To new subscribers: I'm sorry for a technical glitch

I am a very, very bad blogger. I owe many people an apology. I have been accidentally deleting subscription requests for this blog -- any that came to me with the subject message of "Subscribe." If you sent me an automatic message from the link on the right, I probably wiped you out, never knowing what was in your message.

Between Safer Child, Inc., a nonprofit I run at http://www.saferchild.org , and the Betrayed blog, I receive hundreds of SPAM emails every single day. They come with all sorts of subject messages (most not printable here), and some come with viruses and spyware attached. Because of these problems, we have had to replace our computer equipment several times, and we have lost much work over the last decade, including critical emails and one of my master's degree papers, which I had to rewrite. (The paper was better the second time around, but this would not prevent me from kicking the evil hacker in the shins.)

We are now skittish of messages that have SPAM-like subject messages, such as the subject message "Subscribe." Sadly, "Subscribe" is also the automatic subject message for subscription requests to the Betrayed blog. I didn't set it up that way - it's just how it is.

If you asked to subscribe and did not hear from me, this is probably what happened to you. Please send another request to wlroge@comcast.net, or via the "Subscribe to Betrayed" link off to the right. I will no longer automatically delete messages with a subject message of "Subscribe."

My daughter is delighted to see that I have finally arrived in the 21st century, technology-wise.

Thanks very much for your patience.
Laurie Rogers

Parents & teachers: Demand the respect you're owed

The latest catchy word in the media is “civility.” The media – our ever-vigilant protectors of American decency and morality – are all over this, pausing in their meticulously well-balanced coverage of the weighty issues facing the nation so they can write pages and pages of in-depth analysis on how various semi-celebrities and politicians have been rude.

The media could use a mirror, but perhaps these erudite mountebanks have a point. Some folks have been rude. Still, there’s a larger issue here, which I think the media are missing. (I know – it was a complete shock to me, too.)

Incivility and poor manners are symptoms of a lack of respect. The media ought to know more about that than anyone. Right on the media’s heels, however, are certain public-education administrators who also display a lack of respect for their publics.

Was that a cheap shot? It hasn’t been cheap for me. I’m a reasonably well-educated, polite, friendly, frequently funny person who is slightly more intelligent than a doorknob. I care about the children – the one living in my house and those in the school down the street, throughout the district, and all across the nation. I want to help them learn so they’ll grow up, achieve great things and support me in my dotage with whatever pittance the government hasn’t already spent on itself. And so, with all the best intentions, I do my research, politely ask questions of administrators, make helpful suggestions, ask for something better than what we have now (and “better” isn’t hard to find), bring solid research to the table, volunteer my help, and wait patiently to be heard. I follow the rules, don’t speak out of turn, and almost never stand up and tell certain people how completely useless they appear to be.

And yet – despite my general wonderfulness, my innate brilliance and my astute wisdom – almost every official and administrator in public education treats me as though I’m an idiot, a whacko, or just invisible. What’s up with that? How did public education become inundated with so many people who are condescending, self-centered – and at times contemptuously dismissive? These people hold our children’s future – our country’s future – in their unapologetically arrogant hands. Why do we not demand more of them? Why do we not hold them accountable?

Lord knows, I have tried.

District: At the district level, most school board members don’t answer my questions. Only one in Spokane – Dr. Jeff Bierman, a physics professor – actually talks with me. Several walk past me with eyes averted, as if I’m not there. One rolls his eyes when he sees me. I haven’t been rude in their meetings – I swear – just persistent.

The school superintendent has a habit of introducing herself to me as if I haven’t spoken to the board half a dozen times, haven’t met her, haven’t asked her questions in open forums, and didn’t sit in her office last year for an hour interviewing her.

Instead of asking me if they can see the research I’ve compiled, certain district staff members tell me I have nothing to tell them about what my daughter needs for curriculum or teaching methodology. And yet, they have no scientific research to show me, no solid answers to give me, and they get testy with me on the phone. I swear to you I am the soul of patience with them.

State: Over the last few years, I’ve sent several requests for information to the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) (our state department of education). Unless I send my requests wrapped in a formal Request for Public Information, I usually do not receive a reply, much less answers. Fortunately, the person who manages those formal requests is pleasant and professional, and she never forgets me. She’s a sunny spot in my otherwise gloomy 2 ½-year relationship with OSPI.

Governor: In July, I called the Washington State governor’s office to speak about the state’s participation in a) the national education standards being put together by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, and b) the federal Race to the Top initiative. I left messages for Judy Hartmann, the person the governor’s office recommended as a contact. Ms. Hartmann didn’t return my phone calls. In September, I left a third message. A few weeks later, I called again. Finally, on September 30, her assistant called to set up a phone appointment. (I’ll discuss this phone call in an upcoming article).

What took so long? I’m told that Ms. Hartmann’s been busy with the coordination of contacts for the national education standards and Race to the Top. Boy, that taxpayer money sure motivates. (Maybe that’s why these people don’t seem motivated to talk to me. They already have more of my money than I do, and they can just take more of it whenever they want it.)

Federal: I’ve contacted the U.S. Department of Education multiple times since July 11 to ask about its involvement in the national education standards. Repeatedly, my questions were refused, and I was told to contact the NGA and CCSSO.

But I already had. On July 11 I’d emailed the NGA, the CCSSO and their partner Achieve, Inc. After a second email, Achieve finally responded by directing me to the CCSSO. So far, the NGA and CCSSO haven’t acknowledged my existence.

Finally, I emailed the Department of Education with a formal Request for Public Information. I received an initial email and clarifying phone call, but no answers.

Two weeks ago, I called the DoE for the 5th time. Let’s call it nearly a dozen contacts altogether that I’ve made to the DoE, trying to get about 30 simple questions answered. I was promised a reply on Monday, Sept. 28. On Sept. 30, I received an email telling me they were still locating documents and would soon provide me with a cost estimate. Oh, joy. Clearly, “soon” is a relative term, as in - "We'll get back to you sooner than the arrival of the next millennium."

So much for transparency.

Public education is a bureaucracy. Administrators manage a lot of people and stacks of paper, and they have the same 24 hours we do. (This is one of the myriad arguments for opposing the federal takeover of public education. If administrators won’t talk to you now, just wait until you’re trying to talk to suits in Washington, DC.)

But the problem isn’t just bureaucracy. It’s also a real and persistent lack of respect – for parents, students, and teachers. By and large, administrators don’t have to answer questions, so most don’t. Or, they neatly sidestep them. They play the odds, betting you’ll give up and go away. Most of us do. There isn’t much that can be done.

Or so they think.

Parents can insist on respect for themselves and their children. They can stand up and demand answers, and they can persist until they get what they need. They can refuse to accept “No, I don’t know, It isn’t me, I didn’t do it, It isn’t important, You’re the only one who’s ever asked, Well, we’ll think about it.”

When asking questions doesn’t work, parents can vote with their feet. They can vote board members out, they can leave the system, they can tell their friends, they can write letters, contact their representatives, and make it public. When all else fails, they can file a lawsuit.

Most education administrators and board members with whom I’ve spoken don’t respect me, although some pretend to. (The few who do know who they are.) It’s been a steep learning curve, but now I know how the playing field is laid out. I’m still here, and I want to know what they’re doing.

Parents, students and teachers, I’m asking you to join me. Stand up and demand a say in the decisions these people make. Sure, we can do this civilly, but don’t let anyone’s use of that word keep you from asking questions. It isn’t uncivil to expect decision-makers to be honest and forthcoming. It isn’t uncivil to hold them accountable, or to push for the truth.

Stand up for the children. Take back their future. Take back the public education system. Stand up and fight for the respect you are owed.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (October, 2009). "Parents & teachers: Demand the respect you're owed." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

Administrators, board members need reality check

I challenge district board members and administrators to go out into the school district and start working with the children. I’m not talking about photo ops, obsequious gift giving, and meaningless meet-and-greets of the great, unwashed masses. I’m talking about working with the children, sitting down with them to tutor them in arithmetic, talking with them in all seriousness about their education, finding out how it’s been going, what their challenges are, what they would like to see happen, and what they really need. I’m talking about regular, quality time, every month.

If school administrators were open to learning something – and not just interested in hearing what they already believe – then working with the students could be a real education, a comeuppance, and a humbling experience.

“Keep it real, dude” should be the law – or at least district policy. But it’s easier to avoid reality, to make policy from afar, to field phone calls off the record, and to hold meetings where no one has to answer questions. My goal, therefore, is to help administrators keep it real.

Hey, here comes some reality now.

I’ve spoken at length with a Spokane principal about a free tutoring program for some of his K-6 students. At the end of the last conversation, I could see I would have to take my tutoring program elsewhere. It isn’t that he can’t use the help. In his school last spring, just 63% of the 4th graders and 59% of the 6th graders passed the state standardized math tests. It isn’t that he can’t let me in the door. I’m not a whacko, drug addict or criminal. I’ve volunteered in this school district for the last six years. The reasons I took my tutoring elsewhere are these:

1. I want to teach arithmetic. The principal insisted he wouldn’t feel “comfortable” unless I taught multiple ways to solve math problems. He did NOT want me to focus on traditional algorithms.
2. I want to teach arithmetic. The principal said he wants me to include other subjects in the tutoring (such as language arts).
3. I know my limitations. The principal said he wants me to include all types of learners, including students who qualify for special education. When I made it clear I’m not trained in special education, he accused me of not meaning it when I said everyone can learn arithmetic.
4. He said there is no money available for tutoring in arithmetic. Therefore, parents would be charged for something their children should be getting for free in the classroom.

What a mess.

The principal and I batted this conversation back and forth for more than an hour. He kept saying the same meaningless things over and over.

“Why do the students even need the Lattice Method?” I asked him at one point.
“So they can get a deeper understanding of the concept,” he said.
“Right, so we teach the traditional algorithm, we show them how it works, we have them practice it, and they get that deeper understanding,” I said. “Why do they need the Lattice Method?”
Pause. “So they can get a deeper understanding,” he said firmly, still certain.

At last, reluctantly, I gave up. I got in touch with a local tutor, who invited me to volunteer at an outreach center. And there, I must say, I am getting one hell of an education.

The students there have heartbreaking challenges in their life, and I can do nothing at all about most of them. Despite the fact that reform math is supposed to help disadvantaged students, these students have the same gaps in math knowledge as everybody else (exacerbated by the additional challenges).

I also found out that high school students who don’t have basic arithmetic skills can be enrolled in Algebra I. They also can be enrolled in Advanced Placement classes. (They’re likely to fail or drop out of these classes, of course, whereupon some administrators will say, “Well, they must have learned something while they were there.”)

I heard that some school counselors advise vulnerable students as follows: “Don’t worry about the exams. To go to the Skills Center or ROTC or college, you need these classes on your transcript. Just take the classes and do a portfolio or project at the end. They’ll let you graduate and then you can do what you want.”

These high school students are nervous, scared even – filled with bravado and doubt in equal portions, frightened of looking stupid. “I’m not (worried) about it,” one of them said to me repeatedly, not meeting my gaze. Watching him, I pondered the “discovery” learning method, so enthusiastically and inexplicably embraced by the schools. Like everyone else, this student will be told to work in groups and on his own to “discover” his own methods. I imagined him trying to discover thousands of years of math by trial and error. It made me angry. He needs to be taught, not pitched back into the hell of the Discovery Dog and Pony Show. But what do district administrators know of him or the other students in this district? What do board members know? Very little. Next to nothing. Maybe nothing at all.

I have an idea. District administrators and board members should set a policy of going into the schools each month for a certain amount of time, where they must tutor the students. If they do this, they’ll see 4th graders who already hate mathematics, 6th-graders who add on their fingers, and high school students who aren’t sure of how to do long division. They’ll see smart but ill-prepared students who flunked out of their AP classes and who now worry their friends see them as stupid.

They’ll see kids with fierce dreams, daunting fears and multiple life challenges – kids whose future looms large and forbidding in their mind. They’ll see that by high school, the students’ gaps in critical academic skills and knowledge are enormous, monstrous, and seemingly insurmountable.

They’ll see principals who are absolutely certain beyond any shadow of a doubt that current teaching methods will work, despite the entire last decade of contrary evidence.

Unless they are willfully blind to it, administrators and board members will see their hand in this mess, and they’ll see the gargantuan gap between what they’re doing and what they could and should be doing.

It’s so easy for administrators to sit around and make policy, to approve this or that, pontificate about how great things are, go on television and moan about a pretend lack of money, and commiserate with each other about how parents, students, legislators and teachers are to blame for the low test scores. "Stay in school,” they tell students. “Work hard. Do your best. Take this seriously.” As if that fixes it. It’s harder to go into the classroom and find out how things really are. It’s harder to go to PTA meetings and listen to frustrated parents. It’s harder to watch as children valiantly attempt to follow ineffectual district curricula and policies.

It’s really hard to sit in the hallway with a 4th-grader and his math homework and try to convince him that he is NOT stupid, that math is NOT hard, that he WILL get it -- all the while knowing that he’s going back to a curriculum that will continue to confuse him. It’s really easy to show that child how to do it properly and to help him practice it. It’s really rewarding to see him get it. It’s really stupid that this tutoring process is so necessary right now. It’s criminal that administrative roadblocks keep it from happening.

Here’s my challenge to administrators and school board members. If you’re really there to do some good, then get out of your office, sit down with the students and start learning something. Your customers have something to teach you.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (September, 2009). "Administrators, board members need reality check." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Sept. 16, 2009, on ednews.org at http://www.ednews.org/articles/administrators-board-members-need-reality-check-.html

Blame math problem on administrators

(Updated Oct. 2, 2009)

During the Aug. 26 board meeting for Spokane Public Schools, Razak Garoui, director of Assessment and Program Evaluation, blamed new legislation for the district’s abysmal math test scores. (According to a previous news report, he also said scores were low because students didn’t take the test seriously.)

Listening to Dr. Garoui, I was reminded of a song that was NOT sung by Milli Vanilli. “Blame It On the Rain” was a major hit for Milli Vanilli late in 1989, just before news broke that the duo was only pretending to sing. While suffering through the pretense of Dr. Garoui’s Aug. 26 presentation, I recalled the chorus of “Blame It On the Rain”:

“Gotta blame it on something
Blame it on the rain (rain)
Blame it on the stars (stars)
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah
You can blame it on the rain”

I became annoyed with Dr. Garoui and Milli Vanilli. As a diversion, I found and began to read the August 2009 issue of the district’s newsletter “School Talk.” The issue contains an article titled “It All Adds Up To Math.” In this article:

• A Shadle Park high school teacher says, “I’m impressed by the students’ depth of understanding, and their ability to communicate mathematical ideas.”
  (Shadle’s pass rate for the 10th-grade math test in 2009 was 47.4%.)
• A Ridgeview Elementary School teacher says, “Kids are able to apply concepts seamlessly in different contexts. They are excited about math now.”
  (Ridgeview’s pass rates for the 3rd-6th-grade math tests were 62.1%, 56.3%, 58.2% and 43.5%).
• A Chase Middle School teacher says, “The curriculum does a good job of pushing kids to discover their own understanding. And it also allows time to practice skills and algorithms.”
(Chase’s pass rates for the 7th-8th-grade math tests were 52.8% and 55.6%).
• The article says: “Student scores on statewide assessments are, in some cases, showing improvement. However, there are still students not achieving at the level necessary to demonstrate mastery of standards."
  (No kidding. Nowhere in this happy article is the fact that in 2009, Spokane Public Schools' 10th-grade math WASL pass rate was just 42.3%.)

Following Dr. Garoui’s comments, board member Dr. Jeff Bierman, a physics professor at Gonzaga, commented on the “abysmal” WASL results for mathematics and on the “almost deceitful” district representation of student achievement. That’s when Superintendent Nancy Stowell blamed the low test scores on the teachers. She said the math problem isn’t just about curriculum; it’s about the quality of teaching. She added, “And we have a real problem in this district” with quality teaching.

Wow. Really? That’s probably news to Spokane teachers. The Garoui/Stowell comments are unsupported by evidence. They actually stand in direct opposition to the flood of available evidence on Spokane’s execrable math curricula. After everything she’s heard – over several years and from parents, teachers and advocates – after all of the research and reports she’s received – Dr. Stowell prefers to just blame the teachers.

“Gotta blame it on something
Blame it on the rain that was falling, falling
Blame it on the stars that did shine at night
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you
Blame it on the rain yeah yeah”

This isn’t the first time I’ve heard Dr. Stowell blame the teachers. In a 2008 interview, I told her some teachers believe they’ve been disciplined for voicing their concerns, and she said that didn’t surprise her. The district has “a wide variety of teachers out there,” she said, “some of them very, very successful; and some less successful. And so, you know, people have issues along that continuum.” Some teachers just don’t like change, she added – somewhat hypocritically, I thought, considering that, as a whole, she and her fellow administrators seem completely adverse to effective change. These administrators are a nearly immoveable force – stain-resistant, impermeable, opaque and impervious. They’re like a black hole, sucking in all available taxpayer money and emitting no Light At the End of the Tunnel.

Teachers, however, are forced to change. They either change in response to every administrative whim, or they’re forced out. Afraid to voice their concerns, many teachers become silent and submissive. And yet – while doing exactly as they’re told – teachers are still blamed for low test scores.

“We have a real problem” with quality teaching, Dr. Stowell says.

Jim Harrison, 6th-grade teacher at Balboa Elementary School, was neither silent nor submissive. He fought a long and almost solitary fight for better mathematics instruction in Spokane. Parents and students are fond of him. They look up to him and believe he gave them his best. Last spring, Jim’s principal, Pat Lynass, broke WASL testing protocol in Jim’s class in several ways. A district spokesperson said Ms. Lynass will not be disciplined for these infractions. Jim’s class, however, was labeled a “problem.” This year, Jim is on a leave of absence. Next year, he retires.

“You got to blame it on something
(Blame it on the rain)
(Blame it on the stars)
Whatever you do don't put the blame on you”

Teachers, parents and students tend to be blamed because they have little voice. Even as Dr. Stowell and her curriculum coordinators say publicly that no one knows how to solve the math problem – that “no one has a silver bullet” – they refuse to listen to the people who DO know how to solve the math problem.

People all over the world HAVE solved the math problem, just by teaching it properly. That’s all it takes. They teach it. They don’t blame teachers, students, legislators, a fake lack of money, new standards, student hormones, parents, society, or students’ alleged bad attitude. They don’t ask students to learn mathematics by cutting out paper dolls, playing with molding clay and straws, or counting bird calls. They don’t expect children to teach math to each other or to themselves. Recognizing that it’s silly to teach mathematics by not teaching it, people all over the world just get up there and teach it – effectively, efficiently, with little fanfare but with superior results.

In Spokane, it would be refreshing to hear administrators say, “We’ve really screwed this up. We don’t have a problem with quality teaching; what we have here is a failure in administration. We should all leave right now, give up our pay, our bonuses, our travel allowances and our fancy offices. We stink. We should give back several years of pay. In fact, we should pay the students for what we’ve done to them.”

But I doubt we’ll ever hear anything from Spokane administrators acknowledging their responsibility for the mess that is K-12 math instruction. It’s time board members took Dr. Stowell to task. She and some of her employees have said that no one knows how to solve the math problem. This is both arrogant and incorrect. A positive step toward fixing the math problem in Spokane would be for Nancy Stowell, the math curriculum coordinators, their supervisors – and sure, while we’re at it, Razak Garoui – to resign.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:Rogers, L. (August, 2009). "Blame math problem on administrators." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published Aug. 31, 2009, on Ednews.org, at: http://www.ednews.org/articles/blame-math-problem-on-administrators.html

FACT: SPS looks bad in testing violations

(Updated Aug. 28, 2009)

In the spring of 2009, Madison Chapman was a student in Jim Harrison's 6th-grade class at Balboa Elementary School, Spokane, WA. During the administration of the state standardized test (the WASL), Pat Lynass, principal of Balboa Elementary, violated WASL protocol by interfering with the secure administration of the test. (This is not in dispute.) Since then, Spokane Public Schools (SPS) administrators have gone on the record as saying that the principal will not be disciplined for these violations, but that Jim Harrison's class is a "problem." (Mr. Harrison has been vocal in the past about Spokane's poor mathematics curricula.)

On Aug. 12, Madison's father, Hal Chapman, spoke to the school board. Before his allotted five minutes were up, the school board president interrupted Mr. Chapman to tell him his time was running out and to ask him to summarize. The president said the state was looking at the issue and the district had to leave it with the state. Mr. Chapman said his goal was to deliver the facts to the school board and to the assembled people, and he asked the board for another minute so he could finish his presentation. After a brief discussion, the president agreed to give him another minute.

Following is the full text of Hal Chapman's presentation to the school board on August 12.

***
I would like to take this time to thank the board for giving me this opportunity to speak about events that led to an official bullying and harassment complaint form being filed on behalf of Madison Chapman, 6th grader at Balboa Elementary.

The District has made attempts to mask the reason Pat Lynass was proctor in Mr. Harrison's class. I am here today to make the FACTS very clear to everyone.

Fact: On April 16th, Pat Lynass, while alone, thumbed through finished WASL tests in the privacy of her own office. Fact: That is a violation of WASL rules and protocol.

While thumbing through those tests, Pat Lynass came across a few students whom she felt could have made a better effort to answer questions that would be more favorable to the school and the district.

Fact: Pat Lynass had 5 days from April 16th to April 21st to come to the teacher, the students, or their parents and discuss what she found. She chose not to.

On April 21st, just before the test was about to begin, Pat Lynass excused the original proctor and assumed the duties of proctor in that classroom for the day. Within minutes after the test began, Pat Lynass made her way to Madison Chapman and leaned down and told her that if she didn't do well on this portion of the WASL exam she would NOT be able to get into an advanced placement math class at Salk Middle School next year -- A BOLD-FACED LIE.

Fact: This is against WASL protocol. Trying to influence a child into getting answers that are more favorable to the school and the district is considered cheating and is a VERY serious violation.

Fact: WASL test scores for incoming 7th graders are NOT utilized to prevent students from accessing the honors program.

The fact that Pat Lynass had information on the 16th and decided to use that information 5 days later to harass/bully and manipulate a 12-year-old child is VERY disturbing. To have the district condone this behavior by a principal would validate suspicions that these violations are tolerated and accepted as a means to manipulate scores in favor of the school and the district.

Fact: The teacher Mr. Harrison excused Madison to use the bathroom after Pat Lynass had humiliated her and she began to cry. Pat Lynass proceeded to follow Madison into the bathroom and closed the door behind her. She then continued to badger Maddi until she no longer wanted to go back into the classroom to finish the test.

Fact: Pat Lynass as the proctor has an obligation to provide a quiet testing atmosphere and remain in that classroom to proctor, and AGAIN failed to follow protocol.

Fact: Pat Lynass told me she did this because the district failed to meet its AYP for having low test scores, and she had to make sure the district wouldn't fall short of expectations again this year because federal funding was riding on these tests.

Fact: Pat Lynass went over to another student’s test that was finished and lying faced down. Pat Lynass picked up that test. thumbed through it, pointed to an unfinished portion, placed it back in front of the student and told him he needed to finish this test.

Fact: This is another blatant disregard for the rules governing the test. Again -- trying to influence a child into getting answers that favor the school and the district is cheating and AGAIN, I (along with the surrounding parents and taxpayers in Spokane Public School boundaries) are wondering WHY the principal is NOT going to be held accountable for her actions, AND WHY does the district condone this kind of behavior ???

Fact: The district has targeted Mr. Harrison and, on the Channel 4 KXLY 6 o'clock News, has accused him of being a problem teacher.

The district insists that because of the number of people who opted out of the WASL the year prior, Pat Lynass needed to be in Mr. Harrison's classroom on April 21st.

Fact: A parent’s choice to opt a student out of testing is NOT a violation.

Fact: What Pat Lynass has managed to pull off is definitely a series of serious violations.

Fact: I have the original proctor schedule in my possession and Pat Lynass is not on there at all to assume the proctor duties in Mr. Harrison's classroom. If the district felt the need to have Pat observe Mr. Harrison's classroom for something that happened a year ago, the schedule would reflect that.

Fact: It's time the district stops condoning and tolerating this kind of behavior, and ... it's time the district is held accountable for continuing to protect a principal named Pat Lynass who has become a liability. Board members, I hope you are finding this interesting. As you are a publicly elected, volunteer board, ultimately responsible to the community for the successful implementation of the school district’s mission, I have to ask: What exactly was District 81's mission on and after the 21st of April and do you stand behind that mission?

I would like to refer to Ivan Bush’s investigation findings in the bullying report. The investigation did substantiate that Mrs. Lynass's interactions with Madison during testing – and after Madison was released from testing – caused embarrassment and humiliation for her.

I am disgusted that District 81 continues to cover up the real issue, refuses to hold Pat Lynass accountable for her actions, has yet to offer any kind of apology, and worst of all continues to publicly badmouth the best thing Balboa has going for it -- their 6th-grade teacher Mr. Harrison.

I would ask that the board please respond. Thank you.

Hal Chapman

***

Federal control expands despite the rules

The federal government is taking over public education. It has no legal authority to do this, but it’s doing it anyway. This is not change I believe in.

New national education Common Core Standards (CCS) were released in draft form in July, reportedly “prematurely.” Critics call these supposedly “international” benchmarks vague, fuzzy and inadequate, but the most critical questions about them actually have to do with the fact of their existence.

In theory, the CCS initiative was driven by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The standards will be followed by development of a national assessment and perhaps a national curriculum. President Barack Obama and U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan have said they support this initiative.

I have questions for those who are pushing this initiative on an unsuspecting public:

• Who are they? Who lurks there in the dark, behind the scenes, basketball shoes in one hand and a bully whip in the other?
• How much will this initiative cost the taxpayer (who already pays ridiculous sums of money for an arrogant, secretive, ineffective, close-minded, top-heavy public-education bureaucracy)?
• Under what authority does the U.S. Department of Education direct, supervise, or control “the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system”?
  
  • (Hint: None, according to Congress.)
• Where is the voter in this entire process?
  
  • (Hint: Nowhere, except as a means for more money.)

Since July 1, I’ve been asking questions of the U.S. Department of Education (DoE); the Washington State Governor’s Office; the Washington State Board of Education (SBE); the Washington State Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI); the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA); the Chief Council of State School Officers (CCSSO); and Achieve, Inc. (which is partnering with the NGA and CCSSO). Here’s what’s happened so far.

U.S. Department of Education:
From July 11-22, the DoE steadfastly refused to answer my emailed questions, repeatedly referring me to the NGA and CCSSO. I told them my questions had to do with DoE policy, but this had zero effect. I changed my tactic, calling the DoE directly. On July 25, I finally found a person willing to address my questions.

Besides the CCS initiative, I’m concerned about the DoE’s changing role. For example, Race to the Top is a competition for $4.35 billion in federal grants that President Obama and Sec. Duncan formally announced July 24. President Obama reportedly “wants states to use funds to ease limits on charter schools, tie teacher pay to student achievement and move for the first time toward common academic standards” (Shear & Anderson, 2009). He reportedly said in a July 23 Oval Office interview: “What we're saying here is, if you can't decide to change these practices, we're not going to use precious dollars that we want to see creating better results; we're not going to send those dollars there.”

Sec. Duncan has reportedly threatened California with the loss of federal “stimulus” funds if it doesn’t tie teacher evaluations to student achievement (Felch & Song, 2009). What does this have to do with the CCS initiative? Answer: Nothing.

Do what we tell you, California was told, or you don’t get the money. Whose money is this? Ours. Whose vision is it? Good question. Federal “support” is looking more like coercion or blackmail. This behavior is inappropriate. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution says that “powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Public education, therefore, falls outside of federal authority.

Despite the Tenth Amendment, the Department of Education was created in 1980 to:

1. increase equal access
2. “supplement and complement” the efforts of states, schools, parents and students, and "encourage” community involvement
3. improve education through research, evaluation and information sharing
4. help coordinate federal programs, improve their management and efficiency, and increase their accountability to Congress, the public and the president.

From its inception, the DoE’s activities were deliberately limited – especially with respect to decision-making. The original act (Public Law 96-88) says “the establishment of the Department of Education shall not increase the authority of the Federal Government over education or diminish the responsibility for education which is reserved to the States and the local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States.”

According to "20 USC Sec. 3403," the DoE is prohibited from “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.” The DoE acknowledges this, adding that “the establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation -- these are responsibilities handled by the various states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations of all kinds, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”

All of this might as well be history, folks. The DoE’s 1980 budget of $14 billion skyrocketed to a 2009 budget of $140.5 billion. Its appetite for power has surpassed all intents and purposes. Its top official is a gunslinger, swaggering his way around the country. And I – the most critical stakeholder in my child’s education – can’t even get a few simple questions answered.

State Governor’s Office:
On July 1, I emailed the Washington State governor’s office, asking for pertinent documentation on the CCS initiative. The legal affairs coordinator replied, sending me a heavily redacted document and a May 20 letter from the State Board of Education that had encouraged the governor to participate. One pertinent document was exempted from my request, due to “Executive Privilege.”

On July 11, I sent follow-up questions and a request for the exempted document. I received that document and was directed to Senior Policy Advisor Judy Hartmann for answers to my questions. I’ve twice requested a telephone appointment with Ms. Hartmann, but so far have been unsuccessful.

The exempted document is a confidential Decision Brief from Ms. Hartmann, having to do with a Memorandum of Agreement on the CCS initiative. The Brief indicates that by May 15, our governor had already decided to participate. (Therefore, the SBE’s May 20 letter, encouraging the governor to sign the MOA, was dated at least five days after her decision.) But the most interesting part about the Decision Brief is this:

“Federal standards adoption. While the standards are being developed by states, CCSSO/NGA believe federal money – Race To The Top - to support this work is appropriate as well as taking the next step to developing common assessments. Discussion: The MOA does not address the possibility of federal adoption of the standards. As you know, some in Congress are looking at this issue.
Race To The Top funds. There is the possibility that one of the criteria for participation in Race To The Top funds will be participating in the Common Standards project.”(At that point, with federal adoption of the standards and federal money contingent on participation in the CCS initiative, they might as well stuff "20 USC Sec. 3403" in the shredder. )

All states need to do is say no to this siren call. On July 24, our governor met with President Obama and Sec. Duncan in Washington, DC. At home the next day, the governor reportedly said that for a chance to “win” Race to the Top money, legislators “may need to talk about teacher evaluation, teacher pay and what the state is doing for struggling schools that are not getting better.”

State Board of Education:
The minutes from the May 14-15 meeting of the Washington State Board of Education note the board members’ decision to send the governor a supportive letter about the CCS initiative, but the agenda for that meeting didn’t mention their intent to discuss it. Therefore, the public wouldn’t have known.

I asked the SBE executive assistant to tell me which came first – the governor’s decision or the SBE’s May 20 letter. She would say only that the letter was “in support of” the governor’s decision. She eventually referred me and my questions to the governor and OSPI’s public disclosure officer (PDO).

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction:
OSPI’s PDO, a polite and helpful person, says OSPI will provide me with pertinent documents a month from now, during the last half of August. My questions were referred to Superintendent Randy Dorn. I haven’t heard from him, but on July 14, I was notified that Deputy Superintendent Alan Burke would respond in 7-14 days.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices:
Council of Chief State School Officers:
Achieve, Inc.:
I sent emails to these three organizations July 11 and July 20. The NGA and the CCSSO haven’t responded. After the July 20 email, Achieve referred me to the CCSSO.

To recap:

The DoE refused my questions. I persisted until someone agreed to answer them.
The governor’s office sent me documents but hasn’t answered my questions.
The SBE sent me documents, then referred my questions elsewhere.
OSPI will send me documents late in August, but has yet to answer questions.
The NGA and CCSSO haven’t acknowledged my existence, much less answered questions.
Achieve, Inc. declined to answer questions, referring me elsewhere.Welcome to your new paradigm, folks. Parents are not the “stakeholders” that matter to these bureaucrats. They behave as if we don’t know anything and have nothing to contribute. They seem to think we should sit down, shut up and stop bothering the true professionals. We are not supposed to take notice of their obvious disregard for inconvenient laws and policies.
This message is coming through loud and clear, and I reject it completely.

The questions I’m asking are reasonable and not difficult. The tactics illustrated thus far allow a deeply flawed process to move forward until it appears to have enough momentum where it can’t be stopped. But it can be stopped if we speak up, ask the hard questions, refuse to be diverted, stand tall in defense of the Constitution and the laws and policies of the land, demand that government agencies stay in their proper lane, fight for our children’s education, and refuse to give the government an open checkbook for poorly defined programs.

Yes, we can.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "Federal control expands despite the rules." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published July 28, 2009, at EducationNews.org at http://ednews.org/articles/federal-control-expands-despite-the-rules-.html

CCS: Secretive, expensive and wrong

In May, Washington State Gov. Chris Gregoire quietly joined most of the governors in signing a memorandum of agreement in support of a Common Core Standards effort (CCS). This effort – really a “movement” – is creating national education standards in mathematics and language arts. I asked for documentation on Gov. Gregoire's decision, and some of what I received was heavily redacted. One critical document wasn’t sent to me because it’s “exempt” from my request.

Now I’m really curious.

The CCS movement was initiated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). The first stage (the national standards) is well under way. The second stage will “develop and implement” national assessments. Also mentioned in the NGA/CCSSO's memorandum of agreement (MOA) are textbooks, digital media, curricula, professional development and policy changes – all to be variously aligned, ensured, developed, implemented, or evaluated by “participating states.”

The concept of national standards isn’t new, but this particular movement is. The partnership between CCSSO, the NGA Center, and Achieve, Inc. was announced Sept. 9, 2008. On Dec. 19, a wish list of five “transformative steps” was announced. Step 1: “Upgrade state standards by adopting a common core of internationally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K-12.”
Step 2: “Leverage states’ collective influence to ensure textbooks, digital media, curricula and assessments are aligned to internationally benchmarked standards.”

From Dec. 19, things went quickly (and quietly). On June 1, the NGA/CCSSO publicly announced the intent to develop national standards. By then, most states had already signed the NGA/CCSSO’s memorandum, reportedly having been given a May 8 deadline. The movement’s leaders refused to announce until at least July the members of the “national validation committee” or the “standards development group.” A July 1 press release finally released some names but also said “the Work Group's deliberations will be confidential throughout the process.”

Education Secretary Arne Duncan is supporting this movement with $350 million. He said so in a June 15 press release (seemingly his first on this topic). It must seem like pocket change to him – over a few months, he’s been doling out an extra $44 billion for public education. Meanwhile, the MOA signed by the governors says the “federal role” in the movement is to provide for: Revision and alignment of “existing federal education laws”; “greater flexibility in the use of existing federal funds”; and funding for the following:

• the writing and implementation of the standards
• the development of “common” assessments
• a “revised accountability structure”
• teacher and principal “professional development”
• “other common core standards over time”
• “a research agenda”

Wow. This is what happened in 1999. One minute there wasn’t a national program; the next, it was already signed, sealed and expensive. It makes me nervous.

• Influence: The more centralized the decision-making, the less influence parents have. Already, we have little influence beyond voting with our feet. In a national program, everything is vetted from far away and by committees of strangers.
• Secrecy: Leaders and participants haven’t been exactly forthcoming with names and details. Parents aren’t asked for opinions, consent or votes. The MOA said leaders would meet in an “open, inclusive, and efficient process” to develop end-of-high-school expectations – but it also set a target date of July 1, just one month after the movement was announced to the public.
• Cost: I’ve seen no estimates of costs to taxpayers in dollars, personnel, resources, benefits and expenses. What happens to current contracts, textbooks, funding programs, and assessments? State leaders predict this movement will result in decreased education costs, but I predict exponentially greater costs and more layers of $100,000 Ph.D.s at district, state and federal levels.
• Accountability: I fret over accountability to the public, especially considering the secrecy thus far. Who reviews these standards? What are their backgrounds? Where is the public in this? Who determines the efficacy of the movement?
• Outcome: The MOA says the standards will be “research and evidence-based,” “grounded in empirical research” and will “draw on best practices.” Uh huh. Much of the research and evidence in American public education is flawed, insufficient, biased, and weak as a newborn kitten. I want to see this evidence.

Despite any concerns, nearly all of the governors signed on. I wrote to Gov. Gregoire, asking for answers. One of her employees sent a copy of a letter from the State Board of Education dated May 20 that urged her to support the CCS movement. It didn’t take much urging, I guess. On May 20, copies of the MOA – signed by Gov. Gregoire and Superintendent Randy Dorn – were forwarded to interested parties. But not to the public. Neither of them issued a press release.

I was also sent a copy of an April 24 “Executive Policy Office Weekly Update,” in which the CCS movement is discussed. About two-thirds of this is redacted (blacked out so I can’t read it). I did NOT get a copy of the “Governor’s Decision Document” – dated May 15, 2009, and written by the governor’s executive policy advisor. This two-page briefing document was “exempted” due to “Executive Privilege.”

(What rotten luck. It’s probably the one I wanted.)

Whenever I see a “closed door” like this, I want to open it, see what’s behind it. Public education is full of doors that are closed, locked, stuck, too monolithic to budge, moved to a different building, stuffed in a dusty box in the backroom, or just wiped right out of existence. What do I do with this door? A lawyer stands behind it. The redactions and exemptions could be a matter of national security, or they might just be hiding Gov. Gregoire’s grocery list. Who knows? I want this information because the national standards movement is wrong-headed right out of the gate.

1. Public education is a state responsibility. Even the U.S. Department of Education acknowledges this: “Education is primarily a state and local responsibility in the U.S. In creating the Department of Education, Congress made clear its intention that the secretary of education and other Department officials be prohibited from exercising “’any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.’ (20 USC 3403) The establishment of schools and colleges, the development of curricula, the setting of requirements for enrollment and graduation - these are responsibilities handled by states and communities, as well as by public and private organizations, not by the U.S. Department of Education.”

   The U.S. Department of Education has already overstepped its role in public education. Despite constant assurances that the CCS movement is “state-led,” it has long-term federal taxpayer money and federal fingerprints all over it.
   

2. The last set of “national standards” – from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics – plunged the country into a mathematical Dark Ages from which we have yet to emerge, and where we will remain until the education establishment once again believes in directly teaching real content.
3. There is no avenue here for input from the real stakeholders: Parents and students.

I’ve sent more questions to Washington State’s Board of Education, the governor, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, the National Governors Association, and the U.S. Department of Education. I’ll let you know what they say.


Please note: The information in this post is copyrighted. The proper citation is:
Rogers, L. (July, 2009). "CCS: Secretive, expensive and wrong." Retrieved (date) from the Betrayed Web site: http://betrayed-whyeducationisfailing.blogspot.com/

This article was published July 14, 2009, on Education News at: http://ednews.org/articles/common-core-standards-secretive-expensive-and-wrong.html