"Experts"

Acting Commissioner Cerf assembles another stellar panel:

Cerf said yesterday that he has enlisted a team of nearly a dozen academics, researchers, and others to look at the effectiveness of the current School Funding Reform Act (SFRA) formula and help him come up with changes.

The court-ordered review of SFRA is already a year late. Cerf said it would come this winter. 

[...] 

He stressed the final recommendations will be his, but he has enlisted help from a mix of school funding experts from across the country, most from academia. They are:

• Sean Corcoran – New York University
• Eric Hanushek -- Stanford University
• Brian Jacob – University of Michigan
• Susanna Loeb – Stanford University
• Mona Mourshed – McKinsey & Co.
• Steve Rivkin – Amherst College
• Marguerite Roza -- University of Washington
• Cecilia Rouse – Princeton University
• Jason Willis -- Stockton (CA) Unified School District [emphasis mine]

Hanushek, Rouse, Loeb, Willis and Corcoran will be paid consultants, providing research for the ultimate report, said department spokesman Justin Barra.

Here are some of Roza's greatest reformy hits, courtesy of a man who should be at the top of this list, Bruce Baker. My personal favorite:

But this new graph, sent to me from a colleague who had to suffer through this presentation, really takes the cake. This new graph comes to us from Marguerite Roza, from a presentation to the New York Board of Regents in September. And this one rises above all of these previous graphs because IT IS ENTIRELY FABRICATED. IT IS BASED ON NOTHING.

Perhaps even worse than that, the fabricated information on this illustrative graph suggests that its author does not have even the slightest grip on a) statistics, b) graphing, c) how one might measure effects of school reforms (and how large or small they might be) or d) basic economics.

Here’s the graph:

http://www.p12.nysed.gov/mgtserv/docs/SchoolFinanceForHighAchievement.pdf

[...]

But most importantly, even if there was a clear definition of either, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE TO BACK THIS UP. IT IS ENTIRELY FABRICATED.  Now, I’ve previously picked on Marguerite Roza for here work with Mike Petrilli on the Stretching the School Dollar policy brief. Specifically, I raised significant concern that Petrilli and Roza provide all sorts of recommendations for how to stretch the school dollar but PROVIDE NO ACTUAL COST/EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS. 

In this graph, it would appear that Marguerite Roza has tried to make up for that by COMPLETELY FABRICATING RATE OF RETURN ANALYSIS for her preferred reforms.

An "expert" who makes stuff up. She sounds perfect for Cerf and Christie, don't you think?

The Failure of "Reform" - Standardized Tests

Here's my next post at Blue Jersey about the coming education reform battle.

This was brought on by an exchange with the Star-Ledger's Tom Moran, who has yet to respond to me. I am anxiously waiting to hear his take.

The entire corporate "reform" argument hangs on the use of standardized tests. Reformers insist that these tests are absolutely critical in ensuring "accountability" throughout the teaching profession, and that pay, tenure protections, and even job security should be tied to the tests.

Now, I could tell you that researchers have known for years that bubble tests assess only a fraction of a student's learning.

I could tell you that the error rates on these tests are so high that using them to evaluate teachers is functionally the same as rolling dice (even the reformers acknowledge this; they just don't much seem to care if a teacher's career is destroyed by accident).

I could tell you that the overwhelming consensus among researchers is that these tests should not be used for high-stakes decisions such as firing teachers and determining pay.

I could tell you that the tests themselves are secretive, graded by low-paid temporary workers, and have never been fully vetted.

I could tell you the testing industry is a multi-billion dollar business, and that lobbyists are crisscrossing the country, pushing their expanded use in statehouses everywhere.

But the best argument against using standardized tests to judge educators is very simple:

Standardized tests were never designed to evaluate teachers.

Yes, there are plenty of uses for these tests: program evaluation, curriculum design, research... and yes, they can even help a teacher or principal reflect on his practice. But they are very poor instruments when used in personnel decisions; there is really no debate about this.

And there is no good reason to try to sneak them into evaluation systems by basing only part of a teacher's evaluation on test scores. As Rutgers education researcher Dr. Bruce Baker explains:

The reality of an evaluation that includes a single large, or even significant weight, placed on a single quantified factor is that that specific factor necessarily becomes the tipping point, or trigger mechanism. It may be 45% of the evaluation weight, but it becomes 100% of the decision, because it’s a fixed, clearly defined (though poorly estimated) metric.

Hammers are great for driving nails, but you don't use them to drill holes, flip pancakes, or evaluate teachers. The corporate reformers need to stop insisting that we use the wrong tool for the wrong job.

The Ed Reform Gravy Train

It's a-puffin' into Newark - all aboard!

One of every three dollars of private money spent so far in Newark’s bid to reform its schools has gone to consultants and contractors, many with ties to Mayor Cory Booker and acting state Education Commissioner Chris Cerf, records show.

The records, from the state Department of Education, are part of a spate of e-mails obtained by the Newark-based Education Law Center. They detail for the first time how the Foundation for Newark’s Future has spent the first $13 million of the $148 million donated by Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and other philanthropists to help turn around the city’s struggling public school system.

While the foundation — the group created to distribute the money — spent $7.4 million between January and September of this year on school-based programs, it has also spent $4.3 million on political and educational consultants. At least $3.9 million of the consultant spending has gone to companies and individuals with ties to Cerf and Booker, records show. [emphasis mine]

Well, gosh, that's just such a huge surprise. I mean, it's not like these guys have a history of this stuff or anything...

Keep in mind that Cerf remains the Acting Commissioner because Senator Ron Rice is angry that he can't get forthcoming answers from either Cerf or Booker about what's been going down in Newark's industrial-education complex. Cerf came into the job under a cloud and things are only getting murkier. Looks like Rice was on to something.

(An aside: this past spring, the Star-Ledger editorial page was indignant that Rice was holding up Cerf's appointment; heh, looks like Rice had it right. Once again, the reporters at the S-L who cover the education beat are way ahead of the paper's op-ed pages.)

The article continues:

In one of the e-mails released earlier this month, Cerf praised his former company for its work in recommending reform and helping with the transition between superintendents. 

"The world may never know or appreciate what you accomplished between last December and the transition to Cami," Cerf wrote, referring to Newark superintendent Cami Anderson. "This effort saved the district from complete meltdown, enabled an orderly transition to Cami’s amazing leadership, and avoided a ‘lost year’ in the reform effort." [emphasis mine]

And that is the entire problem with the Zuckerberg gift, Chris Cerf, and indeed the entire Christie administration: we don't know what they are doing. These guys are as transparent as a lead-lined safe; no one knows what's happening.

This is why they love that billionaire money: they can keep everything on the down-low and make their moves without having to deal with all of that pesky democracy and local control jive. It's why they took Eli Broad's cash to get the ball rolling, and why they're doling out goodies to their pals on Zuckerberg's dime right now.

But let's be honest: a few million here and there is chump change to these guys. The stakes are much bigger: as Cerf said, this is a "$650 billion sector." They are looking for a much larger transformation: the Haliburtonization of education is the ultimate goal.

And Newark is the perfect place to set up a base: not just because of a Democratic corporatist mayor and a Republican corporatist governor, but because the people of Newark have no say in the governance of their own schools.

Heaven forbid democracy ever returns to Newark. The good people of that working-class city might decide they've had enough of the secret deals between people who don't live with them. They might insist on knowing what plans are being made on behalf of their deserving children. They may have the gumption to insist that THEY should determine how to school their children, not billionaires living thousands of miles away.

And they may actually point out that maybe unionized teachers really aren't the problem in their communities. Wouldn't that be... inconvenient?

It's Not "Tenure" If You Can Lose It

So the NJEA is offering its vision of a tenure plan. Fine - great! But understand that we haven't really explained to folks what exactly tenure is; if we had, they wouldn't say stuff like this:

Frank Belluscio, a spokesman for the school boards association, said the proposed tenure change would be a first for the union but did not see it as a concession.

"This is the first time they’ve proposed a change in the length of time needed" to be granted tenure, he said. 

Belluscio called the residency plan an "interesting concept," but said it "still doesn’t get to the structural change necessary" to allow districts to replace ineffective teachers when necessary.

"A major compromise (by the union) would be if they agreed to eliminate lifetime tenure," he said.

Frank, you really need to understand something: you can replace ineffective teachers even if they have tenure. If you want to argue it's too hard to do that, OK, we can fix that. But you don't have to eliminate tenure to do so.

And let's be clear: if you can take tenure away, you are essentially eliminating it. Remember, if a teacher does not have tenure, they can be fired at any time for absolutely no reason. A mechanism that removes tenure is functionally the same as not having tenure at all. And the only protection tenure provides is that doesn't allow a teacher to be fired without a hearing.

It's really so simple: cap the process. 90 days max, including appeals. Clear standards to define inefficiency. Dedicated adjudicators. Easy - problem solved.

I'm telling you: the first time a good teacher is removed through this process, there is going to be hell to pay. You think the costs of removing a tenured teacher are high? Just wait until some board of education somewhere removes a competent teacher who gets a lawyer willing to work on contingency. That district is going to be paying for years to come.

Don't say I didn't warn you.

The Failure of "Reform": Tenure

Tom Moran at the Star-Ledger wants to have a "friendly conversation" about ed reform. So I'm posting some short pieces about the topic there, and I'm waiting for him to respond. Here's a repost of the first one:

The central issue in the upcoming education "reform" debate will certainly be tenure.

Under the Christie proposal, if a teacher gets one "ineffective" rating, she loses her tenure rights, and can't appeal the loss to anyone outside of her district. She can then be terminated immediately without cause.

50% of that "ineffective" rating is based solely on the teacher's evaluation by the principal or other supervisor - more than enough to cause even a stellar teacher to earn a poor rating if she rubs her supervisor the wrong way. In effect, administrators would have new, unprecedented abilities to remove a teacher at will.

This is a recipe for disaster.

Even more than teacher protection, tenure is taxpayer protection. It creates a firewall that helps to contain cronyism. The reports from the Star-Ledger about the rampant corruption and nepotism alleged in the Elizabeth school district should be more than enough proof for anyone that this firewall is essential, especially in a state with a reputation for political shenanigans like New Jersey.

Removing a teacher's right to appeal to an authority outside of his district will inevitably cause some districts to head the way of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commission. Schools will become patronage mills, ripe for abuse. Considering that research shows granting tenure has no effect on student achievement, why would we take this risk?

Yes, there is a very good case to be made that it is too difficult, costly, and time-consuming to bring a tenure case against an ineffective teacher. But the answer is simple: cap the process. Limit it to 90 days, including appeals. Assign dedicated adjudicators to hear the cases, and prosecute them quickly and fairly.

But any attempt to remove a tenured teacher's right to an impartial hearing before dismissal will turn New Jersey's school districts into 603 separate Tammany Halls.

Our students deserve better than that.

Event Alert For NJ Teachers

This just came my way:

October 26, 2011                                                               Media Advisory: Wisniewski Hosts Education Roundtable DiscussionDr. David Driscoll to address forum followed by discussion with representatives of New Jersey’s education community and constituencies  

(Trenton) New Jersey Democratic State Chairman John S. Wisniewski is hosting representatives of New Jersey’s education community and constituencies for a roundtable discussion of the state of public education in New Jersey and education initiatives and issues expected to be part of the upcoming legislative debate. The event is scheduled on Thursday, October 27 from 3:30 to 5:30 at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy in New Brunswick. 

The roundtable participants invited to join the discussion were chosen as representatives of varied constituencies involved in and/or affected by the state’s education policies. Members of the public are invited to observe.  

Prior to the discussion, participants will hear from Dr. David Driscoll, Chairman of the President’s National Assessment Governing Board, past president of the Council of Chief State School Officers and former Commissioner of Education in Massachusetts. Dr. Driscoll will discuss his experience in Massachusetts when that state implemented its landmark education reform law. 

Who:                Democratic Chairman John S. Wisniewski, Dr. David Driscoll and representatives of New Jersey’s education constituenciesWhat:               Education Roundtable Discussion Where:            Edward J Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, 33 Livingston Avenue, New BrunswickWhy:                Discussion of New Jersey Education Policy When:              Thursday, October 27, 3:30 – 5:30

Of course, they couldn't have this in the evening so teachers could get there for the entire thing (sigh)...

Driscoll is with Fordham, which is a reformy think tank, so don't go expecting a lot of teacher love. Still, this may be worthwhile. And if they open up the floor, there will need to be some polite voices of sanity.

"Who Cares If Good Teachers Are Fired?"

Stop your whining, already:

Jacobs listed what the NCTQ considers the key "early lessons" for states embarking on these sorts of policy changes. Among other things, she said:

• "Teacher effectiveness measures don't have to be perfect to be useful. Some people are concerned that not every i is dotted and they're rolling out these systems. But keep in mind how unsatisfactory the [previous] systems have been." She added that an evaluation system "doesn't have to grind to a halt to be fine-tuned." (See my recent story on Tennessee's teacher-evaluation system, which is causing an uproar among teachers because it is far from fine-tuned.)

So what if we fire Mr. Chips and Mr. Holland but keep Cameron Diaz? Their lives are just an "i" to be dotted, right?

Hey, all you bright and talent young people! Doesn't this sound like a GREAT career choice? The pay may stink and you won't have good benefits anymore, but at least you can be fired arbitrarily based on admittedly flawed evaluation systems!

Don't all push to get in...

"Mrs. Smith, If You Want Johnny To Get an "A'..."

Reforminess is making us all more stupiderish:

TWIN FALLS, Idaho (AP) — Teacher bonuses will hinge on how well they engage parents in some south-central Idaho schools.

Districts in the rural farming communities of Wendell, Jerome and Gooding have adopted merit pay plans for some employees that tie bonuses to the level of participation in parent-teacher conferences, the The Time-News reports .

[...]

The Wendell district decided to base merit pay bonuses on parental involvement at high school conferences because participation has been a problem in the past, Superintendent Greg Lowe said. Now, up to 70 percent of the potential bonus available to employees is based on how many parents show up for the conferences.

"They have really struggled to get parent involvement at parent-teacher conferences," Lowe said. [emphasis mine]

Well, obviously they haven't struggled enough. When are these lazy teachers going to get off their asses, break out the shotguns, drive to students' homes, and get serious about motivating parents?

BTW, I don't think anyone who has followed the corporate reform movement should be the least bit surprised by this. The entire premise of the whole thing is that teachers are responsible for the behavior of others. This is simply an extension in illogic.

(h/t Larry Ferlazzo, the teacher who never sleeps)

Great Moments In Insane Corporate Reform

Holy cats!



The Klan is better than teachers unions. 'Kay...

How is this man allowed allowed near children?

All Hail the Czar!

Czar Duncan will hear your grievance now:

But Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), chairman of the House Education & the Workforce Committee, denounced the waivers as a “dangerous precedent” and said he “simply cannot support a process that grants the secretary of education sweeping authority to handpick winners and losers.”  

In February 2009, soon after the stimulus was signed into law, Duncan said he wasn’t interested in power — but in what he could do with power. “There’s going to be this extraordinary influx of resources,” he told The New York Times. “So people say, ‘You’re going to be the most powerful secretary ever,’ but I have no interest in that. Power has never motivated me. What I love is opportunity, and this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do something special, to drive change, to make our schools better.” 

Still, it’s tough to ignore the power he’s amassed

Nice to see Republicans doing something useful for once. Kline is right: Obama and Duncan have granted themselves a huge helping of power over education, and they are using it to both usurp local control and push "reforms" that have no evidence of working:

“The focus on choice and accountability puts Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and Obama all in the same mode” on education, Ravitch said. All four administrations built education policy around the notion that parents and students are consumers, “but there’s no evidence that works.”

“If you like federal control of education,” Ravitch added of Duncan, “he’s your man.”

Obama is about a thousand times better than the guy who came before him, but he's still a corporatist. And his and Duncan's prescriptions for schools have no evidence to back them up. On education, there really is very little difference between this crew and the Republicans who preceded them. If the intransigence of today's Republican's has any value, it's in putting the breaks on Duncan's doomed-to-fail plans.