Tag Archives: Education Quality

More states considering ‘Parent Trigger’ laws

2 Feb

California has enacted a law called the “Parent Trigger.” Parent Revolution describes the Parent Trigger

What is the Parent Trigger?

The Parent Trigger is a historic new law that gives parents in California the right to force a transformation of their child’s current or future failing school. All parents need to do is organize – if 51% of them get together and sign an official Parent Trigger petition, they have the power to force their school district to transform the school.

What would the transformation look like?

President Obama has laid out several ways for a low-performing school to be transformed into a great one. The Parent Trigger empowers parents to choose any one of these four options. They are:

1) Charter conversion:

If there is a nearby charter school that is outperforming your child’s failing school, parents can bring in that charter school to transform the failing school. The school will then be run by that charter school, not the school district, but it will continue to serve all the same students that have always attended the school.

2) Turnaround:

If parents want huge changes but want to leave the school district in charge, this option may be for them. It forces the school district to hit the reset button by bringing in a new staff and giving the local school community more control over staffing and budget.

3) Transformation:

This is the least significant change. It force the school district to find a new principal, and make a few other small changes.

4) Closure:

This option would close the school altogether and send the students to other, higher-performing schools nearby.  Parent Revolution does NOT recommend this option to parents – we believe schools must be transformed, not closed.

5) Bargaining power:

If parents want smaller changes but the school district just won’t listen to them, they can organize, get to 51%, and use their signatures as bargaining power.

Parents get to pick which option they want for their children and their school. For a much more detailed overview of each one of these options, please click here.

How do I know if my school is eligible?

The Parent Trigger applies to every school in California that is on Program Improvement Year Three or above, has an API score of under 800, and is not classified as one of the lowest 5% of schools in the state .

Jennifer Medina is reports in the New York Times article, At California School. Parents Force Overhaul Medina has another excellent New York Times about how difficult it is to change the status quo in education, ‘Parent Trigger’ Law to Reform Schools Faces Challenges

Lee Cowan reported in the NBC News story, ‘Trigger law’ put to the test in Compton, Calif.

On its face, the idea sounds so simple: if a school is persistently failing, give parents the power to change it. But the reality of putting that notion into practice is proving challenging, at best.

In the last two years, California, Texas and Mississippi have passed so-called “parent trigger” laws. In each, the law stipulates that if at least 51 percent of the parents of children enrolled in a school sign a petition, they can trigger change. The laws vary in terms of the specifics, but in general, the new law allows parents at persistently failing schools to fire the teachers and principal, and in some cases, turn the school into a charter school instead. Twenty-two other states are considering giving parents the same kind of power.

But there is strong opposition to the laws from teachers’ unions. They argue parents don’t have the experience that career educators do to make big policy changes.

So far, the law has only been put to the test once, in Compton, Calif., and it has sparked a battle. Hundreds of parents signed a petition to turn McKinley Elementary into a charter school. Parents say they had good reasons. Less than half their kids were meeting state standards in math and reading.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44671945/ns/nightly_news/t/trigger-law-put-test-compton-calif/#.TyuI-4Gwe6M

As states try to find solutions for failing schools, “Parent Trigger” laws are increasingly seen as one solution to the problem.

Emily Richmond writes in The Atlantic article, Should Parents ‘Pull the Trigger’ on Failing Schools?

There’s a significant buzz out of Florida regarding proposed legislation that would enact a so-called “Parent Trigger:”  Dissatisfied families could vote to have a local public school undergo significant restructuring including being converted to a charter school or turned over to a private operator. 

Similar legislation has passed in California and Texas, not without controversy and ensuing conflict, and Indiana is also considering enacting a parent trigger.

Here’s part of the problem: There’s no clear picture of what happens once the trigger is pulled or much hard evidence that the students would ultimately benefit from the intervention. 

Florida is ranked third in the nation for its charter school laws, according to the latest report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Among the elements that earned the Sunshine State high marks is its lack of a cap on the number of charter schools permitted. Florida also allows state universities and community college boards to authorize specific types of charter schools, opening up additional avenues beyond the local school board.

Charter schools were always supposed to be the “Next Great Idea” in public education, allowing seeds of innovation to flourish without the perceived distractions attributed to collective bargaining agreements and district regulations. The idea was that with charter schools blazing the trail, public schools could follow. 

But when well-meaning parents and community groups launched some of these independently operated schools, what they quickly discovered is that the business of education is more difficult than they had ever envisioned. 

Into that wide breech stepped education management organizations, often promising the moon plus a rocketship to get there. The moon has yet to be delivered. Or even the rocketship, really. There are certainly examples of strong charter schools. But there are significant gains still to be made. (For more on how for-profit and nonprofit-managed charter schools are performing compared with traditional public schools, click here. Time Magazine, via the Hechinger Report, also has an excellent story on what happens when charters are forced to close .)

In California, actual attempts to pull the parent trigger appear mostly to have fired blanks. A Compton public school was the first to test the new law and survey parents about what they wanted to happen to a struggling campus. What resulted,  according to an editorial from the Los Angeles Times, was the “stuff of high educational drama — claims of intimidation from both sides, an intransigent school board that put parents through ridiculous hoops to verify their signatures and, eventually, legal defeat when the petition was found lacking on largely technical grounds.”

The editorial board at the Sun Sentinel  has significant reservations  about Florida’s proposed legislation, warning that “private education companies could chum the waters in beleaguered districts with political campaigns to tilt parents toward privatization.” The editorial also raises concerns that parents who are “often too busy even for PTA meetings would face a steep and brief learning curve in making such a game-changing call. http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/02/should-parents-pull-the-trigger-on-failing-schools/252343/#.Tyo0ei4SzMs.email

Educated Reporter logo

More on the Charter School Experiment: Skimming Students?
Should Teachers “Friend” Students?
When Digital Schools Don’t Add Up

Ramsey Cox reported in the Education Week article, Parent ‘Trigger’ Law Draws Attention, Controversy about the push back which is occurring because of the Compton parents use of the “Parent Trigger” law.

The Dec. 7 petition by a group of parents at McKinley Elementary School in Compton could add momentum to a push in other states for similar legislation, in the view of Robin Lake, the associate director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, at the University of Washington, in Seattle.

California’s parent-trigger law, passed in January, allows 51 percent of parents at a school that has failed to meet “adequate yearly progress” requirements for three consecutive years to sign a petition that prompts one of four actions: converting to a charter school, replacing the principal and staff, changing the budget, or closing the school entirely.

Mississippi passed a similar law in July, and Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, and West Virginia also are considering parent-trigger laws.

Entrenched entities will always resist change. Whether the “Parent Trigger” laws are one solution remains to be seen.

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

 

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Online for-profit K-12, good for bankers, bad for kids

14 Dec

We all make assumptions about other people. To assume what a person is like based upon limited bits of information may often lead to an incorrect assessment. This training exercise Assumptions – a training exercise demonstrates that some assumptions are at best premature or often incorrect. Nisbett and Wilson conducted an experiment to demonstrate the halo effect

 The halo effect is generally defined as the influence of a global evaluation on evaluations of individual attributes of a person, but this definition is imprecise with respect to the strength and character of the influence. At one extreme, the halo effect might be due simply to an extrapolation from a general impression to unknown attributes. Global evaluations might color presumptions about specific traits or influence interpretation of the meaning or affective value of ambiguous trait information. Thus, if we like a person, we often assume that those attributes of the person about which we know little are also favorable. (Politicians often seem to capitalize on this tendency by appearing warm and friendly but saying little about the issues.)

Many of us assume that most folks should be like us and have a similar outlook on life and value system. We all know what the right thing to do in a situation, right? How do educators who may have not encountered those of a different social class, religion, or value system deal with children who do not share their attributes? Because we all make assumptions, it is one type of survival skill, the question for educators is how to minimize the effect of negative assumptions on children.

Teachers will increasingly face declining and inadequate resources, an increasingly challenging student population, and institutional structures in crisis. Students will come to school at different levels of readiness for instruction because of language challenges, family challenges, and inadequate prior foundation for learning. Parents, will face economic challenges and demands on their time and attention which impact their ability to parent. Given this teaching environment teachers often must put aside normal assumptions in order to save children from succumbing to the chaotic world outside the school.    

Yes, the child’s mother may make Dolly Parton look demure or their dad may be so tricked or pimped out that 50 Cent looks tame by comparison, that doesn’t have to be the future for child. Most parents do care in an emotional sense for their children. Many don’t know how to be parents and don’t know how to set boundaries or to work within a system which is oriented toward those that understand and know how to use middle class rules. For many parents English is not their first language and they may have many success values which they cannot express. For those who may teach in more affluent areas, there are different challenges. You may teach extremely bright, capable, well supported children who are slackers. Should you give one of these children the grade they earn rather than the grade which is expected, there may be consequences. You may challenged by a parent who feels you are preventing their child from becoming the next Ivy League standout and Rhodes Scholar. The focus should not be on any perceived inadequacies of the parent, but helping the child to overcome their challenges. A Hoover Institute article by Jacob and Lefgren describes a study of the types of teachers parents request. The findings of In Low Income Schools, Parents Want Teachers who Can Teach is in line with my personal observation.

Even more interesting, however, we find stark differences across schools in the type of teachers that parents tend to request. We find that parents making requests in high-poverty schools place less value on student satisfaction than those in lower-poverty schools. Conversely, parents in high-poverty schools value a teacher’s ability to improve student achievement considerably more than parents in lower-poverty schools.

At the end of the day, it is really about producing academic achievement in the population of children the teacher is responsible for.   

Don’t try to fix the students, fix ourselves first. The good teacher makes the poor student good and the good student superior. When our students fail, we, as teachers, too, have failed.

There is a brilliant child locked inside every student.  

Marva Collins 

All children can learn. Stephanie Saul of the New York Times is reporting on the cynical operation of for-profit charter schools in the article, Profits and Questions at Online Charter Schools which describes how the dreams of some children are being hindered.

By almost every educational measure, the Agora Cyber Charter School is failing.

Nearly 60 percent of its students are behind grade level in math. Nearly 50 percent trail in reading. A third do not graduate on time. And hundreds of children, from kindergartners to seniors, withdraw within months after they enroll.

By Wall Street standards, though, Agora is a remarkable success that has helped enrich K12 Inc., the publicly traded company that manages the school. And the entire enterprise is paid for by taxpayers.

Agora is one of the largest in a portfolio of similar public schools across the country run by K12. Eight other for-profit companies also run online public elementary and high schools, enrolling a large chunk of the more than 200,000 full-time cyberpupils in the United States.

The pupils work from their homes, in some cases hundreds of miles from their teachers. There is no cafeteria, no gym and no playground. Teachers communicate with students by phone or in simulated classrooms on the Web. But while the notion of an online school evokes cutting-edge methods, much of the work is completed the old-fashioned way, with a pencil and paper while seated at a desk.

Kids mean money. Agora is expecting income of $72 million this school year, accounting for more than 10 percent of the total anticipated revenues of K12, the biggest player in the online-school business. The second-largest, Connections Education, with revenues estimated at $190 million, was bought this year by the education and publishing giant Pearson for $400 million.

The business taps into a formidable coalition of private groups and officials promoting nontraditional forms of public education. The growth of for-profit online schools, one of the more overtly commercial segments of the school choice movement, is rooted in the theory that corporate efficiencies combined with the Internet can revolutionize public education, offering high quality at reduced cost.

The New York Times has spent several months examining this idea, focusing on K12 Inc. A look at the company’s operations, based on interviews and a review of school finances and performance records, raises serious questions about whether K12 schools — and full-time online schools in general — benefit children or taxpayers, particularly as state education budgets are being slashed.

Instead, a portrait emerges of a company that tries to squeeze profits from public school dollars by raising enrollment, increasing teacher workload and lowering standards.

Current and former staff members of K12 Inc. schools say problems begin with intense recruitment efforts that fail to filter out students who are not suited for the program, which requires strong parental commitment and self-motivated students. Online schools typically are characterized by high rates of withdrawal.

Teachers have had to take on more and more students, relaxing rigor and achievement along the way, according to interviews. While teachers do not have the burden of a full day of classes, they field questions from families, monitor students’ progress and review and grade schoolwork. Complaints about low pay and high class loads — with some high school teachers managing more than 250 students — have prompted a unionization battle at Agora, which has offices in Wayne, Pa. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/13/education/online-schools-score-better-on-wall-street-than-in-classrooms.html?emc=eta1

The Illinois Online Network has a good synopsis of the pros and cons of online education at Strengths and Weaknesses of Online Learning  K-12 for profit schools exhibit many of the deficiencies of other for-profit schools. See, For-profit colleges: Money buys government, not quality for students, https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/for-profit-colleges-money-buys-government-not-quality-for-students/

Technology can be a useful tool and education aid, BUT it is not a cheap way to move the masses through the education system without the guidance and mentoring that a quality human and humane teacher can provide. Education and children have suffered because cash sluts and credit crunch weasels have destroyed this society and there is no one taking them on. They will continue to bleed this society dry while playing their masters of the universe games until they are stopped.

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Tags: , , , , ,

U.S. education failure: Running out of excuses

13 Dec

Education tends to be populated by idealists and dreamers who are true believers and who think of what is possible. Otherwise, why would one look at children in second grade and think one of those children could win the Nobel Prize or be president? Maybe, that is why education as a discipline is so prone to fads and the constant quest for the “Holy Grail” or the next, next magic bullet. There is no one answer, there is what works for a particular population of kids

Jay Mathews of the Washington Post is reporting in the article, U.S. school excuses challenged about a new book by Marc S. Tucker, “Surpassing Shanghai: An Agenda for American Education Built on the World’s Leading Systems.” In his book, Tucker examines some of the excuses which have been used to justify the failure of the American education system.

Here are some common excuses for poor U.S. performance and why Tucker thinks they are wrong. I also have included commentary from Brookings Institution scholar Tom Loveless, an expert on PISA.

  1. Our scores are lower because so many of our children are from immigrant families speaking different languages. Tucker says “the reading performance of children without an immigrant background in the United States is only marginally better than the performance of all students. It turns out that Canada, New Zealand, Australia and Hong Kong, all with percentages of immigrant students equal to or greater than the United States, all out-perform the United States in reading.” Loveless says Tucker needs to prove that immigrants in those countries are as poor and culturally deprived as U.S. immigrants.
  2. Our suburban kids do fine, but our national average PISA results are dragged down by urban schools that serve low-income students. In fact, Tucker says, the U.S. suburban average is only slightly above the average for all developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors PISA.
  3. If top-performing countries had to educate as many disadvantaged students as we do, they would not perform as well. PISA has results for what it calls “resilient” students, those who are in the bottom quarter of an index of economic, social and cultural status but who score in the top quarter of the PISA achievement measures. The higher portion of students like that in a country, the theory goes, the better its schools are doing in educating the students who are most difficult to teach. The percentage of resilient students in the United States is below the PISA average. Twenty-seven countries, including Mexico, are ahead of us. Loveless wonders if this says anything besides “countries that score higher than us score higher than us.”
  4. If we spent more on education, we would have better results. In fact, Tucker could find only one OECD country, Luxembourg, that spends more per pupil than we do, even though we score only average in reading and below average in math and science. The key factor, he says, is what we spend the money on. If we measure teacher compensation by how much teachers are paid compared to other professions requiring the same years of education, only three OECD countries pay their teachers less than we do.
  5. If we emphasize reducing class sizes, our students will do better. The PISA data shows otherwise. Countries that give higher priority to raising teacher salaries than reducing class sizes have better achievement rates than countries like ours that do the opposite. Loveless says he is sympathetic to this argument and the previous one, but would like to see evidence of causality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/class-struggle/post/us-school-excuses-challenged/2011/12/10/gIQANIqmmO_blog.html

There are certain elements that successful schools share.

The Wisconsin Department of Education has a good guide about successful schools. Chapter One, Characteristics of Successful Schools , lists key elements:

Chapter 1 describes the seven characteristics that comprise a successful school. Briefly, they are:

  • Vision: having a common understanding of goals, principles and expectations for everyone in the learning-community
  • Leadership: having a group of individuals dedicated to helping the learning-community reach its vision
  • High Academic Standards: describing what students need to know and be able to do
  • Standards of the Heart: helping all within the learning community become caring, contributing, productive, and responsible citizens
  • Family School and Community Partnerships: “making room at the table” for a child’s first and most influential teachers
  • Professional Development: providing consistent, meaningful opportunities for adults in the school setting to engage in continuous learning
  • Evidence of Success: collecting and analyzing data about students, programs, and staff

Like, unhappy families, failing schools are probably failing in their own way.

Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.

Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina, Chapter 1, first line
Russian mystic & novelist (1828 – 1910)

It seems everything old becomes new once again, although a relentless focus on the basics never went out of style.

Good Schools really are relentless about the basics.

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Tags: , , , ,

For-profit colleges: Money buys government, not quality for students

12 Dec

For-profit education institutions are problematic. There is an inherent possible conflict. The goal of an education institution should be to provide a quality education for those who attend. The goal of a for-profit institution is to provide a return to its shareholders or owners. The conflict is when the profit motive is supreme to providing a quality education. The General Accounting Office (GAO) has a report which details just how far from bargains some for-profit schools are. According to the article, GAO: 15 For-profit Colleges Used Deceptive Recruiting Tactics written by Daniel de Vise and Paul Kane some for-profit schools used deceptive practices to recruit students.

The GAO summarized their findings:

Undercover tests at 15 for-profit colleges found that 4 colleges encouraged fraudulent practices and that all 15 made deceptive or otherwise questionable statements to GAO’s  undercover applicants. Four undercover applicants were encouraged by college personnel to falsify their financial aid forms to qualify for federal aid–for example, one admissions representative told an applicant to fraudulently remove $250,000 in savings. Other college representatives exaggerated undercover applicants’ potential salary after graduation and failed to provide clear information about the college’s program duration, costs, or graduation rate despite federal regulations requiring them to do so. For example, staff commonly told GAO’s applicants they would attend classes for 12 months a year, but stated the annual cost of attendance for 9 months of classes, misleading applicants about the total cost of tuition. Admissions staff used other deceptive practices, such as pressuring applicants to sign a contract for enrollment before allowing them to speak to a financial advisor about program cost and financing options. However, in some instances, undercover applicants were provided accurate and helpful information by college personnel, such as not to borrow more money than necessary. In addition, GAO’s four fictitious prospective students received numerous, repetitive calls from for-profit colleges attempting to recruit the students when they registered with Web sites designed to link for-profit colleges with prospective students. Once registered, GAO’s  prospective students began receiving calls within 5 minutes. One fictitious prospective student received more than 180 phone calls in a month. Calls were received at all hours of the day, as late as 11 p.m. To see video clips of undercover applications and to hear voicemail messages from for-profit college recruiters, see http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T. Programs at the for-profit colleges GAO tested cost substantially more for associate’s degrees and certificates than comparable degrees and certificates at public colleges nearby. A student interested in a massage therapy certificate costing $14,000 at a for-profit college was told that the program was a good value. However the same certificate from a local community college cost $520. Costs at private nonprofit colleges were more comparable when similar degrees were offered.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-948T

Eric Lichtblau’s New York Times article, With Lobbying Blitz, For-Profit Colleges Diluted New Rules  is yet another example of we have the government money has bought, not the best government money could buy.

Last year, the Obama administration vowed to stop for-profit colleges from luring students with false promises. In an opening volley that shook the $30 billion industry, officials proposed new restrictions to cut off the huge flow of federal aid to unfit programs.

But after a ferocious response that administration officials called one of the most intense they had seen, the Education Department produced a much-weakened final plan that almost certainly will have far less impact as it goes into effect next year.

The story of how the for-profit colleges survived the threat of a major federal crackdown offers a case study in Washington power brokering. Rattled by the administration’s tough talk, the colleges spent more than $16 million on an all-star list of prominent figures, particularly Democrats with close ties to the White House, to plot strategy, mend their battered image and plead their case.

Anita Dunn, a close friend of President Obama and his former White House communications director, worked with Kaplan University, one of the embattled school networks. Jamie Rubin, a major fund-raising bundler for the president’s re-election campaign, met with administration officials about ATI, a college network based in Dallas, in which Mr. Rubin’s private-equity firm has a stake.

A who’s who of Democratic lobbyists — including Richard A. Gephardt, the former House majority leader; John Breaux, the former Louisiana senator; and Tony Podesta, whose brother, John, ran Mr. Obama’s transition team — were hired to buttonhole officials.

And politically well-connected investors, including Donald E. Graham, chief executive of the Washington Post Company, which owns Kaplan, and John Sperling, founder of the University of Phoenix and a longtime friend of the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, made impassioned appeals.

In all, industry advocates met more than two dozen times with White House and Education Department officials, including senior officials like Education Secretary Arne Duncan, records show, even as Mr. Obama has vowed to reduce the “outsize” influence of lobbyists and special interests in Washington.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/10/us/politics/for-profit-college-rules-scaled-back-after-lobbying.html?emc=eta1

SHAME on the weasels who caved.  The reasons for the attempt to regulate for-profit colleges were detailed by Tamar Lewin in the New York Times article, For-Profit College Group Is Sued As U.S. Lays Out Wide Fraud

Before signing-up for any course of study, people must investigate the claims of the institution of higher learning regarding graduation rates and placement after completion of the degree. The U.S. Department of Education has an accreditation database and you can always check with the department of education for your state. Back to College has a good explanation of College Accreditation: Frequently Asked Questions

Too bad, we have the government which money has bought, not the best government money could buy.

Citation:

For-Profit Colleges: Undercover Testing Finds Colleges Encouraged Fraud and Engaged in Deceptive and Questionable Marketing Practices

GAO-10-948T August 4, 2010

Highlights Page (PDF)   Full Report (PDF, 30 pages)   Accessible Text   Video

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

Tags: , , , , ,