Another Day; Another Reformy Smear!

Good morning, America! So, what are you going to do today for our nation's children?

Me, I'll be destroying American society by indoctrinating the tykes in socialist rhetoric from my cushy, union-protected, ultra-high-paid job-for-life as a public school teacher!

But maybe you'll spend your day nobly saving the kids from lazy and evil teachers like me! You'll be promoting excellence and accountability by suing protectors of the status quo for talking to their town councilperson...

or lurking around a protector of the status quo's parking lot with a camera...

or taping a protector of the status quo without her knowledge, but with the approval of a powerful governor...

or trying - and miserably failing - to entrap a protector of the status quo by lying to him about who you are...

or repeatedly using quotes presented with no context to make people think a protector of the status quo has said something outrageous...

or following a protector of the status quo around with a recorder and then feeding her words to the press for a hit piece...

or mocking a protector of the status quo and his mother for speaking out on behalf of teachers...

or implying a protector of the status quo called her critics Nazis when she clearly didn't...

So many choices - and every one is "for the kids"! Of course, you could always just totally make some stuff up about protectors of the status quo:

Based on my email inbox and my phone messages, a person might think the only thing going on in New Mexico this week is [ACTING New Mexico Education Secretary] Hanna Skandera’s confirmation hearing. I even heard someone talking about it at Weck’s this weekend. 

For now, the hearing has been recessed until later this week. But in the meantime, Skandera’s dad is weighing in. And although he is very kind and professional, I’m not sure he liked my blog post from Friday about the disconnect between policy types and practitioners. Here’s what Mr. Harry Skandera had to say:

“The teachers present who testified against confirmation all received gift cards to be in attendance.  The citizens and former teachers who came and testified for confirmation did so without reward and substantially outnumbered those who had to be “gifted” in order to attend and testify.   Teachers and teachers’ union members who sit on the Education councils of the House and Senate and on the Senate Rules Committee seem to be proud and happy to be ranked 49^th  in educational rankings among US states.  One would reasonably expect with a  49^th  ranking credentialed, educated, dedicated, teachers would be open-minded enough to embrace change, for the sake of the kids, if not for their own reputations.  It is sad that the union leaders and politicians who continue to power play with another generation’s future remain in places where there arrogance serves no positive purpose.  They bring shame upon their legacy and dishonor the hopes of the people they are supposed to represent.

Thank you for  your blog.”

I think it’s pretty cool that Mr. Skandera is weighing in on his daughter’s behalf. But I do want to gently correct a misperception that seems to have spread far and wide: Teachers were not given gift cards to testify in Santa Fe. Some folks seem to have gotten this idea from an email that was sent out to AFT/ATF members, which asked them to volunteer at the union phone bank. Those who volunteered at the phone bank were entered in a weekly drawing for a gift card. ATF President Ellen Bernstein clarified that teachers who went to Santa Fe to testify were not compensated in any way, and paid for their own food and gas. [emphasis mine]

Well, that's just ridiculous. Everyone knows that if you want to win gift cards, you need to post reformy comments on websites and then let Michelle Rhee's StudentsFirst know about your work...

I've said before that I would enjoy nothing more than having a civil, fact-based discussion about the American public education system. When the folks who perpetuate the offenses above back off, perhaps we can have one. Until then, don't pour buckets of slime on our heads and expect us to keep on smiling.

Reformies, please welcome the union's "Teacher of the Year"!

NJ Special Education Under Attack

Last week, I reported on proposed changes to the NJ administrative code that would shift the responsibility for special education case management away from full-time Child Study Teams. These changes would allow districts to fire case managers and either dump their caseloads on to teachers and other staff, or allow the privatization of special education case management.

This is a horrendous idea. Under the guise of "flexibility," special education students would no longer have a full-time, in-district case manager advocating for their needs. Parents of general education students should be as concerned about this as parents of special education students: the burdens of case management will undoubtedly take even more of a teacher's time away from actual instruction.

A coalition of teachers unions and special education advocates is calling for parents and teachers to make their voices heard to the NJ State Board of Education, which must approve these changes. Below is their take on one of the proposals, which comes from a white paper authored by the coalition that I received a few days ago.

Let's start with the code as it's currently written. The changes, proposed by Governor Christie's Education Transformation Task Force, are in brackets (omissions) and underlined (additions):

.J.A.C. § 6A:14-3.3(e) Location, referral and identification 

"When a preschool- [age] or school-age student is referred for an initial evaluation to determine eligibility for special education programs and services under this chapter, [a meeting] at least one member of the child study team, the parent and the student's regular education teacher [of the student] who is knowledgeable about the student's educational performance or, if there is no teacher of the student, a teacher who is knowledgeable about the school district's programs, shall [be convened] meet within 20 calendar days (excluding school holidays, but not summer vacation) of receipt of the written request. This group shall determine whether an evaluation is warranted and, if [warranted] so, shall determine the nature and scope of the evaluation, according to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-3.4(a). The team may also determine [that] an evaluation is not warranted and, if so, determine other appropriate action. The parent shall be provided written notice of the determination(s), which includes a request for consent to evaluate, if an evaluation will be conducted, according to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3. Parents shall be permitted to participate in the meeting by telephone at their request."

The clear intent of this change is to reduce the number of staff at a referral meeting. Why? Here's the Task Force's reasoning [emphasis mine]:

The Department and State Board should amend this regulation to reduce the number of school district personnel whose attendance is required at identification meetings. The meetings determine whether an evaiuation is warranted, and if so, what assessments should be conducted. The amendments would align State and federal special education requirements and reduce the burden on school districts and charter schools of over-prescriptive regulations. Although not all members of the child study team would be required to participate in the identification meeting, the attending team members would have the opportunity to seek input from other members prior to the meeting. 

Amendments to N.J.A.C. § 6A:14-3.3(e) are also proposed to allow parents to participate in the identification meeting by telephone, if they so request. This amendment would add flexibility and ease the burden districts bear to schedule and hold such meetings in a timely manner.

Do you notice something about the proposed change? The rationale isn't that it will make services better for special education students or give parents better information; the purpose of these changes is to make life easier for school districts.

Indeed, this is exactly the coalition's objection [emphasis mine]:

OPPOSE

IDEA is clear that parents are members of the IEP team and are to be fully informed of all matters related to their children's special education. The rights currently in place should not be weakened. A multi-disciplinary team by definition has a varied focus and point of view. To remove a member of the team from the process removes a critical facet of the process. It weakens the information shared. This is the parents' initial contact with the system and in many cases; parents require shepherding through the process. They need to be exposed to the varying points of view, role, and focus each team member brings to the process so they are better informed. Exclusion of any team member removes that perspective and leads to an incomplete picture of the student. The IDEA regulations (20 C.F.R. §§300.9 and 300.300) require that parents are given the opportunity to make an informed decision. Consent must be based on complete information about the student. These changes interfere with parental rights and their ability to give knowing consent.

On page 3 of their Final Report, the Education Effectiveness Task Force's clearly states the objective  of their recommendations is to "...serve our students better." Well, that doesn't seem to be the goal here; in fact, the stated goal is to "ease the burden" on districts - not students, parents, or staff.

It does not "serve our students better" to diminish participation of staff and parents in assessing a child's special education needs. These changes should not be allowed to go through.

Call, email, write, testify, or otherwise let the NJ State BOE hear your concerns. NJEA suggests these actions:

• It is extremely important that we contact our state board members regarding this issue now!  We need your help in writing and generating letters to state board members so that they can understand the detrimental impact these regulations will have on our special education students. 
  • Tips on writing the State Board 
  • Talking Points
• If you are able to take a personal day, consider attending NJEA’s Lobby Day at the State Board of Education Meeting on March 6.  If you would like to testify, register by noon of March 1, at http://education.state.nj.us/sboe/
• Contact your legislators to let them know your concerns.  Although the state legislature does not have any say over the regulatory process, legislators should be aware of the changes that will impact students all across New Jersey.

The NJDOE is already assaulting the needs of special education children through its policies on charter schools. The State Board should not add injury to the NJDOE's insult.

Michelle Rhee's Book Is A Huge Failure

A week ago, I asked if Michelle Rhee's anti-teacher, anti-union screed book Radical was a flop. It hadn't cracked the NY Times bestseller list, and sales were not strong on Amazon:

As I said, I know nothing about publishing, so maybe a book like Radical needs time to get traction - even if Rhee has been on a dream book tour that included many national media outlets including The Daily Show, Charlie Rose, and This Week (let's see if Diane Ravitch gets the same bookings when her book comes out).

Well, it's a week later, and Rhee still hasn't cracked the NY Times list. How's her book doing on Amazon?

Oh, dear. I wonder is Harper has a merit pay plan for Rhee, based on her sales; you know, a plan like the one she insisted on for her teachers...

The only reason Michelle Rhee gets any attention is because a group of very wealthy people bought her access to national media outlets. But even with this outsized reach, her message just doesn't resonate. She has no real grassroots support: she is the consummate astroturfer, pretending to lead a national movement that, in reality, has very little parent or teacher support.

She was a mediocre at best an average teacher*, then a mediocre superintendent, then a mediocre, ignorant, and, frankly, incoherent "reform" advocate. Now, she's a very, very mediocre author.

No one should take Michelle Rhee seriously - and, it turns out, no one does.

I hope Harper doesn't want my advance back...

* Some of you will think I'm maybe wussing out here, but I'm going to moderate that a bit. I really don't have many objections to Rhee's second and third years as a teacher (she was clearly unprepared for her first year, by her own admission, but I know what that's like, so I forgive it (even though I never taped my kids mouths shut)). She was, by all accounts, an OK teacher by her third year.

My objection is really to her exaggeration of her record: an exaggeration so large that Rhee should have known her claims were outrageous when she was making them in preparation for taking the chancellor's job in Washington. The only person who seemed to care at the time was Bob Somerby, who was universally ignored by a fawning press.

Rhee's sin at that time wasn't that she was a bad teacher; it was that she only owned up to her record when she was outed by G.F. Brandenburg. To me, that's a far worse transgression.

The Dumbest Thing Anyone Has Ever Said, Ever

I posted about this yesterday, but it really does deserve repeating, because it is so very, very dumb:

New Mexico's ACTING Secretary of Education Hanna Skandera - protege of Jeb! Bush and a political hack - is facing a tough confirmation hearing. One of the primary complaints against her is that, according to the New Mexico Constitution, Skandera is not qualified to serve:

 Sec. 6. [Public education department;

public education commission.]

A. There is hereby created a “public education

department” and a “public education

commission” that shall have such powers

and duties as provided by law. The

department shall be a cabinet department

headed by a secretary of public education

who is a qualified, experienced educator

who shall be appointed by the governor and

confirmed by the senate. [emphasis mine]

According to a character named Larry Langley, however, this very clear provision doesn't disqualify Skandera. Why? Stand back - this one is a real gem:

Skandera supporters contended “educator” is a broad word that does not necessarily mean a classroom teacher.

Larry Langley, head of the New Mexico Business Roundtable, said it is old-fashioned to think all educators are in classrooms.

“Please understand that to be a highly qualified educator doesn’t require you to be in front of a classroom,” Langley said. “Every one of us in this room, I hope, are some kind of qualified educator. I’ve certainly learned things from the chair of this committee. I have learned things from the ranking member of this committee, and from many others. You have been my educators, and you have been qualified educators.” [emphasis mine]

So, according to Langley, if anyone ever learned anything from you, you are a "qualified, experienced educator."

• Your mechanic is a "qualified, experienced educator" if he explained to you why you need to change your oil.
• Your local grocer is a "qualified, experienced educator" if she gave you a recipe for grilled zucchini.
• The guy behind the counter at your post office is a "qualified, experienced educator" if he showed you how to fill out a change-of-address form.
• Clyde Frazier is a "qualified, experienced educator" because I heard him on TV the other night explaining how Carmelo Anthony comes off of screens to get open shots.
• My kid is a "qualified, experienced educator" because he told me how to turn off the X-Box.

This is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever. It's also typical of the dismissive, condescending attitude reformy hacks like Langley take toward teachers.

Larry Langley ran for the Albuquerque school board and thankfully got his butt handed to him. His group, the New Mexico Business Roundtable, is funded by reformy stalwarts like the Waltons and Gateses.

This is the sort of attitude toward professional educators that these plutocrats support. This is how they really feel about teachers. They get tax-exempt status for their foundations to promote this sort of thinking.

Isn't that just swell?

Larry, keep up the great work!

UPDATED: Camden's Schools: It's All Going According to Plan

UPDATE: I have been told on Facebook that this post may read as if the layoffs have already happened. As the quote says below, this is a "tentative" budget. So nothing, apparently, is set in stone.

My fellow teachers, I will help in whatever way I can. But the first step is knowing what's happening; that's why I do what I do. If you have further info, send it to me, and I'll get it out there.


As far as the NJDOE is concerned, it's all working out perfectly in Camden:

With the aid numbers now released, the Camden City Board of Education unanimously approved its tentative 2013-14 budget Thursday night. The $369 million budget includes 88 staff cuts, 45 of which were teaching positions, as well as 15 administrative positions, 10 vice principals and five guidance counselors.

District officials said staff cuts were necessary due to declining enrollment, a direct result of local charter schools. Some classroom sizes in the city district have dipped down to 10 students.

“Enrollment keeps dropping and we don’t need all this staff,” said the district’s fiscal monitor, David Shafter. [emphasis mine]

No, you don't! So just keep cutting those unionized teaching positions while we continue to shift more kids into charters that have anti-union histories - even if those same charters are underperforming. Keep bringing in charter management companies that have a reputation for high rates of teacher turnover.

And keep disenfranchising the community while converting Camden into a two-tiered school system: one for the "educable," and one for... well... the rest.

Remember: this was all part of the plan:

The intervention proposal, which was obtained by the Courier-Post, was written by Department of Education employee Bing Howell. 

He did not respond to a phone call and email seeking comment. 

Howell serves as a liaison to Camden for the creation of four Urban Hope Act charter schools. He reports directly to the deputy commissioner of education, Andy Smerick.

Howell’s proposal suggests that he oversee the intervention through portfolio management — providing a range of school options with the state, not the district, overseeing the options. He would be assisted by Rochelle Sinclair, another DOE employee. Both Howell and Sinclair are fellows of the Los Angeles-based Broad Foundation. [emphasis mine]

[...]

• Control the school board by taking away members’ ability to vote for at least six months, plus adding three state-appointed members. Place all hiring and firing decisions in the hands of the state Board of Education

• If a superintendent vacancy happens during state intervention, the commissioner would recommend a replacement with confirmation by state board. 

• Increase charter schools and attract charter management organizations such as those run by the KIPP chain. Send Camden students out of district to choice and vocational schools. 

The proposal also calls for passage of the Opportunity Scholarship Act, a proposed corporate tax credit scholarship bill. This would be used to send children to religious schools and private schools, including boarding schools.

Howell also said the state should partner with Teach for America, Knowledge is Power Program and The New Teacher Project . The three programs have or had links to Broad Foundation board members Wendy Kopp (TFA), Richard Barth (KIPP) and Michelle Rhee (formerly of TNTP and a TFA alumna). [emphasis mine]

Camden's public school system is crumbling, the big charter operators are coming in, the NJDOE and its Broadies are taking over governance, unionized teachers are being could be RIF'd...

Dr. Evil couldn't have planned this out any better.

Teachers As Political Targets?

Teachers in New Mexico have had enough of reformy "leaders" like Hanna Skandera:

The Senate Rules Committee will have to meet for a third time to vote on whether to recommend Hanna Skandera as the [New Mexico] state’s secretary of education following a long day of testimony from her supporters and opponents Saturday — the second day of the process.

[...] 

Sen. Sander Rue, R-Albuquerque, said this is the first time in his five years in the Legislature in which a confirmation hearing has lasted three days. “That is not very common,” he said. 

Although Gov. Susana Martinez appointed Skandera as her secretary of education late in 2010, the Senate Rules Committee did not schedule a confirmation hearing for her in either 2011 or 2012. State law does not prohibit Skandera from serving as a secretary-designate, however. 

Saturday’s session attracted about 150 people to the Senate chamber. About 55 people — primarily teachers — spoke against confirming Skandera, while about 35 — including fellow state Cabinet secretaries, business leaders, principals and superintendents — spoke in favor of her confirmation. A half-dozen speakers voiced their views without clarifying whether they support or oppose Skandera. 

Opponents cited Skandera’s implementation of a new A-F school-grading system that is, in their view, imperfect and demoralizing; an educator evaluation system that relies heavily on student test scores; conflict of interest pertaining to her ties to big business and private educational institutions; and the fact that the state constitution requires the secretary of education to be a “qualified, experienced educator.” 

“I want a general who has been a sergeant,” one teacher said, arguing that Skandera’s lack of experience as a classroom teacher disqualifies her from understanding teachers’ needs and challenges. 

Albuquerque educator Marian Wiggins echoed that thought: “Were she [Skandera] to apply for the job of teacher or principal, she could not get hired.” 

Albuquerque Public Schools’ educational diagnostician, Harold Gershenson, said, “We have so many problems working with PED. … I’d rather be working with MVD!” 

Others, including Pecos Superintendent Fred Trujillo and Roswell Superintendent Tom Burris, said in their support of Skandera that she is pushing for accountability, high standards among educators and strong professional development opportunities to help improve academic achievement. 

Bernalillo Superintendent Allan Tapia said, “I am tired of the trend toward mediocrity. … Hanna Skandera has brought new ideas to the state. It has been said that Hanna Skandera does not know New Mexico. Maybe. Maybe not. But she knows kids. And she cares about those kids.” [emphasis mine]

Hey, I "care" about puppies - but that doesn't make me a veterinarian. "Caring" is not the same as "competency."

Some speakers at Saturday’s hearing, including a former Florida teacher, said that state’s policies are a mess and that New Mexico should not follow Florida’s lead. Others cited Florida’s high ranking in a recent Education Week Quality Report as reason enough to follow its lead. [emphasis mine]

It really doesn't matter if Skandera's ideas are "new" or if she "cares about kids"; what matters is whether or not her policies will work. And the sad truth is, as more folks take a hard look at what happened in Florida under Skandera's mentor, Jeb! Bush, it's clear that what she's selling isn't going to help New Mexico's students at all; in fact, it will probably make things worse.

She certainly hasn't made things better for the teachers:

During his presentation, Corwin said the confirmation hearing should not be about Skandera’s reform efforts but about her conduct. He noted that Skandera ordered Public Eduation Department staff to compile a list of non-union teachers for Martinez’s top political adviser, Jay McCleskey. He also said Skandera misdirected state general obligation bond money to reward top-ranking schools in her A-F grading plan. 

I'm sorry: did you just say Skandera had her state-paid staff compile lists of non-union teachers for a political operation!?

Yep:

State Public Education Secretary-designate Hanna Skandera and her top deputies were aware the department was creating a list of school email addresses of nonunion teachers for the governor’s political adviser.

That could be important, because the office of state Attorney General Gary King is investigating whether public resources were unlawfully used to create the list. The Governmental Conduct Act prohibits use of employee time and other public assets for political purposes.

The Public Education Department provided the list to political adviser Jay McCleskey, who has said it wasn’t what he wanted and that he didn’t use it.

The PED has said it merely responded to a request from McCleskey for publicly available teacher lists. Gov. Susana Martinez has also said she doesn’t believe the Governmental Conduct Act was violated.

Newly released internal PED emails show Skandera and top aides were aware of the work being done to compile the list of nonunion teacher email addresses.

Department spokesman Larry Behrens said Friday that Skandera knew of McCleskey’s request for teacher lists and was aware PED was responding.

“It is normal for the secretary to be aware of our responses to requests” for public records, Behrens said.

The department created a list of school email addresses for teachers statewide, then used that to help make the list of email addresses for only nonunion teachers.

Behrens, using a personal email account, sent both lists to McCleskey in May. He also sent the lists to campaign or other personal email addresses for Skandera and three other administration officials. Skandera then forwarded the lists to a campaign email address for Martinez.

Administration officials have said the email address for the governor was no longer active and that Martinez didn’t see the Skandera email until after news media reports about it.

Oh, sure, of course they didn't see it until after the media reported the story! Why are you teachers so paranoid? I'm sure the political advisor to the governor had nothing but the best of intentions for your emails! Which are, of course, public records and most likely accessible by the administration for any reason they see fit...

I mean, it's not like the political arm of the Martinez administration or the ACTING Secretary of Education have a vested interest in monitoring non-unionized teachers to make sure they don't agitate for unionization. Where would you get that crazy idea? From the anti-union tirades of Jeb! Bush?

I'm sure those were... uh... "taken out of context"... or something...

It's nice to see teachers around the country waking up and fighting back against this anti-educator, anti-union, pro-provatization agenda. First Chicago, then Seattle, then Texas, and now New Mexico: it's enough to give even the reformyest corporate shill a headache.

Got any Motrin?

New Mexico's Reformy Education Chief Gets Her Hearing

There are several surprising parallels between New Mexico's education chief, Hanna Skandera, and New Jersey's head education honcho, Chris Cerf:

- Skandera has been the ACTING Secretary of Education in New Mexico for two years, and is finally getting a hearing; Cerf was the ACTING Commissioner of Education for 18 months before his confirmation.

- Cerf and Skandera are both members of Chiefs for Change, Jeb Bush's reformy group of state-level education leaders.

- Like Cerf, Skandera has been embarrassed by recently released emails tying her to Bush's reformy Foundation for Educational Excellence (FEE):

New Mexico

• FEE provides its donors — including for-profit digital education companies — access to the chiefs. A draft agenda for the Excellence in Action 2011 Summit blocked off two hours for “Chiefs for Change donor meetings.” Another draft agenda for the meeting allocated nearly three hours to “Chiefs for Change donor meetings.” The donors for the summit were the Walton Family Foundation, the Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Carnegie Corp., Susan and Bill Oberndorf, GlobalScholar, Target, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Microsoft, State Farm, IQity, McGraw-Hill Education, Doris and Donald Fisher Fund, Intel, Pearson Foundation, Apex Learning, ETS, Electronic Arts, Koret Foundation, SMART Technologies, K12, Morgridge Family Foundation, Charter Schools USA and Connections Academy. Demand for donor time was so high that Patricia Levesque wrote that she had to turn down opportunities for the chiefs to meet other representatives from companies.

• FEE staff served as advisers to acting education commissioner Hanna Skandera. FEE, and, by extension, its donors, had great influence over New Mexico legislation. In a Jan., 2011, e-mail, Skandera directs a staffer from the legislature to forward all education bills to FEE’s Christy Hovanetz for edits: “Can you send all Governor’s office ed bill language to Christy, including social promotion?” Another FEE staffer, Mary Laura Bragg, wrote to Skandera, “I’m at your beck and call.”

• The foundation sought to make connections between Skandera (as well as the other Chiefs for Change) and the Hume Foundation for funds for digital learning projects from  Hume  that “must flow through the Foundation for Excellence in Education as a project-restricted grant.” The Santa Fe New Mexican reported  Oct. 21 that Skandera had indeed applied for such a grant, which ultimately could lead to digital learning legislation favorable to FEE funders Connections Academy and K-12 Inc.

• The e-mails indicate that FEE paid for Skandera’s travel, reimbursing New Mexico $3382.91 for her expenses, including trip to Washington, D.C., to testify before Congress.

- Both Cerf and Skandera both have some sketchy connections to educationally dubious "virtual" schools:

FEE’s affiliation with one donor is particularly relevant to New Mexico. Connections Academy, a Baltimore, Md.-based for-profit corporation that operates tuition-free, publicly funded virtual charter schools in 22 states, helped sponsor an October 2011 summit in California for which Skandera was listed as a speaker. Although the emails offer no direct evidence of Skandera’s meeting with Connections Academy officials, the summit designated certain time slots for Chiefs for Change participants (like Skandera) to meet with corporate sponsors (like Connections). Travel vouchers also show that “Foundation Funds” paid $1,107 to fly state Rep. Dennis Roch, R-Colfax, to the same summit. Three months later, Roch sponsored a bill allocating $1 million for PED to transition to a new teacher evaluation system.

To be sure, meeting with corporate education firms is neither uncommon nor illicit. Often, it can help public officials learn about new and beneficial education programs and products. 

But critics worry that establishing close ties between public officials and for-profit education firms can lead to decisions that put those companies’ interests over the needs of students.

Last summer, for instance, Connections sought to open a virtual charter school in New Mexico. The Public Education Commission, a nine-member board elected by New Mexico voters, turned it down. But this January, Skandera overturned the PEC’s decision. Now, commissioner Jeff Carr says the PEC may vote to challenge Skandera’s decision in court. [emphasis mine]

- Like Cerf, Skandera has never been a public school teacher or principal; this is in contradiction to what is required by New Mexico's constitution:

Friday’s hearing was mostly limited to testimony from the public, and did not allow time for the committee to question Skandera. Much of the testimony centered on whether Skandera meets the constitutional requirement that the secretary of education must be a “qualified, experienced educator.”

Peggy Stielow, president of the Rio Rancho School Employees Union, said Skandera does not understand the challenges of being a teacher.

“We need a department secretary who has spent time in the classroom, who truly has experienced the classroom,” Stielow said. “As our Constitution says, a qualified, experienced educator. It’s apparent that there is a lack of understanding of the art of teaching – the day-to-day challenges.”

Skandera supporters contended “educator” is a broad word that does not necessarily mean a classroom teacher.

Larry Langley, head of the New Mexico Business Roundtable, said it is old-fashioned to think all educators are in classrooms.

“Please understand that to be a highly qualified educator doesn’t require you to be in front of a classroom,” Langley said. “Every one of us in this room, I hope, are some kind of qualified educator. I’ve certainly learned things from the chair of this committee. I have learned things from the ranking member of this committee, and from many others. You have been my educators, and you have been qualified educators.” [emphasis mine]

I think we can all agree that is just about the dumbest thing anyone has ever said ever. Why would the New Mexico constitution specify that the SecEd needs to be a "qualified, experienced educator" if everyone is already one?

- Like Cerf, Skandera's agenda appears to consist almost entirely of reformy policies that have never been shown to work:

Ms. Skandera has repeatedly demonstrated that she is unable to discuss reform in education in any meaningful shape or form, other than the reform platitudes espoused by FEE and Students First; it is easy to say that "all children deserve outstanding teachers" because it sounds good, and everyone agrees with it. However, it is meaningless without delineating what makes an outstanding teacher, and what you will do to make sure New Mexico will have outstanding teachers. She has no meaningful experience in actual schools, having never spent a day in a classroom, and thus does not meet the constitutional requirement of being a "qualified, experienced educator." She has established that she will conduct relationships that, while perhaps not being illegal, are certainly questionable from an ethical standpoint, as evidenced by the Connections Academy fiasco. Finally, she has demonstrated no ability to understand and adapt her reform initiatives to the cultural and socioeconomic diversity that is New Mexico. [emphasis mine]

Last I checked, Skandera's hearing was scheduled to continue today. Let's see if she winds up having one more thing in common with Cerf: a hearing where she isn't fully vetted and winds up being confirmed despite many unanswered questions.

I hope the people of New Mexico demand better from their Legislature than the people of New Jersey got from theirs.

Please don't ask my girl Hanna any hard questions, OK?

NJ Charters: Leaving Special Ed Kids Behind

The Christie Administration has just issued its decisions on New Jersey charter school renewals. Some have been approved and allowed to expand, some have been approved with no expansion allowed, some are on probation, and three must shut their doors at the end of the school year.

As I wrote earlier, there doesn't seem to be much correlation between each school's performance on state tests, relative to its student population, and whether or not it was approved: a relative high-flyer like Oceanside must close, while a relative poor-performer like Maria L. Varisco (at least on 8th Grade math tests) remains open. Where's the logic? What is the NJDOE's criteria for granting charters?

I started looking at student demographics for the schools in this round, hoping to find a pattern - but I honestly could not. Free Lunch eligibility, race/ethnicity, gender... none seemed to yield a correlation as to whether the NJDOE would grant a charter or not. English language proficiency wasn't even an issue: none of the schools in this round had more than 2% of LEP students in their populations.

So I was stumped... until I looked at special education rates:

The schools in green are approvals (Discovery would be green, if it had any special education students), in yellow are probations, in orange are probations with decision pending, and in red are denials. Notice a pattern?

In this last round of approvals, charter schools that take more special education kids were more likely to have their charters denied.

What about the outlier, Ridge and Valley Charter School? This K-8 school is deep in Republican country; there's no way Christie would close a charter here and anger parents unnecessarily.

It's worth pointing out that none of the charters in this round serve children with the most severe disabilities: autism, emotional disturbances, mental retardation, and so on. The vast majority spend more than 80% of their time with their classmates, and have either speech/language impairments (SLI) or specific learning disabilities (SLD) such as dyslexia. These are not the most difficult and most costly students to educate; those are left to the public schools.

Still, the classification rates are telling; it appears that charters in New Jersey that attempt to serve children with special needs pay a penalty.

Everyone OK with that?

I am.

Note: I left one of the schools approved by the NJDOE in this round out of my analysis: chARTer Tech High School. Aside from being the only Grade 9-12 school in the round, chARTer Tech stands out for its emphasis on arts education: you have to "major" in an arts speciality, and you have to submit a "skills assessment" based on your intended major.

chARTer Tech is really more like a magnet school than a charter; it wouldn't be right to include it here.

ADDING: The NJDOE told Freedom Academy earlier this year that it was likely to be denied a charter and forced to close. So that orange bar above really should have more red in it.

I wonder if NJDOE is making a deal for the school to be taken over by an outside management company. It wouldn't be the first time...

NJ Charter Closings: Where's the Logic?

I am just starting to look at the New Jersey charter schools that either had their charters renewed or will be forced to closed in this latest approval round. But already, I fail to see any logic in the NJDOE's decisions:

Oceanside opened in 1999, and Middleton has poured her heart and soul into the school. She acknowledged that test scores were not where they should be, but said she wished the state had given more consideration to the children she teaches; they come from some of the poorest sections of the city.

In its rejection letter to the school, the Department of Education said Oceanside’s state test scores were below that of the Atlantic City public school district. The data show Oceanside trailing the district by 2 percentage points in language arts and 1 percentage point in math.

Middleton prepared 2012 test data reports showing that while the school did not outperform the district overall, her students did score higher than their peers in the individual public schools in neighborhoods where her students live.

The data show Oceanside scoring better than five of the eight district schools in language arts and better than three schools — the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. School Complex, Uptown Complex and New York Avenue — in math. The three public schools that consistently perform better than Oceanside are Chelsea Heights, Richmond Avenue and Sovereign Avenue, but Oceanside gets only 2 percent of its students from those neighborhoods, Middleton said.

“This is really not a valid comparison and has a negative impact on how Oceanside scores in the new comparative analysis,” she said. [emphasis mine]

Is this true? Do the students at Oceanside Charter School outperform their peers?

Let me, once again, steal a couple of graphs from Bruce Baker. The Rutgers professor has run regression analyses on charters based on their performance in statewide tests and the characteristics of their students (how many receive free lunch, gender, race, etc.). This allows him to make a prediction about how well the school should do on tests, and compare it to how well they actually do. (The numbers are from 2010-11.)

Here are the results in 8th Grade Math, with my annotations:

Oceanside is way over-performing in this test, given its high enrollment of Free Lunch eligible students (our best way of measuring a school's population of students in poverty). Notice how poorly Liberty Academy, another charter slated for closure, is doing in comparison.

Let's also consider some schools that had their charters approved. Here's Baker's analysis for charters in Newark on the same test, again with my annotations:

Marion Thomas and Maria Varisco-Rogers were approved, but their expansions were denied; Discovery was also approved. Again, where is the logic? These schools' relative performance is all over the place, even though the percentage of students in poverty they serve is relatively even.

Of course, we're looking at only one test here; maybe there is more variation in others. Still, you can understand the frustration of charter administrators and parents when they ask the NJDOE: "Where's the logic? Why do they get to stay open while we have to close?"

Unless there's more at work here than test scores...

Thursday, May 24, 2012 

Two boys, 9 and 11, are facing charges of unlawful possession of a weapon after bringing a handgun to Oceanside Charter School in Atlantic City on Thursday. 

They were released to the custody of their parents Thursday evening. Police are still investigating whether any adults will face charges as well. 

Atlantic City Police say one single shot was fired inside the school bathroom earlier in the day.

Maybe high test scores aren't enough to overcome some blots on a charter's record. More on the closures in a bit.

Why Is NJ BOE Targeting Special Ed Case Workers?

As I reported earlier, the NJ State Board of Education, acting on recommendations from the Education Transformation Task Force, is proposing a change in state code that would allow teachers and other staff to become case managers for students with special needs.

I've received a white paper dated February 22, 2013, from a coalition of stakeholders opposed to this change (I don't yet have a link to get my readers a copy, but I'm working on it). Members include:

• Disability Rights New Jersey (DRNJ)
• Education Law Center (ELC)
• NJ Association of Learning Consultants (NJALC)
• NJ Association of School Psychologists (NJASP)
• NJ Association of School Social Workers (NJASSW)
• NJ Association of Speech Language Specialists (NJASLS)
• NJ Parent Advocates
• New Jersey Education Association (NJEA)
• NJ Special Education Practitioners
• Special Education Clinic at Rutgers University School of Law - Newark
• Special Education Leadership Council of NJ
• Statewide Parent Advocacy Network (SPAN)
• The Arc of New Jersey

So this isn't just the teachers union complaining; these groups represent the core of special education advocacy in the state. Why are they so concerned with this change?

To answer, let's look at the Task Force's report, and their reasons for suggesting the amendment. Here's the original language from the NJ state code, with the Task Force's additions underlined:

N.J.A.C. § 6A:14-3.1(b) General requirements

"Child study team members shall include a school psychologist, a learning disabilities teacher consultant and a school social worker. All child study team members shall be employees of a district board of education or under contract with a school district in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:14-S.1, shall have an identifiable, apportioned time commitment to the local school district

and shall be available to provide all needed services during the hours students are in attendance."

Wait a minute: the Task Force wants districts to be able to contract out special education services? Why? Well, here's their explanation:

The Department and State Board should amend this regulation to increase flexibility by allowing school districts to contract for additional child study team members when such individuals are needed to supplement existing child study teams. School districts may contract with local educational agencies including other local school districts, educational services commissions, jointure commissions, and county special services school districts. This flexibility would give districts greater flexibility in providing child study team services while still protecting services for children with special needs. [emphasis mine]

But if districts if you need more personnel, why not just hire them? Shouldn't case managers have a connection to their schools and communities? The coalition above seems to think so; here's their commentary:

Experience has taught us that, when CST members are not members of the school community or the community wherein the school lies, there is a lack of awareness of the school's and community's culture and expectations that play a direct role in decision making. We have also learned that relationships developed between CST members and other school staff members have a direct impact on the services provided to special needs students. CST members are the bridge uniting families and school personnel. CST members also provide vital services to our students, e.g., counseling, academic support, family services, etc. These relationships are greatly enhanced when CST members are full members of the educational community. [emphasis mine]

I don't think anyone would disagree with that. So why does the NJBOE want to let districts bring in contractors who have no connection to their communities or their schools? And while we're thinking about it: will districts be allowed to contract with private, for-profit contractors?

This regulation change is setting up New Jersey's schools for the outsourcing of special education case management. The NJBOE wants to give districts the ability to contract for special education personnel outside of school districts as a cost-cutting measure.

The people who are responsible for providing services to our special needs children should be part of the education community where they serve. It's astonishing that I have to point this out...

But we live in astonishing - and disturbing - times. This is just the latest example of the Haliburtonization of our schools: more and more opportunities for contractors, while educators see their profession diminished.

Coming soon to your school...