school choice, and Mr. Alexander is expected to take a lead role.

‘We’re planning on [Mr. Alexander] coming back and being a part of a big school-choice initiative,’ said spokeswoman Nicole Fluet.”

And Alexander landed where he sits today —chairing the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pension (HELP) Committee…..Yes, HELP. … Talk about Orwellian. But alas, the plot thickens as the characters multiply.

“We should remember that it was George Bush, Lamar Alexander, Chester Finn, Diane Ravitch, Bill Bennett, the Hudson Institute, and the Committee for Economic Development that got the America 2000 ‘reforms’ rolling. And it was George Shultz in the Reagan Administration who signed the Carnegie-drafted U.S.-Soviet education agreements with Gorbachev. That was in 1985, the same year Carnegie brought Marc Tucker on board.”

“If we are to succeed in radically transforming schools, we must alter attitudes outside the schoolhouse door. …

The system we are about to describe is one interwoven fabric. Each part is necessary for all the others to function properly. But if there is a centerpiece, it is, without question, standards and assessment.” Marc Tucker

WHY? Why did we need higher standards, fewer-better tests, outcome-based accountability, (the undefined) flexibility, and “choice”?

Doublespeak? Absolutely. Marc Tucker doesn’t believe in fewer tests (as he now writes). He believes in “national” mastery tests in every subject and certification tests for everything. He believes in a tracking system that creates the perfect workforce-development system all under the guise of education and economic needs.

We were told our businesses asked for these reforms.

Sandia Report, 1993

NO! Employers asked that we improve the work ethic and social skills of our students —back then. Now, we also need to repair the damage done through standardization of curriculum and instruction….Oh, and the damage technology has done.

We asked for one thing; we got another.

Parents didn’t ask for this transformation towards a computerized, standardized, non-personal (but “choice”) education system. There was never any proof that any of it “worked.”

“Trust a billionaire to have the public’s interest at heart [?] …

Put kids in front of computers, increase screen time, increase class size – and call it personalized.” Gayla Green

Now “personalized” has a whole new meaning. And politicizing everyday language continues confusing the public.

But the BOTTOM LINE: This was to increase student achievement, right?

Truth. “Higher” standards don’t matter when it comes to increasing student achievement. As much as the truth is hard to believe, it’s harder to swallow. But after over 18 years of standards, testing, and data collection, the only good that has come out of this is the statistical proof of the truth.

Reading Achievement – States are listed on the bottom. Red represents how “high”/ rigorous the standards. Blue is the outcome for each state.

Reading – Grade 4 or 8, it doesn’t matter. The standards don’t predict the outcome. No direct correlation.

This is the outcome after well over a generation of students in a standards-based education system.

Look.

See the Relationship between the Rigor of a State’s Performance Standard and Student Achievement in your state and our nation…..There isn’t one.

The statistician/author is a retired NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) expert.

Math – same findings. There is no evidence that the standards make the difference.

The title of the researchers’ site indicates this is Idaho research (his location) but this is national data, nationally relevant.

Reading or math, 4th or 8th grade, it doesn’t matter. Standards don’t correlate to student achievement. They never deserved the attention NOR THE MONEY we focused on them.

Theory has been proven wrong.

Math 8th grade? The patterns are all over the place because the truth is in the numbers that the education oligarchy wanted collected.

So — now given the truth — to continue mandating an irrational political concept is government sponsored educational malpractice.

With the truth proven by the very measures we were forced to use, test scores, our duty to stop the Orwellian education reform movement should be clear.

Flipping the words of the new Minister of Education, they spell education tax credits and vouchers. They spell the destruction of our public education system.

And clearer yet is the fact that this has been “their” education revolution and they don’t care about ALL our children. Look at the push for excessive technology in schools. The pushers have no regard for what technology is doing to children, or even their test scores!!!!!….

…The public and lawmakers in my state of Idaho put technology ahead of teachers at a huge cost to taxpayers with an unknown cost to children and families.“[Albertson’s supermarket heir Joseph B.] Scott’s investment company, Alscott Inc., has brought in more than $15 million by selling part of its stake in Virginia-based K12 Inc., which was founded in 1999 by former U.S. Education Secretary William Bennett.

But it isn’t just luck on Scott’s side. His family’s tax-exempt foundation has helped develop customers for K12. And Idaho’s taxpayers have been paying for it.”

….It is a familiar story across our great nation…. Those fooling the nation are calling themselves “philanthropic venture capitalists.” Do you know who they are in your state?Please join the struggle.

How to Identify an Enemy of Public Education

Posted on July 22, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

“How the Democratic Party Became an Enemy of Public Education” explained how both Republicans and Democrats are selling the idea that private-sector education reforms have the best interests of all our children at heart. They don’t.

Advocates for private entities controlling the public schools have completely ignored facts, research, and us. The consequences their policies have on our schools, communities, and children are harmful. The leaders of this private-sector education revolution know what they are doing. And they don’t care about the harm being done. They aren’t accountable to any of us.

And never forget, both Republican and Democratic leadership have no faith in the idea that We, the People, have enough brainpower and manpower to fix our own problems, in our own schools. Those in power trust Washington D.C.’s think tanks and education industry corporations to come up with “innovative” education reforms to sell to us.

Bull roar. These influential people pushing the levers of power are destroying our public education system. Their latest innovation? The claim to be proposing “progressive” or “centrist” education reforms for the Democratic Party. The truth; their agenda is neither. And they are paying the “grassroots” to advocate for them. It’s being done through confusion, propaganda, and indoctrination.

Progressivism supports making progress towards solving social problems.

Progressives advocate for the best solutions based on the latest information.

Progressives expect the political system to respect the scientific method of problem solving.

Progressivism is hard to define because progressive principles change based on evidence.

Important to discussing this further are the following points from “How the Democratic Party Became an Enemy of Public Education”:

President Clinton focused on “education and the economy,” and put standardized testing and federal money for charter schools into federal law.
Billionaire Eli Broad supported the Clinton’s agenda.
Bruce Reed, co-founder of the (“centrist”) Democratic Leadership Council, was advisor on education policy for Presidents Clinton and Obama before becoming the head of the Broad Foundation education efforts.

Here’s where the story really picks up steam.

After George W.’s election, the Democratic Party felt the need to seek a stronger focus and more money. At that time, the view of Democrats was…

“They don’t put big corporate America first.” LINDA NECOCHEA

And…

“the Republicans, on the other hand, seem to favor big business.” JUNE BRINES

Meanwhile, key Democrats complained.

”We don’t have the money [to compete with the Republican Party].”

Al From and Bruce Reed of the Democratic Leadership Council stepped in to redefine the Democratic Party. They had help.

An ally of Mr. From and Mr. Reed, Will Marshall, leader of the Progressive Policy Institute (think tank), said the party must…

”show that we can make progressive government work.”

The Democratic Party leaders went with the Clinton mantra to — ”develop a strong economic message.” Message. Not strong policy for the middle-class. Message. We got messaged.

Democratic Party leadership went after the money. In the process, they played politics with our lives, just like the other party. The people have been wronged— from both sides of the aisle.

Democratic leadership sold their souls….or more accurately, they sold our children’s neighborhood public schools. The policy pushers?

The Progressive Policy Institute …

“a Democratic Party-aligned policy shop that promotes…“market-friendly” economic policies. It claims to advocate “a philosophy that adapts the progressive tradition in American politics to the realities of the information age.”

Progressive tradition? The realities of The Information Age? What? The age when we no longer trust any information without first following the money? And, the money flows to both “sides.” In a money-driven system, R or D doesn’t matter.

Every organization on this list is an enemy of public education. Their actions speak of standardization, privatization, and they are dismantling the public education system under the guise of “reform.”

What is important is knowing the main players in private-sector education reforms.

That’s how you know the enemy, by the company they keep.

Unfortunately what started with single individual enemies of public education became multiple well-funded armies of advocates.

“We outline the many overlapping connections in this echo chamber of advocacy groups, think tanks, and media outlets that are increasingly funded by a handful of conservative [and neo-liberal] billionaires and for-profit education companies — often without proper disclosure. These groups are driving the education privatization movement forward by co-opting the education reform mantle.

Time Magazine, 2010.

And no story about the battle over education reform would be complete without this out-sized, outspoken enemy of public education — former D.C. Chancellor Michelle Rhee.

Knowledge of the funding for her organization, StudentsFirst, was under wraps for a long time. Why is $he important?

“At long last, Michelle Rhee’s funders revealed.” Rhee “received $500,000 [half a mil!] in startup funding from philanthropists Eli and Edythe Broad’s Broad Foundation….”

Oh, the Billionaires Boy’s Club. Broad is connected to Rhee. And the replacement for Rhee at StudentsFirst, Jim Blew, previously (still?) worked for the Walton (Walmart) Family Foundation. Now, StudentsFirst has merged with 50CAN. Blew explains the arrangement,…

“50Can is stronger in advocacy.”

The plan is set. 50CAN is hiring. And just to clarify how this all works…

Blew said, “We need to always assure our donors that we’re using their money as effectively as possible. We’re completely dependent on these donors.”

So the man in charge of 50CAN is Marc Porter Magee. He’s connected every which way. It’s an all-in-the-family deal with his wife, Common Core proponent, Kathleen Porter Magee, and brother Michael Magee, CEO of the non-profit Chiefs for Change.

Photo of Marc Porter Magee provided by the Walton Family Foundation (an enemy of public education).

Brother Michael Magee sees

“turnover in education leadership is a problem” [he] hopes to address in his new role.”

That should be easy enough with Eli Broad (through Bruce Reed) already in the leadership building business.

Win, win —for them. What about us — the public?

Marc Magee’s 50CAN organization will be training advocates to push their agenda for education reform throughout our nation. How important is this? That’s for you to decide.

This is what the education gadfly reported.

Marc Magee “cut his teeth doing D.C.-based think-tank work.” The think-tank?

“Progressive Policy Institute, the think tank that tried to create policies for the ‘new’ Democratic Party.”

And Magee had plenty to say for himself. He spoke of…

“the real problem we need to solve. It’s not that our urban schools and traditional districts are ‘failing.’ It’s that our traditional approach to education plateaued around the 1970s, and we’ve struggled to make meaningful progress since then.”

——–THAT IS A LIE. A distortion of facts. Our public education system was on a steady trend of improvement with a significant narrowing of the achievement gap that extended well into the 1980’s. THEN political leaders became the drivers of education “reforms.” THAT is when dissatisfaction with public schools began trending up (along with the cost$). They used us!

The truth? None of the private-sector education reforms —not standards, assessments, accountability, technology, charters, or vouchers —were ever based on facts. It was all about the information age, the knowledge economy; it was all about the money. It was never about all “our” children.

The enemies of the public education system aren’t reforming schools; they are dividing and destroying. They aren’t looking for a centrist position. They aren’t making progress on education reform. They don’t even accurately define the problem.

Real reformers understand that the battle for the soul of our education system is the battle for the belief —the promise— that we will constantly fight to overcome “separate but inherently unequal.” Only an effective continuous school improvement process can do that —within a responsive and responsible PUBLIC system.

How the Democratic Party Became an Enemy of Public Education

Posted on July 15, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

Perhaps the title “WHO influenced the Democratic Party into becoming an enemy of public education?” would more accurately represent the subject here.

But the reason for the title came from an article in my “To Read” file. “How to Destroy a Public-School System,” a 2014 article, describes a scenario we should all be familiar with by now. Perhaps that is why I had set it aside, thinking I knew it all. I don’t; we don’t.

We know all about —

“the designation of neighborhood schools as ‘failing’ under the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)…” followed by the “turnaround” or take-over by charter schools.

But do we know the depth of the intentional under-funding of public schools in order to create a market for private-sector education reforms?

Private sector — for-profit (like Edison) charter schools or non-profit (like Mastery) charters — it doesn’t matter. They are private entities. And privatization is crushing the chance for more effective public-sector education reform to be utilized.

The private-sector reforms are politically and financially driven. The public has little input or recourse when those reforms are harmful to our schools.

So here’s how it went in Philadelphia as described in 2014.

December 21, 2001, Philadelphia, State takeover of Philly’s schools went into effect … “at the time, the largest experiment in privatization—in the history of US public education. The message was clear: public management, not underfunding and segregation, was the problem.”

Never mind that school financing was

“rigged to benefit privately managed companies” including a loophole that provided charters with an extra “double-dip” pension payment.

Or that

Mastery [charter school] is “not doing more with less,” says Michael Masch, the school district’s former chief financial officer and a progressive fan of Mastery’s work, “They’re doing more with more.”

How did that largest privatization experiment of its time turn out?

By 2007,… “despite additional per-pupil resources,” privately managed schools like Edison’s “did not produce average increases in student achievement that were any larger than those seen in the rest of the district,” while “district-managed restructured schools outpaced the gains of the rest of the district in math.”

What say the supporters of private-sector education reforms? Same thing we still hear said today…

“We just don’t have enough of them yet,” said Edison CEO Chris Whittle, according to PBS’s Frontline.

The problem is not enough charters? You think.

The problem was that Philadelphia was under Republican rule? It was, but remember there has been plenty of bipartisan agreement. The Democratic Party approved of all of this.

The problem is THEY (and it’s a big “they”) don’t work for US. Enough Republicans and Democrats alike have fallen for the idea that private-sector advocates for education reform have all of our children’s best interests at heart.

Look, many in the country see and understand the connection between conservative organizations like ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and Republican privatization policies. Many object. But there is another side. Look again.

It’s time for the country to see and understand the New Democrats and their “progressive” “neoliberal” agenda that we know to be a “bipartisan” agreement on education reform. It is now the Democratic Party reform philosophy based on and driven by advocates for private-sector reforms.

In the words of Helen Gym, a leader of Parents United for Public Education, the reform movement

“has been singular in its focus in dismantling previously stable, strong institutions like public education….”

In other parts of the world, some clearly see what has happened. Those fighting against private-sector education reform are Battling for the Soul of Education.

“George W. Bush bought in the “No Child Left Behind” strategy with its emphasis on high-stakes testing, data-driven decision making, choice, Charter Schools, privatisation, regulation, merit pay and competition amongst schools. Incredible as it might seem, by 2008 this had been taken up by the Democrats.”

Incredible? I guess.

But is this author right in that by 2008 the private sector reform movement had been taken up by the Democrats?

“Fully engulfed” the Democratic Party by 2008 might be a better way to state it. But much earlier than that key “Democrats” not only took up this private-sector reform strategy, they helped create and perpetuate it.

1989 -President George H.W. Bush, U.S. Secretary of Education Lauro F. Cavazos, center, Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, right, and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, behind right, arrive for ceremonies concluding Mr. Bush’s 1989 education summit with state governors in Charlottesville, Va.
—Doug Mills/AP-File

As president, Bill Clinton essentially used an “education and the economy” theme to drive education policy. His reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/IASA/ Improving America’s Schools Act) brought Standards-Based education and school choice (charters) into federal law. Education costs have risen dramatically ever since.

But to quickly march this story forward, I’ve taken some facts from Ken Derstine of Defend Public Education! I encourage readers to explore the wealth of information he has provided on his website. Look into the power and control created by the corporate and political elites. Here’s a glimpse.

Billionaire Democrat and philanthropic venture capitalist, Eli Broad is invited by President Bill Clinton to spend the night at the White House. [What do these men have in common?] They work under the “guise of a progressive agenda” while advancing “a neoliberal agenda.” The agenda continuing to be advanced today.

“Playing a central role in promoting Clinton’s neoliberal agenda was the Democratic Leadership Council.” … It became the think tank for many of the rightwing neoliberal policies promoted by Clinton. …A key player shepherding the neoliberal agenda during the Clinton Presidency and after was Bruce Reed who became head of the Democratic Leadership Council in 2001.

The Clintons & Broads

All their plans are on display. They have to be. They are using our government to put their agenda in place.

“With an agenda that echoes our decade of investments—charter schools, performance pay for teachers, accountability, expanded learning time and national standards—the Obama administration is poised to cultivate and bring to fruition the seeds we and other reformers have planted.” Eli Broad Foundation, 2009/2010 Annual Report of the Broad Foundation (page 6)

Bruce Reed (second to left) spent eight years at the White House under Bill Clinton. | REUTERS Politico story Bruce Reed to Head Biden Staff

Bruce Reed is the common education reform denominator between the Clinton and Obama administrations.

“Reed boasts of helping shape education policy on the national stage for three decades.”

Teaming up with Eli Broad may just be the creation of the perfect storm that finally destroys the institution of “public” education.

Lauren Cioffi/KPCC | Eli Broad, left, has appointed Bruce Reed, former CEO of the influential Democratic Leadership Council, to lead his foundation.

“Broad is somewhat happy with the progress of education reform. He takes credit for influencing the signature changes nationwide in the past 20 years.”

‘Between No Child Left Behind, which wasn’t perfect, between Race to the Top, we’ve changed a lot of laws in a lot of states, allowing teachers to do a better job in the classroom,’ he said.”

Have the laws helped teachers do a better job? This man’s organization wrote the book on school closures — really! Literally! And his group directed the spending of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act dollars. We invested in their agenda while our schools struggled!!!! Nice, huh? They titled it Smart Options. They are smart.

“Broad has known all along he needs allies in public office to carry out his vision. He’s generously donated to elections — from school boards to the U.S. presidency. He leans Democrat in Washington but anti-union on school boards.”

That’s what they wrote in ELI BROAD APPOINTS BRUCE REED AS HEAD OF BROAD FOUNDATION EDUCATION EFFORT.

And the story doesn’t end there. There’s more to come.

The “how” is a familiar story of money and political corruption. The “who” is a web of deception still being fully untangled….if we must.

The Slippery Slope of Standards-Based Education

Posted on July 11, 2017 by Victoria M. Young

The Standoff in Idaho Over Science Standards Reveals The Slippery Slope of Standards-Based Education

Co-authored by Idahoans Mary Ollie, Mila Woods, and Victoria M. Young

The uproar over Idaho’s proposed science standards is a grand demonstration of ideology blinding us to our reality. And the push for headlines and sound bites trumped technical aspects of standards design. The process became an exercise in frustration that could easily have been avoided by making a distinction between a standard – what students should know and do— and content— what is taught.

The art and science behind writing standards matters also.

Why is the difference important? At the beginning of the standards-based education craze, Idahoans were sold on the idea of “Standards of Excellence” (then known as “exiting” standards).

The promise was that state standards would not infringe on local control of curriculum (subject content and how it is taught). State standards were to serve as minimum educational requirements, not an all-encompassing system of control.

Due to lack of legislative and administrative oversight and accountability, the outcome-based (standards) movement spawned a series of word changes that has gradually closed the door on local control.

“Exiting” standards became “achievement” standards (corresponding to the foundation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB)) and were eventually labeled in Idaho Code as Idaho “Content” Standards. With our focus on federal NCLB overreach, we couldn’t see our own State overstepping their bounds through a flawed administrative rule approval process.

Why is this discrepancy between standards and content just now surfacing? Only the proposed science standards contain language that clearly describes content. Idaho “Content” Standards for other disciplines do not include supporting content. They are a set of performance targets — true standards.

Our 2017 proposed administrative rules for the science standards included supporting content. That inclusion is problematic. That’s where the discussion went south.

Think before you step on the slippery slope.

Supporting content does not belong in a legislated standards document. Legislative overreach occurred. And lacking an understanding of the nuances of standards and content, state and local control, and a proper process for standards development, the public couldn’t adequately sort out and debate the topic—or see the truth.

The reality? The Idaho Legislature did not reject five science “standards.” Only one performance standard was rejected. Four of the items were supporting content. They went beyond being just a standard. Content was at the heart of the controversy.

Scientific knowledge is ever-changing. What we know today may change tomorrow.

Education content should not be subjected to our politicized lawmaking process.
A state entity defining supporting content is micromanaging education. The Legislature needs to step back and look at what has been done. In a country where liberty is a founding principle, legislating education content puts us on the slippery slope sliding away from local control — towards State control.

If school districts and teachers need supporting content for resources or inspiration; sources are easy to find. Content should conform, locally, to meeting the needs of students, not to complying with a too-often politically motivated mandate.

Limit the role of the State to defining performance standards and leave successful achievement of and beyond standards to the local districts.

Until the light goes on and the public sees that standards-based (aka outcome-based) education has not definitively reform a single school, we will continue to waste time and resources on arguing over and implementing new standards rather than investing fully in our schools and their students.

Being able to see the slippery slope is the first step to doing no further harm, to the public education system of Idaho and the nation, due to the deceptive nature of standards-based education.