Blog For Arizona

Critical thinking is good, but Common Core didn't invent it

by David Safier

I applaud the teaching techniques spotlighted in the AP article in today's Star, Critical thinking hallmark of Common Core class. Math lessons where students perform multiple steps and have a variety of ways to arrive at their answers are good things. Literature lessons where students use critical thinking to dig deeper into the text foster stronger analytical skills. According to the story, these innovative techniques are attributable to Common Core. Except they're not. They're simply examples of good, creative teaching, the kind of thing teachers have been doing pretty much forever.

The good thing about the new Common Core standards is that they can promote a discussion about what students should learn and promote the development of strategies to help them learn it. New ideas, new techniques, new ways of looking at the classroom can be valuable. Sometimes change for change's sake is good because it shakes things up and makes teachers dig deeper and try harder. That is, so long as the change isn't destructive.

The problem is, the Common Core is being rammed down the throats of states, districts, schools and classrooms. Teachers have high stakes tests pointed at their heads, and the people with their fingers on the triggers are saying, "You will to teach to these standards, and your students will score well on these tests, or else."

Here's a better idea. Let's put these new, untested standards out there. Let's have interested states and school districts try them out. Let's see what works and what doesn't work. Let's keep the discussion and implementation fluid -- that is, let's not lock in the standards by testing them within an inch of their lives -- so they can be modified and improved. Otherwise, we end up with a new set of high stakes tests enforcing a new set of expectations. We've had 10 years of a similar regimen without seeing a significant boost in student achievement.

A correlation between attendance and achievement. Which raises a question.

by David Safier

Interesting story out of Seattle in today's Star: Schools focus on attendance, see scores climb. It's pretty obvious that students who don't come to school regularly don't do well, but the chicken-egg question is, do they skip school because they're not doing well, or is their lack of success in school caused by poor attendance? There's no simple answer -- it's not an either/or question -- but the article makes a pretty good argument that, if you can get students to come to school, their achievement on standardized tests will increase.

A few Seattle area schools have hired young college graduates to keep tabs on the poor attenders, give them tutoring and, when appropriate, offer them some "I care" hand holding. The early results have been impressive, especially when students' truancy is linked to a family situation. Talking about one specific kid who was never woken up in the morning or encouraged to get to school:

“In his family, that was the culture,” [Katrina Hunt, a coordinator of the program] said. “But we became close, and that’s what made him want to come — ‘Miss Hunt is waiting for me.’ I saw that with kids again and again.”

Assuming this is a successful approach to raising student achievement -- I don't know that for certain -- it raises an interesting issue that the conservative "education reform" folks need to address. Without firing lots of "failing teachers" and replacing them with "great teachers," without changing the curriculum, these schools saw their overall student achievement grow. If a small, unobtrusive fix like this can pay dividends, why are the "education reformers" obsessed with their disruptive, expensive "solutions" which have cost hundreds of millions of dollars and haven't shown themselves to be very effective.

Looking at TUSD's closed schools as assets

by David Safier

During the agonizing TUSD school closure process, a number of people advocated thinking of schools as multiple use facilities, where parts of a school with too few students to fill all the classrooms can be put to other community-based uses. Well, it's too late to un-close the closed schools, but the "other use" idea may be taking hold.

Superintendent H.T. Sanchez is proposing turning one or more of the closed schools into day-care centers and preschools for district employees. It's a terrific idea. The district can reopen the buildings and staff them with child care employees -- hopefully educated and trained in the best ways to educate children under 5 -- for less than most TUSD employees currently pay for child care. The Star article estimates that people are now paying as much as $800 to $1,000 a month. The district estimates it can lower that to about $300 to $350 and break even. And it can work with the unique schedules of teachers and other employees to fit their needs better than many private child care facilities.

In praise of art and music education as well as (huh?) the Walton family and Jay P. Greene

by David Safier

Art and music education, just like literary education, are vital introductions to our most human and beautiful qualities. Even if there weren't a single indicator they improve intelligence, school achievement or test scores, they would be valuable unto themselves. But the fact is, both art and music education are good for the intellect as well as the soul.

An op ed in the Sunday NY Times discusses a study in Arkansas. An art museum opened where there wasn't one before. Classes were selected at random to take field trips to the museum because there wasn't enough time for all the classes to attend. Social scientists studied the effects on the children and found significant gains among the children who attended the museum. And, very significantly,

[M]ost of the benefits we observed are significantly larger for minority students, low-income students and students from rural schools — typically two to three times larger than for white, middle-class, suburban students — owing perhaps to the fact that the tour was the first time they had visited an art museum.

Art isn't a frill that low achieving students don't have time for. It, and other components of a comprehensive education, pay academic dividends that don't come from obsessive test prep.

Brewer's office claims there is minimal correlation between poverty and academic performance

by David Safier

The map couldn't be clearer. In greater Tucson, state school grades line up with family income. (For those more familiar with Maricopa County, take a look at a map showing the same correlation in the greater Phoenix area.) National and international research indicates that the correlation holds true across the country and around the world.

Yet Governor Brewer and Craig Barrett, Brewer's educational mouthpiece and the head of her Arizona Ready Education Council (AREC), want to create a performance funding program that rewards schools with high test scores and punishes schools with lower test scores. It's a reverse Robin Hood scheme, robbing from the poor students and giving to the rich.

Of course, Brewer & Co. deny that would happen. In an article in The Republic, Brewer spokesman Matt Benson claimed an analysis done by her office "showed minimal correlation between poverty and performance." If Brewer's staff truly has an analysis with that conclusion, they should share it with the educational scholarly community. They could use a good laugh.

Clearly, Benson was lying in an attempt to refute a study by Dr. David Garcia that was discussed in the Republic article (Garcia is running for AZ Superintendent of Education). His study demonstrates how closely students' family incomes and standardized test scores line up, and how that means performance funding would flow disproportionately toward schools with wealthier students.

Robert Robb gets it a little right, a lot wrong, on education's "demographic challenge"

by David Safier

I'll start by giving Robert Robb, a conservative columnist at the Republic, a bit of credit. He said it's unfair to simply say Arizona public schools are doing a bad job because our students come out at the low end of the national NAEP test scores, that all we have to do is improve our schools and our standing would climb.

Reality is far murkier than that and politically more difficult to discuss and deal with. An awful lot of the differences between states in educational performance is driven by demography.

Kudos to Robb for acknowledging that demography is a huge determiner of student achievement in school. But things goes downhill from there. The demography he's referring to is the large number of Latino students in the state. See, Latinos score lower than Anglos on standardized tests, he says, and that brings down the state average. Don't bother looking for words like "poverty," "income" or "economy" in his column. They don't exist. This isn't a socioeconomic discussion. There's no mention of the income of Latinos in Arizona, no comparison of the test scores of Latinos and Anglos at similar income levels.

Today, poverty is a stronger determiner of student scores on standardized tests than ethnicity. But Robb isn't interested in writing about that. It might lead people to the conclusion that Arizona's scores would improve if we improved the economic conditions of our low income population no matter what their skin color or country of origin. That's not part of Robb's world view. The impression he wants to leave is, the white folk here are doing just fine in school. If only we can get rid of some of those other folks, we can make our schools look better.

The Arizona school grades map is actually worse than it looks

by David Safier

This map shows the concentration of state school grades in various areas of greater Tucson. It's a clear indicator that AIMS scores correlate with socioeconomic status. And since the school grades include an improvement component, the map also indicates how inadequate that component is.

An earlier post explains the map and discusses its clear message: student achievement on standardized tests correlates more closely with socioeconomic status than any other factor. That finding is consistent with data collected on national and international tests. It's the closest thing to an undisputed fact you'll find in education research.

But something isn't evident on the map. The schools' grades aren't simply based on their raw AIMS scores. That only makes up half the number that determines a school's grade. The other half is based on a school's improvement -- how much its AIMS scores went up compared to the previous year. Proponents of the scoring method claim the improvement component helps level the playing field. A school with a low score, the theory goes, has lots of room for improvement, so it can grow its way into a high grade even if its raw AIMS scores are low. The map shows that theory is a fiction.

Income, geography and Arizona school grades: Phoenix edition

by David Safier

I've gotten a lot of response from yesterday's post with a map showing the distribution of state school grades across the greater Tucson area. It's the most dramatic visual representation I've seen of what has been concluded by study after study of schools in the U.S. and around the world: income is the primary determiner of student achievement on standardized tests.

I've created a similar map of greater Phoenix. I don't know much about the demographic lay of the land, but I expect BfA readers in Phoenix will look at the way the state's school grades map out and find they correlate to high, middle and low income areas. It's a bit more complex than the Tucson map, which is not surprising since Phoenix is so much larger, but the clustering of school grades is still dramatic.

The color code I used is the same one the AZ Dept of Ed uses for the grades: Green for A, Blue for B, Yellow for C and Orange for D.

You can see the original ADE map without the added colored clouds below the fold.

Give TUSD time to adjust its magnet programs

by David Safier

I haven't done my homework on TUSD's magnet program, but based on what I've read, I would like to see Willis Hawley, the man appointed by the courts to oversee the district's deseg program, give the district a little time to get this thing right before deciding to shut down some of the programs.

There's a new Supe in town, and H.T. Sanchez looks like he's energetic, innovative and up for a challenge. He's also got a newly constituted board where the majority supports him. The new board/leadership team deserves some time to work out district problems and move things forward.

The three schools with magnet programs mentioned for closure, Carrillo and Davis elementary schools and Pueblo High, have Hispanic populations of 86% or more, far above the district's numbers, and one of the purposes of the magnets is to attract more diverse student bodies to the schools. But the district is in the middle of an efficiency audit and demographic study. If the results are used as a starting point for change -- not a given, obviously -- the magnet programs can be looked at in conjunction with other issues, including the expansion of University High, and a comprehensive plan can be built rather than dealing with issues in isolation.

Give the new folks a little time to make positive changes. If they screw up, Hawley can always step in.

Income, geography and Arizona school grades

by David Safier

I knew what the results would be, but I didn't know they would be this dramatic.

The AZ Dept of Ed has a web page where you can choose an area of the state and see a map with every school in that area and its state grade. I set the map for the greater Tucson area and saw that school grades divided geographically into distinct areas. To show the grade clusters more clearly, I created colored clouds around the areas where most of the schools had certain grades: Green for A, Blue for B, Yellow for C and Orange for D -- the same colors the state uses for each grade. This is what I came up with.

The vast majority of the A schools stretch almost uninterrupted from Oro Valley and Marana across the Foothills and down the east side to Vail. B schools are clustered above Speedway and below Orange Grove. C schools predominate in the central Tucson area, east of I-10 and as far south as Ajo. Most D schools are in an arc to the south and west of I-10. (You can see the map without the added colored clouds below the fold.)

Problems with the Common Core explained

by David Safier

Anthony Cody, a blogger at Education Week and one of the founders of The Network for Public Education along with Diane Ravitch (and Tucson's own Robin Hiller) has written the best analysis of the problems with the Common Core I've read. First he wrote Common Core Standards: Ten Colossal Errors, a long but readable breakdown of some of the weaknesses inherent in the concept. He asked people to find errors in his analysis. No one did, but naturally, some people disagreed with his conclusions. So he followed up with The Door We Open When We Defeat the Common Core.

I won't try to excerpt what he's written. This is for educators and others who are seriously interested in the Common Core, and pulling it apart would weaken what he has to say. I hope his posts aren't hidden behind a fire wall (most of the Education Week website is subscription only), because what Cody has written should be widely read.

Making student data "liquid" makes the data safer and increases world economic value? Really?

by David Safier

I know my harping on the issue of student data mining can seem repetitive, maybe even a little obsessive. But any scheme funded by $100 million in Gates Foundation money that puts sensitive, personal student information in the hands of Rupert Murdoch's educational enterprise and stores it on leaky Amazon servers needs to be exposed. Thanks to journalists and bloggers getting the information out, the inBloom data storage project has lost five of the seven states which were part of the company's test run. Only Illinois and New York remain, and New York school districts are opting out one by one.

So naturally, the PR push is on to salvage the data mining scheme. Sharren Bates, chief product officer for inBloom, claims the corporation's electronic storage will be much more secure than old fashioned methods of storing and sharing student data.

For decades, she said, districts have stored the same data in unlocked filing cabinets, or relied on educators to email spreadsheets to each other.

I guess Bates thinks file cabinets and spreadsheets are more vulnerable to massive hacking than data stored on a single electronic source. She must imagine that bad actors are going to break into schools late at night, pry open counseling office doors and microfilm the millions of pieces of paper storing student information, then sort through the unorganized mess. When they're done with that, they'll  plow through teacher emails one by one searching for random bits of student data on random spreadsheets -- most of which contain student scores, not personal information like health records, learning disabilities and disciplinary actions.

Really?

Looks like the recall elections of two Sunnyside board members is on

by David Safier

According to a few Facebook posts, it looks like the necessary signatures were collected to force recall elections of Sunnyside School District board members Louie Gonzalez and Bobby Garcia. The back story is, Gonzalez and Garcia were two of the three board members who voted to extend Superintendent Isquierdo's contract until 2016. After that, some unhappy residents began the recall process. They didn't attempt to recall Eva Dong, the third Yes vote, because she's up for election in 2014.

The petitions were due today. The word is, over 2,000 signatures each were handed in, and they need 1,345 valid signatures to trigger the election.

In a reaction to this recall drive, others started recall petitions against Daniel Hernandez and Buck Crouch, who voted against Isquierdo's contract extension. Those aren't due for another month.

Start a UHS expansion exploratory committee right away! (or pretty soon)

by David Safier

Tim Steller wrote a straightforward, informative column in the Star about the current University High (UHS) situation and some of the proposals on the table to expand the school. Just about the only personal opinion Steller throws in is that "TUSD should jump at the opportunity to explore alternatives and choose one to help UHS grow." He finds three different ways to make his point, ending the column by telling TUSD to "dispense with half-measures, embrace the success of UHS, and think big about its future now."

I couldn't agree more.

Sooner rather than later, TUSD needs to create a committee composed of a variety of informed people who care about the future of UHS and the future of the district. Give them the assignment of exploring and recommending a variety of options for expanding UHS. This should begin long before the district completes its districtwide demographic study and efficiency audit and before it creates its comprehensive strategic plan.

I would love to see a committee take a close look at the current UHS and ask itself, "In a perfect world, would we increase the size of UHS, and if so, what's the best way to do it?" Don't worry about budgets or whether the district has the right space available or whether there are a hundred obstacles to overcome. Just think what would be best for the students and the district. Once the committee decides the best future for UHS and comes up with a few near perfect solutions, then it can start worrying about how to make its ideas work in the real world, blending them into the information gathered from the demographic study and efficiency audit and making them part of the comprehensive strategic plan. Too often, people start with their heads filled with all the problems they have to overcome and never take a close look at what they hope to accomplish.

Stegeman talks about University High on the Buckmaster Show

by David Safier

Mark Stegeman was a scheduled guest on today's Bill Buckmaster Show (starting around the 45:00 mark). Buckmaster follows discussions on Facebook and BfA, so he focused on Mark's idea to close a TUSD high school and move UHS there, which I posted about a few days ago and was the subject of a long, rambling discussion on Facebook.

Mark was pretty candid on the Buckmaster Show. He said straight out, we need to close one of the high schools, meaning his plan to move UHS is part of a larger plan.

"To make the rest of the high schools stronger, we need to close one of the general, comprehensive high schools."

Which high school would he close? "I would not speculate on that," he replied.

Buckmaster asked Mark about the assertion made in Facebook comments that he "goes rogue" on the board. His basic answer: This UHS proposal was out there for a year and a half, it received a 4-1 vote from the past board, it's gotten lots of discussion and comment. That's not going rogue. (Since I don't know much about the history of the proposal, I'll let Mark's comment stand, unless someone else wants to comment on it.)

If Gates was this wrong about mining student data . . .

by David Safier

Since 2008 the Bill Gates Foundation has spent $2 billion funding education research and intiatives. That kind of money buys a whole lot of influence. Having people who used to work for the Gates Foundation working in the U.S. Department of Ed and education think tanks across the country multiplies his influence. Most of Gates' efforts fit into the conservative "education reform" agenda which is heavily funded by other members of the Billionaire Boys Club, a group of rich people who are sure they know more about education than educators.

Gates made billions rolling the dice on a few high tech ideas. Since a good number of his rolls came up sevens and elevens, he assumes he can come up with winning ideas in any field, including education. It's a ridiculous assumption. Education isn't a profit-loss business. The classroom isn't the board room. But Gates believes in himself, and he's got the billions to put his ideas into practice.

Which brings us to inBloom, an enterprise funded by $100 million in Gates Foundation money. The basic idea behind inBloom is, create a gigantic national database with as much information about students as you can gather from school districts: everything from names, addresses and social security numbers to illnesses, learning disabilities and disciplinary problems. If it's data and it's about students, it's fair game. Then let the database be watched over by the education division of Rupert Murdoch's News Corp and stored on Amazon's computers. Private education companies can tap into the data to tailor educational software to individual students.

Does Mark Stegeman drive TUSD superintendents away?

by David Safier

When I put my recent post, Stegeman proposal: Close a TUSD high school, reopen it as the new University High campus, on Facebook, it generated a long comment stream. Much of it was a back-and-forth between a few people, including me, Mark Stegeman and Ann-Eve Pedersen. In Ann-Eve's comments, she stated in so many words that Stegeman's actions on the board helped chase away the last two superintendents, Elizabeth Celania-Fagen and John Pedicone, and could result in a similarly short tenure for current superintendent H.T. Sanchez. I've heard similar statements from other sources.

I don't know a great deal about the inner workings of TUSD, so I can't verify what Ann-Eve says. But I've worked with her closely on our cable access show, "Education: The Rest of the Story," and I have found her assertions to be both well researched and accurate, so I take what she says very seriously.

Here are some excerpts from Facebook comments she made under my blog post.

"[Stegeman's] dysfunctional behavior helped drive out TUSD's past two superintendents; we need to make sure he doesn't do the same to Dr. Sanchez. If he does, our children will be the big losers."

"Stegeman gets into power struggles with sitting superintendents - that is his modus operandi. It is toxic for the district."

[In response to another commenter saying Elizabeth Celania-Fagen left TUSD because she is a "climber"]. "Liz Fagen had just moved her family here, where she was closer to her mother. She did not leave because she was a climber. She would have preferred to stay. She left, in large part, because she had a problem board member who continues to operate as a solo player and create divisions where they need not exist."

[Commenter Luci Messing backed up Ann-Eve's statement: "Ann-Eve is correct. I know that is what Fagen actually said."]

More on the resolution to move University High

by David Safier

I wrote a post yesterday about a proposal that will be brought up at Tuesday's TUSD board meeting which suggests a high school should be closed down and University High should be moved to that location. The post led to a long comment string on Facebook which included some information I didn't know. I want to add it here for the sake of completeness.

The resolution which will be brought up Tuesday was first raised at the December 20, 2012, board meeting. According to the minutes (item 15), the proposal was raised by Mark Stegeman, and its purpose was to have the Superintendent "work with UHS staff and site council to develop" the plan in the proposal and bring it to the board no later than November, 2013 -- in other words, this month. The board voted for the proposal 4-1 with Adelita Grijalva the only no vote. (Two of the people voting yes are no longer on the board.) That's why the proposal is on the agenda.

That additional information doesn't change anything in my earlier post. It's still true Stegeman proposed the change in December, 2012, and I still disagree with it.

Stegeman proposal: Close a TUSD high school, reopen it as the new University High campus

by David Safier

This isn't a new idea. It's a revival of an idea TUSD board member Mark Stegeman proposed during the whole school closure debate in 2012. It's on the agenda again (Item 10) for the upcoming board meeting Tuesday, November 12.

You can read the proposal here. The basic idea: Shut down a TUSD high school, send all of its kids to other schools and reopen it as a new, larger University High School (UHS). I assume this would mean shutting down the current UHS at Rincon High, though that isn't spelled out in the proposal. The purpose is to expand UHS, both to accomodate a larger number of TUSD students as mandated by the desegregation plan, and to continue to make space for students from neighboring districts to enroll in the school.

I think this is a terrible idea, not because I oppose the expansion of UHS -- I think it's a good, and probably a necessary, idea -- but because I oppose the way Stegeman wants to go about it. He's putting TUSD back into that nasty, divisive school closure territory once again, this time at the high school level. His proposal would mean displacing an entire high school student body and sending the students elsewhere. An all-inclusive high school would be closed, which would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. I haven't seen any specific recommendations from Stegeman about which school he's targeting -- I imagine he has one or two possibilities in mind -- so I don't know what school would be emptied of its current students.

Stegeman's plan has an elegance to it because of its simplicity. Any other solution to the overcrowding problem at UHS would be more complex, and possibly more expensive. But if a simple idea is a bad idea, as this one is, the district needs to do something it hasn't done for ages: think outside the box, look for creative solutions which, if not entirely win/win, are at least win/don't-lose-very-much-with-ways-to-mitigate-the-losses.

More about Allsport Academy Charter School

by David Safier

Tucson's Allsport Academy Charter School's charter should be revoked due to failing academic grades, according to Judge Thomas Shedden. The Star story gives all the necessary information but little background on the school. Here's more information based on a web search.

The school began in 2004 as a for profit corporation, Allsport Enterprises, Inc., and was granted nonprofit status by the Arizona Charter School Board in 2009, changing its name to Allsport Academy. The odd thing is, I can find no record of it filing any tax returns since it's been a nonprofit. All nonprofit tax returns should be on the NCCS website. I've never had trouble locating the forms of any nonprofit school before. It makes me wonder whether Allsport has failed to file tax returns since 2009.

Allsport has fewer than 60 students -- about 55% white, 29% Hispanic and the rest listed as "unknown." According to its records, 90% of the students are on free or reduced lunch.

The school is run by Moses Montoya, listed on the school website as its Administrator and Board Chairman. Raquel Montoya is the Manager and Board Secretary Treasurer. I'm reasonably certain Raquel is Moses' wife, since, according to records I found, they are similar ages and live in the same Foothills home. Aaron Montoya, 33, used to teach at the school until he was arrested in 2010 for having an inappropriate relationship with a 14-year-old student. I'm reasonably certain Aaron is Moses and Raquel's son. [I qualify the relationships by noting I'm "reasonably certain" because I don't have completely verifiable information.] This "All in the Family" situation is all too typical in charter schools, which are often family businesses -- usually to the detriment of the students.

Wow. I thought only athletes got this kind of recognition

by David Safier

Great story out of Palo Verde High. A school assembly was held, but the reason wasn't clear. When the students were assembled, out came 40 people from UA, "including cheerleaders, members of the pom squad and Wilma, one of the beloved U of A mascots." All to give UA letters of acceptance to more than 60 students.

Palo Verde is the first school to have this kind of presentation from the university. The number of early acceptance applications from Palo Verde increased dramatically over the past year. In 2012, the number of early acceptance recipients was 15. This year, 68 students were accepted. Ninety percent of those are first-generation college students.

The idea that the entire student body should be gathered together to congratulate and celebrate with these deserving students is terrific, especially at a school that doesn't have a strong record of students attending UA, especially when so many of the students will be the first in their families to attend college.

Look, everybody, they did it. You can do it too! That's what Superintendent H.T. Sanchez told the crowd.

TUSD Superintendent H.T. Sánchez added, "Today, ladies and gentlemen, you are setting a high standard, a new tradition at Palo Verde." He encouraged the whole student body to remember that it could be them earning admittance to college in the future.

Whoever was behind this special assembly, you deserve a bonus, or at the very least you should be paraded around on the shoulders of the school and district staff. This is the kind of "school spirit" that transcends the rah-rah of the playing field and creates an academic "Can do!" attitude.

Some people want Florida high school to keep name of Confederate General/KKK Grand Wizard

by David Safier

I'll see your "Washington Redskins" controversy and raise you one. Florida's N.B. Forrest High, a school with a majority African American student body, is named after Nathan Bedford Forrest, who was a general in the Conferate army responsible for the massacre of huge numbers of African American troops during one of the most despicable incidents in the Civil War, then after the war became one of the early members of the newly formed Ku Klux Klan and its Grand Wizard. And yet there's debate over whether the school should change its name. As of now, it hasn't come up for a vote.

The Jacksonville paper carrying the story said some people question whether Forrest was really the bad guy he's made out to be. Let's say for the sake of argument he wasn't such a bad guy. Let's say, even though he was a rich slave owner and slave trader, he wasn't responsible for a massacre during the Civil War, and the KKK was just a "gentlemen's club" when he joined. That still leaves plenty of reasons to rename the school. But it looks like Forrest deserves every bit of his bad reputation.

I'm no historian. But biographies on Wikipedia and civilwar.org tend to agree on the main facts, as do other websites. First, Forrest was a self made millionaire, making his fortune on the backs of slaves, as a plantation owner and a slave trader. Next, he volunteered to join the Confederate Army and soon moved up to general because of his military skill. At the Battle of Fort Pillow, Forrest's troops outnumbered the Union soldiers and killed a huge number of the soldiers, many of whom were escaped slaves. Forrest claimed the Union troops never officially surrendered, but Union and Confederate soldiers disagreed. This is from a letter a Confederate soldier sent to his sister after the battle.

"The slaughter was awful. Words cannot describe the scene. The poor, deluded, negroes would run up to our men, fall upon their knees, and with uplifted hands scream for mercy but they were ordered to their feet and then shot down. I, with several others, tried to stop the butchery, and at one time had partially succeeded, but General Forrest ordered them shot down like dogs and the carnage continued. Finally our men became sick of blood and the firing ceased."

Good news about our kids while you're waiting for election returns

by David Safier

This story about a bunch of middle school football players from Olivet, Michigan, has been knocking around on Facebook for a week or two. If you haven't seen it yet and you're looking for a little mood elevation, take 3 minutes to watch. You'll feel proud of our species, for a little while anyway.

While it got me all teared up (softie teacher that I am), I wasn't surprised at what I saw. Young people are as capable of acts of marvelous kindness and warmth as they are of cruelty and bullying. I like to think the balance leans toward kindness, and that one of our most important jobs as teachers is to encourage that inclination, even if it means taking a few moments away from test prep. I've seen my students be "touched . . . by the better angels of our nature" (better attribute that quote to Abe Lincoln so I don't pull a Rand Paul here) on many occasions. No way I was going to spend 30+ years in the classroom if I didn't find my students more wonderful than not.

Here's the video.

 

Gov. Chris Christie is 'sick of you people' (public school teachers)

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post is the lead writer for "The Fix" column, which is the Post's version of the D.C. media villager insider gossip at POLITICO Tiger Beat on The Potomac. The Fix column loves to waste time on campaign speculation years in advance before anyone has even announced as a candidate, weighing who is up and who is down as the front-runner in the conventional wisdom of the Beltway media villagers, who unbelievably get paid to write this crap.

On Sunday, Chris Cillizza filed this report, Ranking the Republican presidential contenders for 2016, in which the lede was Governor Chris "Christie is clearly No. 1. Who’s next?"

The very same day, Dave Weigel at Slate filed this report on another "Christie moment." Behind That Photo of Chris Christie Wagging His Finger at a Teacher:

On Saturday, during a short reporting trip to New Jersey, I watched Gov. Chris Christie campaign in Somers Point and captured a moment that quickly got memed. Over the weekend I've seen the photo I tweeted of teacher Melissa Tomlinson being lectured by Christie get copied on dozens of Twitter accounts and blogs. This isn't a #humblebrag—just saying, I was surprised that "Christie takes exception to protesting teacher" was a story in November 2013.

But here's what I saw. After the rally, Christie made his way back to his campaign bus, flanked by low-key security guards. Tomlinson, who had been carrying a sign and handing out fliers from her Badass Teachers Association, asked Christie why he'd called New Jersey schools "failure factories." Christie rounded on her, blurting out that he was sick of "you people."

"This story—oh really? They have more money now than they’ve ever had before. This is an old story from you folks, and they fail because you guys are failing in those schools. Have you ever sent your child to one of those schools?

"You portray us as the bad guys," said Tomlinson.

"Guess what, this is the most money the school has ever spent on education in the history of this state," said Christie.

"It is not," said Tomlinson.

"$9 billion in education!" yelled an onlooker.

"Yeah, and it’s down 0.1 percent," said Tomlinson.

"And it’s never enough for you," said Christie.

"All I want is money for my students and my school," said Tomlinson.

"Do your job," said Christie, turning away and heading into the bus.

Common Core tests will increase "achievement inequality"

by David Safier

Ed Supe John Huppenthal put out the word that the Common Core test will mean higher failure rates in Arizona than the current AIMS test. And he's right. It only makes sense, if you give a tougher test and don't adjust the pass-fail point downward, more kids will fail. But he hasn't pointed out that, while the failure rate will go up a bit at schools with "high achieving students" -- that usually translates to "high income students" -- the failure rate could rocket to 90% or higher at schools with low achieving -- read "low income" -- students.

That's what happened when New York gave the Common Core test in place of the usual state test at the end of last school year. In New York City, the passage rate was basically cut in half, from 47% to 26% in English and from 60% to 30% in math. But among low income students, the scores plummeted, reaching a 75% drop in some cases. In one East Harlem school, for instance, the passage rate on the English portion fell from 31% to 6.8%, and in math from 44% to 9.5%.

The huge drop in scores for low income students compared to high income students -- the growth in "achievement inequality" between the academic haves and have-nots -- isn't because the low achieving students are worse educated than they were before, or because their test prep wasn't as good. It's a predictable outcome of the test getting harder. And the same thing is going to happen in Arizona when the Common Core is implemented. Achievement inequality will increase dramatically, as will the number of schools labeled as failures when the Common Core tests replace AIMS. Expect the conservative "education reform" crowd to be overjoyed as they ratchet up their faux outrage at the growing failure of "government schools."

More Arizona Common Core blowback

by David Safier

I don't know which fact is more interesting: that there was a symposium on Common Core organized by Sen. Andy Biggs at the Capitol that had an overflow crowd, or that both the San Francisco Chronicle and the Seattle Post Intelligencer picked up the AP article about it, at least on their websites. When it comes to immigration and education, Arizona is national news.

Biggs said absolutely, his symposium wasn't a setup by the anti-Common Core crowd to give Huppenthal a hard time. The Bigg-man doth protest too much, methinks. The panel had Huppenthal on the pro Common Core Arizona College and Career Ready Standards side (It's got a new name, so that means it's not Common Core anymore, right?) and three people against it. It sounds like the crowd might have been packed with people against the Common Core as well.

It may be that none of the journalists know how stacked the panel really was. Half the panel, two out of the four, was made up of a Goldwater Institute employee and someone else connected to G.I. by less than one degree of separation -- and G.I. does not like Common Core. First there was Jonathan Butcher, ed director of the Goldwater Institute. Then there was Sandra Stotsky, a University of Arkansas prof. Why fly in a prof from Arkansas when we have profs galore here in Arizona, you may ask. The reason is, she's in the university's Department of Education Reform, which sits at the more conservative end of the conservative education spectrum. Also in that same department is Jay Greene, who is a Senior Fellow at the Goldwater Institute. Jay P. Greene's Blog gives Stotsky a regular forum. Another regular on Greene's blog: Matthew Ladner, former ed director of the Goldwater Institute. A very incestuous group, Butcher, Stotsky, Greene and Ladner. (The fourth panel member, by the way, was from a Mesa charter school and also doesn't like the Common Core a whole lot).

The real Craig Barrett

by David Safier

The headline for my column in the Weekly is, Craig Barrett might be the most powerful man in Arizona education, but should he be? That captures the column pretty well. I'm often surprised how few people know who Barrett is, but I shouldn't be. I'm so immersed in all things educational, I see his name and deeds cropping up on a regular basis, but he prefers to fly under the radar. He occasionally allows himself to be quoted in a news article or writes an op ed. He was reasonably visible when he helped campaign against Prop 204, the one cent sales tax for education. But his real power isn't in swaying public opinion. It comes from whispering in Governor Brewer's ear and steering the legislature toward adopting his educational ideas.

The purpose of the column is to let people know who Craig Barrett is -- a politically conservative ex-CEO of Intel worth hundreds of millions of dollars -- and what an outsized, potentially destructive role he plays in determining the future of education in Arizona.

I squeezed as much as I could into my allotted 750 words; there's much more I didn't have room for. The most important thing to know is, Barrett heads Brewer's Arizona Ready Education Council (AREC), and he has some dangerous ideas that will probably be turned into bills in the next legislative session. Here's a condensed version of the ideas coming out of Barrett, AREC and Sen. Chester Crandell, who is the point man for conservative "education reform" legislation.

Don't add a penny to K-12 school funding. Freeze it right where it is, even though we're spending about 20 percent less than five years ago and we're near the bottom of the nation in per-student funding.

Bruce Ash tears into me about tuition tax credits

by David Safier

Last Saturday, I was on Robin Hiller's State of Education radio show on KVOI. For the last 10 minutes, Robin and I talked about tuition tax credits, beginning with GEICO's "generous $8 million donation" in corporate tuition tax credits, which in fact cost GEICO nothing -- not one penny -- while we taxpayers picked up the entire tab. More on this in an earlier post.

The show after Robin's in Emil Franzi's Inside Track. Franzi had Bruce Ash on as co-host, and Ash spent the beginning of the show disputing what I said: "David Safier was either intentionally misleading listeners, or he didn't know what the heck he's talking about."

Mostly, Ash talked about the wonderful work Bank of Tucson did by "investing" about a million-and-a-half dollars in the kids at Tucson's San Miguel High School, a private Catholic school. The only comment directed at what I said was, "These were not rich kids, they were not Jewish kids as Mr. Safier seemed to intimate." Now, I'll give Ash the benefit of the doubt and assume he garbled that sentence a bit -- it happens when you're talking off the cuff -- since I never mentioned Jewish kids (though I would like Mr. Ash to explain whether he was intimating in that statement that this Jew is anti-Semitic). However, Ash is right to say not all kids who receive tuition tax credits are rich. As a matter of fact, corporate tax credits can only go to kids from low income families. But personal tax credits can go to anyone, and that means kids from wealthy families can have their entire private school tuitions at the most expensive schools paid for by these backdoor vouchers -- which you and I pay for, since the "donors" get 100% of their money back at tax time.

Two AZ Dems leave Democrats for [Conservative] Education Reform

by David Safier

Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) is basically a front group for the conservative "education reform" movement -- i.e. privatization and corporate takeover of education. For more information, here's a detailed post I wrote about the group and its direct as well as indirect connections to conservative education groups.

DFER set up an Arizona branch earlier this year. I wrote a post about the state director and the 6 people who formed the board. And then there were four. Two of the people listed as board members have aksked to have their names removed from the website.

The first ex-DFER board member is Julie Erfle. When I mentioned her in the earlier post, I said she didn't fit the DFER mold. Turned out I was right. Her name was listed on the board without her permission, and when she saw it was there, she had it removed. Currently she's working on David Garcia's campaign for Superintendent of Education, which puts her way up there in my book. Go dg4az -- David Garcia for Arizona! (More information about dg4az on Facebook and the campaign website.)

The second ex-DFER board member is Rep. Mark Cardenas (LD-19). He contacted me recently to let me know he had his name removed from the list. I'm pleased to see that, but I'm still not quite sure where he stands of education issues. His candidacy was endorsed by American Federation for Children, an unabashedly conservative group which I would describe as the right wing brother of DFER. And he's currently supporting the work of the group, Stand For Children, which is another one of those groups that makes progressive noises while its money and support goes toward anti-union, pro-privatization candidates and issues. However, I want to be fair to Cardenas. I'll watch his votes and statements on education this next legislative session to see where he stands on the issues.

 

Another, more positive look at U.S. scores on international tests

by David Safier

U.S. education is in the pits compared to other countries, right? Maybe not. Here's another look at our scores that puts many of our states among the top 10 countries in the world in math and science. Five of the states have higher scores than any country in Europe. Looking at individual state scores explains why the U.S. average score looks bad. We're dragged down by low scoring states, which are mainly high poverty states, most of them in the south and southwest.

On the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the U.S. ranks 11th in the world in Math. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has broken our scores down by state (it created a correlation between the TIMSS test and our NAEP test). Massachusetts ranks as the 5th highest "nation" in the world, below Korea, Singapore, Chinese Taipei and Hong Kong -- and tied with Japan. Every European country ranks lower than Massachusetts. Vermont, Minnesota, New Hampshire and New Jersey are all in 6th place, just below Japan and above all the European countries. Maine, Wisconsin and North Carolina, in 7th place, are barely edged out by the Russian Federation. Other states in the top 10 are Alaska, Colorado, Maryland, Delaware, Connecticut, Florida, Texas, Kansas, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Indiana, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Virginia and Oregon.

What brings the U.S. average down are low scoring states. Here are the worst, ranked from lowest to highest, along with their world rankings and the countries whose scores they come closest to: Alabama, 26th, between Armenia and Romania; Mississippi, 24th, between Dubai and Norway; Washington D.C., 22nd, between Sweden and Ukraine; Tennessee, Oklahoma and West Virginia, tied for 19th, between Italy and New Zealand.

(You might be surprised to see countries like Norway, Sweden, Italy and New Zealand scoring below the U.S. average, along with Great Britain and Australia.  That's something the "Our schools are failing!" shriekers fail to mention, because it doesn't fit the myth they're perpetrating.)

Below the fold are two maps, one showing the high, middle and lowest scoring states, another showing the percentage of low income students in the states. It should surprise no one, the two are closely related.

The Star editorial board loves vouchers: Part 2

by David Safier

Yesterday I wrote a quick post slamming the Star's editorial board for applauding Geico's $8 million school voucher donation even though GEICO's "generosity" won't cost it a cent. The company will get back every cent when it pays $8 million less in taxes. The money will come out of the state coffers, meaning you and I are paying for GEICO's $8 million gift. Yesterday I said I'd get back to the subject in more detail later. Later is now.

Let's start by looking at the two forms of vouchers in Arizona. The first is the Tuition Tax Credits, often referred to as backdoor vouchers. People and corporations give money directly to School Tuition Organizations (STO) out of their own pockets, and the STOs give out the money as scholarships to private schools. Come tax time, the donors get all their money back in the form of tax credits. So, for example, if I write a check for $1,000 to an STO, I'll pay $1,000 less on my state taxes, meaning I've spent no money, and the state is $1,000 poorer. That makes tuition tax credits vouchers for all intents and purposes. If there's a distinction between regular vouchers and tuition tax credits, it's a distinction without a difference. In the same way, Arizona's more recent "Empowerment scholarships" are vouchers as well. Certain students qualify for these scholarships, and money is taken from the state coffers and put into an account the students' parents or guardians can tap into for private school tuition or other educational services. Once again, the state is paying for education at non-public schools, so once again, it's a voucher.

Both vouchers were passed as law by the legislature, not voted on by the public. There's a reason for that. No voucher initiative has ever passed in the U.S. Ever. Even in conservative Utah with its strong Mormon Church where people might be especially inclined to want the state to pay for religious schooling, a 2007 voucher initiative went down, with 62% voting No. And a Gallup Poll taken this August said that 15% fewer people like vouchers now than they did in 2012 -- down to 29% from 44%. Vouchers are simply unpopular. That's why you rarely hear voucher supporters use the "V" word.

There are a number of reasons why I think vouchers -- which many conservatives, especially conservative libertarians, love -- are a bad idea.

The Star editorial board loves vouchers. Loves 'em.

by David Safier

I don't have time this morning to go into details about today's Star editorial, GEICO donation a boon to tax credit program. Maybe this afternoon. But I can't let it go completely.

The Star editorial says GEICO's $8 million 100%-reimbursed-by-the-state tuition tax credit is a wonderful thing, as is the entire tuition tax credit program. That's a full throated endorsement of vouchers, even though the editorial avoided using the "V" word.

The editorial states, correctly, that individuals and corporations have given more than $500 million in the tuition tax credits since 1998. That translates to $500 million in tax dollars you and I paid to the state being used to pay for vouchers. Every penny of the $500 million was returned to the donors when they paid their taxes, because their taxes were reduced by the amount they "donated" to the program. They paid nothing. Not a penny. The state spent more than $500 million on tuition to private schools. That's a voucher, pure and simple.

Front door voucher, back door voucher. Call it a tuition tax credit if you want, but by any other name, a voucher smells just as bad.

More later.

TUSD allows 7 banned books back in the classroom (and other TUSD news)

by David Safier

Big news from last night's TUSD Board meeting. Those 7 books that were banned from classrooms when the Mexican American Studies program was disbanded have been approved as supplementary materials. Hicks and Stegeman voted against the approval, natch, but the other 3 board members hold the majority.

A note: Three Sonorans' David Morales pointed out that the Star adopted the "banned books" wording which many of us have always held is correct. The books weren't banned from TUSD entirely, but they were selectively banned from use in certain classrooms, maybe all classrooms. That fits the definition of the word "ban." Kudos to the Star for using the right wording. Let's hope the paper isn't forced to print a retraction tomorrow. Second note: Reinstating the 7 banned books is like waving a red flag in front of Huppenthal, but he's stated that he has no problem with the use of specific books, only the way they're taught. So we'll see what we hear from Hupp on this. A strong part of me thinks he's holding his anti-TUSD cards close to his vest, ready to play them when the Ed Supe campaign heats up, either during a primary challenge from the right or a general election run against Dr. David Garcia.

Other important news from the board meeting. TUSD has retained the magnet status of schools that were in danger of having it taken away. This sounds like good news to me. Reading between the lines, it sounds like Superintendent Sanchez sat down with the person appointed by a federal judge to oversee the deseg efforts and cut a deal to improve the schools' outreach instead of stripping them of their magnet programs. If I'm reading this correctly, it speaks well of Sanchez's ability to work with people, negotiate and make positive things happen.

More on the $8 million GEICO tax credit donation

by David Safier

This morning I posted about the $8 million tax credit donation GEICO made to Arizona Leadership Foundation a Student Tuition Organization (STO) that gives out vouchers for private school tuition. I also noted that GEICO will get the entire $8 million taken off its tax bill, leaving the taxpayers stuck with $8 million tab for the vouchers. And that lucky STO stands to reap 10% of the money for overhead -- $800,000. I suggested there might be a link between GEICO and someone in the STO, but I haven't found any connection. However, I found some other very interesting stuff when I went over Arizona Leadership Foundation's 990 tax form for 2011, the first year it showed any revenue.

The Executive Director, Richard Kirsch, made $22,527 in 2011, certainly not a large salary. But I noticed that the STO spent $57,160 on Professional fundraising services. $48,760 went to Muth Strategy Group, LLC, which is owned by Aaron Muth who, according to some articles about the GEICO donation, is the president of Arizona Leadership Foundation. He's also the son-in-law of Executive Director Richard Kirsch. Muth Strategy Group was started somewhere between 2010 and 2011, about the time the Arizona Leadership Foundation came into existence. It looks like the STO is a two man show, with Executive Director father-in-law pulling in a minimal salary and President son-in-law making $48,760 for that nebulous service, fundraising.

This kind of nepotism is standard operating procedure in the education privatization world. Charter schools are often family businesses, with the parents running the show and the kids teaching, doing the books, and so on. Arizona Leadership Foundation looks like a classic example. The question is, why would GEICO choose such a shaky STO for its $8 million, 100%-refunded-by-the-state donation? I have a feeling there's an answer in there somewhere. I just don't know what it is.

GEICO makes Arizona taxpayers spend $8 million on vouchers

by David Safier

The Star has a story this morning that makes GEICO sound like the good guys for donating $8 million so poor kids can go to private school. The story is factually accurate and wildly misleading. Here's what the story should have said.

GEICO used the state law that allows corporations to get 100% tax credits for money they give to School Tuition Organizations (STO). That money will be distributed by the STO to pay for student tuitions to private schools. So GEICO paid $8 million up front and will have all of it deducted from whatever taxes it owes the state. Cost to GEICO: zero. Cost to Arizona taxpayers: $8 million.

The STO that got the money, Arizona Leadership Foundation, is making out very well on the deal because it gets to keep 10% of tuition tax credit donations to pay for overhead. That comes to $800,000 in overhead -- $800,000 taxpayers will pay, since, as I said earlier, GEICO will get 100% of its money back. In the research I've done on STOs, I see no indication that it will cost the Foundation almost a million dollars to collect the money, then distribute it to the students. The money has already been given. That was easy. Now parents have to apply for the funds. The STO will assess the applications, then give the money to the private schools chosen by students whose applications it accepts. That's not an $800,000 operation.

Huge congrats to Tucson High's Art Almquist, People magazine's Teacher of the Year

by David Safier

It's wonderful to see Tucson High's drama teacher Art Almquist, a man who has devoted himself to the performing arts, get People magazine's Teacher of the Year award. These teachers who spend all that time with their students in their classrooms then spend ridiculously long hours with them after school deserve the highest praise. Anyone who has seen a good high school dramatic production -- play or musical -- has got to be in awe of the dedication, professionalism and talent drama teachers draw from their students. It sounds like Almquist is one of the best of the bunch.

I'm not sure if any AIMS scores were improved by Almquist's teaching, though it's possible. But you know, there's more to teaching than high stakes tests that are used to hang a "winner" or "loser" tag on students, teachers and schools. There is joy, love, caring about students, introducing them to the beauty and subtleties of written language, linking them to the history of theater and acting. It's hard to measure that kind of thing by making students fill in a bunch of mulitple choice bubbles, but some of us think the intangibles and untestables matter as much as, or more than, skills that can be quantified on a standardized test.

Let's hear it for wonderful, inspired, inspiring, caring teachers. May they never go out of style.

Did TUSD's Culturally Relevant Curriculum get a "Go" from the ADE?

by David Safier

If I read this correctly, the AZ Dept of Ed gave a thumbs up to TUSD's Culturally Relevant Curriculum. Actually, it was more of a thumbs-to-the-side. But it certainly doesn't sound like a thumbs down. The important takeaway: the ADE doesn't plan to bring the SB2281 hammer down on the district or the program -- "at this time," anyway.

Here's a copy of the letter the ADE sent to TUSD Superintendent Sanchez following a visit to CRC classes at Cholla and Pueblo High. It evaluates the classes, listing some specific criticisms, but its conclusion is:

At this time we do not find any specific teaching practice or instructional material that would cause the Department to take further action to enforce 15-112.

15-112 is the part of the law changed by SB2281 which allowed Huppenthal to dismantle the Mexican American Studies program.

There are plenty of caveats here. "At this time" means the ADE reserves the right to "take further action to enforce 15-112" at some later time. And the letter ends by stating,

We look forward to observing the progress of the pilot culturally relevant courses when we visit the campuses again and would like the opportunity to review lesion [sic] plans and interview your teachers regarding the curriculumn development process.

Translation: TUSD isn't out of the woods with CRC.

Ed Supe John Huppenthal said -- I believe it was on the Bill Buckmaster show -- that he wasn't making any decisions about CRC until his people had a chance to observe the program, and he implied he planned to abide by their decision. It will be interesting to see if he makes a statement or allows the letter to speak for the department.

K12 Inc., Arizona Virtual Academy and Craig Barrett in a nutshell

by David Safier

My monthly column in The Explorer came out today. The subject is my current obsession, for-profit online education corporation K12 Inc., its local charter school Arizona Virtual Academy, and Craig Barrett, Gov. Brewer's education right hand man and K12 Inc. board member. So much is happening on those three fronts right now, it's hard to keep up. [Note: Read the online version. There are some serious problems with the print version that was delivered to people's doorsteps.]

A few excerpts:

Arizona Virtual Academy (AZVA) is an online charter school. It has no school buildings and no classrooms. Its 4,200 students sit at home getting their lessons from their computers and from textbooks the school provides. Many of the teachers work out of their homes; some “teach” as many as 300 students.

[snip]

K12 Inc. knows many of its students are ill-suited for online learning. In fact, recruiting those students is part of its business plan, because more students means more money, and more money means higher profits. The corporation runs call centers which target potential dropouts and special education students, feeding their parents misleading information about how well their children will do.

Meanwhile, my 2008 story about K12 Inc. outsourcing student papers to India has resurfaced in Idaho, first in an op ed by teacher Travis Manning, then in a story on Boise's NPR station. Both refer back to my 5 year old posts about K12 Inc. online schools in 10 states sending student essays to a company in India where employees scored and commented on the students' papers. It was done without the parents' knowledge and was discontinued because my posts were picked up in Arizona and in the national Education Week.

I plan to write later about the lies and inaccuracies spouted by the K12 Inc. spokesman in the NPR story. Honestly, if the corporation can't come clean about a practice it apologized for and quit 5 years ago, how can we believe any of its pronouncements explaining its current problems?

Arizona Virtual Academy and K12 Inc: The failure of the for-profit model

by David Safier

Yesterday I posted a segment of "Education: The Rest of the Story" where Ann-Eve Pedersen discussed Craig Barrett's scheme to change Arizona's education funding to slant it toward charter schools. Here's a segment I did that goes into one of the many ventures Barrett is involved in: K12 Inc. He sits on the national Board of Directors of the for-profit corporation, which runs the 4,200 student online charter school, Arizona Virtual Academy.

 

Craig Barrett and the scheme to change Arizona's education funding

by David Safier

Ann-Eve Pedersen has an incredible segment about Craig Barrett and the still-under-wraps scheme to change the way Arizona funds education on our latest installment of "Education: The Rest of the Story." Barrett is a heavy hitter on the state and national educational stages and a big political contributor. He's working on a state funding plan that would help charter schools and hurt school districts. This is information you haven't seen covered in the media because it hasn't been publicized, which appears to be part of the plan.

 

Meet Dr. David Garcia, candidate for Education Superintendent, Thursday

by David Safier

Imagine having a real live educator as our Superintendent of Public Education. It would be the first time Arizona would have an educator in that office for almost 30 years. If you haven't had a chance to hear and meet Dr. Garcia, he'll be in Tucson Thursday, 5:30-7:30, 423 E. 9th St.

Sunnyside teachers work hard while the administration struggles

by David Safier

I may only know a few teachers in the Sunnyside school district, but I know teachers. People in the classroom don't spend a whole lot of time thinking about the superintendent or the school board. They know who they're working for: the students in their classrooms. If teachers are happy with what's going on with the upper level administration, they work their asses off for their students. If they're dismayed and disgruntled with what they see happening upstairs, they still work their asses off for their students and express their dismay and disgruntlement in the faculty room or the parking lot.

I'm a big supporter of public schools. I try not to speak ill of districts when they have financial and personnel problems, because I know people think if a district makes some poor spending decisions or some of their employees are incompetent or corrupt, that means the entire district is in shambles. It's not true.

There's something rotten in the upper echelons of the Sunnyside School District. I'm not sure exactly what it is or how deep it goes, but it's there, and it needs to be addressed. But the rot isn't in the classroom, so far as I know.

I used to infuriate some of my high school principals when we got into a confrontation by telling them they worked for me. What a pleasure to watch their eyes widen and their jaws drop! "That's right," I would say, "your job is to make things work so well at the school that I can spend as much time and energy as possible on the needs of my students. Of course," I would add, "I work for the students. They're the only reason any of us are here."

The conservative underpinnings of Democrats for Education Reform (AZ Dems beware)

by David Safier

The group, Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), is made up of Democrats who are in bed with the conservative "education reform" movement. You can find lots of information about the group and its links to the corporatization/privatization movement in an earlier post. You can also read about the three Democrats in our state legislature who are closely affiliated with the group in other posts: Rep. Mark Cardenas (LD-19), Sen. Barbara McGuire and newly appointed Sen. Carlyle Begay (LD-7). McGuire recently had the distinction of changing her vote on SB1363 -- the expansion of Arizona's education savings accounts (aka Vouchers on Steroids) -- at the last minute, which allowed the bill to pass.

DFER just sent out an email blast on the upcoming election for the Denver Public School Board. It's a perfect example of the group's leanings. All four candidates DFER endorses support the expansion of charter schools in the district, merit pay, and most of the conservative "education reform" agenda. One of them used to support vouchers, but she said she changed her mind. The Denver Classroom Teachers Association has come out against all four and has given its endorsement to the four candidates running against the DFER slate.

Our Democratic state legislators need to understand where their three DFER colleagues, Cardenas, McGuire and Begay, are coming from educationally, and they need to be wary when a DFER representative comes knocking at their door pushing their version of the "Democratic reform" agenda.

K12 Inc. stock loses about 40% since yesterday

by David Safier

The markets are closed for the day. K12 Inc. ended yesterday at $28.59. It dropped to $17.60 at today's close, a fall of almost 40%. The primary reason is that its earnings are lower than projected, because its enrollment is lower than expected.

I don't know if this is a typical stock merry-go-round, but here's the chart of K12 stock from its beginning in December, 2007.

The chart doesn't show today's fall, but even without that, it looks like a pretty bumpy ride. The stock fell when the market crashed in 2008 -- though not as much as some other stocks, because people figured since the government was paying the tab, it wouldn't get hurt as much as many other corporations. It fell again when the stockholders sued over false information K12 gave them about student achievement, also when it was sued over problems in Florida.

In the meantime, the press has dumped on K12 Inc. all over the country, including a very critical article in the NY Times. The stock is being shorted big time by one hedge fund, and two stock analysts downgraded it today. With all those negative reports floating around, K12 may be more vulnerable now than it was in the past. It may rise from the ashes once again. If this were a just universe (which, of course, it isn't), K12 would have failed long ago due to its flawed educational model. Maybe market forces will lay it low.

A couple of K12 Inc. stock downgrades

by David Safier

K12 Inc. stocks have been soaring lately, and it's been recommended as a strong buy. But a few analysts are changing their tunes.

Baird downgraded K12, Inc. (NYSE: LRN) from Outperform to Neutral.

BMO Capital reduces its rating on K12 (LRN) to Market Perform from Outperform.

The Baird story didn't give reasons for the change, but BMO was more specific: "The investment firm chops its price target almost in half to $22 after taking in the trend of slowing enrollment at the education concern." And, "LRN -11.6% premarket."

K12 Inc. has received a flurry of bad press lately. Hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson has published a long, detailed screed about why he's shorting K12 stock big time. And Travis Manning, an Idaho teacher and activist, wrote a column linking my 2008 investigation into K12's practice of outsourcing student essays to India to current corporate practices. Progressive educator and historian Diane Ravitch has picked up the story as well. I'm sure those negative stories had an impact on the downgrades.

Meanwhile, K12 Inc. put out a rush announcement that it's planning a Thursday conference call "to discuss full fiscal year 2014 guidance." Apparently, "enrollments fell short of internal expectations." Uh oh.

UH-OH UPDATE: Yesterday, K12 Inc.'s stock (LRN) was at $28.59. As of noon eastern time today, the price has tumbled to $17.40. Here's a chart of the stock prices over the past 5 days.

Dr. Word says: "The State" is good, but "The Government" is bad

by David Safier

Dr. Word appreciates the linguistic distinction David Sirota made recently between the terms "The State" and "The Government." In a column about the government shutdown, Sirota commented that in our current political culture, institutions which are part of The State are venerated and have been left open while The Government is lambasted, and institutions related to that term have been shut down. "The State" equals the military, our surveillance apparatus, the Drug War, even the IRS, all of which are operating at full speed, business as usual. The Government equals the Safety Net, the Regulators and the Inspectors, all of which are on temporary (we hope) life support.

It's not a perfect linguistic construct -- language is too slippery to fit neatly into simple binary analyses -- but it's accurate enough to be instructive. Since the Doctor is most interested in education, he tested out the terms in his area of specialty. Sure enough, the term "state schools" has a neutral, descriptive tone. It's used more to describe state-funded colleges and universities than K-12 schools. The term "government schools," on the other hand, is a strong pejorative used by conservative "education reformers" to decry what they believe is the sorry state of K-12 public education -- minus charter schools, of course, which are not included in the "government" label.

Co-hosting "State of Education" with Chris Ackerley today (Saturday)

by David Safier

Should make for an interesting hour. I'll be co-hosting the radio show, "State of Education" (noon-1pm, KVOI, 1030AM) with Chris Ackerley while regular host Robin Hiller is away. Chris is an Amphi High School physics and math teacher. He's also a Republican who ran for the state house in 2012 from LD-2. My only contact with Chris was once when I heard him talk about school funding. He came across as a smart, thoughtful, honest guy.

Chris and I have decided on topics for discussion, but we haven't talked with each other about our views, so the conversation will be spontaneous and unrehearsed. I honestly don't know what to expect. Should be interesting.

It's a call-in show: 520-790-2040. Feel free to phone us with questions and comments.

K12's outsourcing of essays to India linked to current practices

by David Safier

Travis Manning, an Idaho teacher and director of The Common Sense Democracy Foundation of Idaho has penned a column linking the for-profit online education corporation K12 Inc.'s past practices of outsourcing student essays to India with its ongoing corporate policy of putting profits ahead of students.

Travis begins by writing about my 2008 investigation into K12's essay outsourcing (He contacted me, and we discussed the topic). He noticed that the corporation admitted sending essays from Arizona Virtual Academy but nowhere else. He got them to admit Idaho Virtual Academy outsourced essays as well.

The revelation that K12 Inc., the world’s largest online charter school provider, sent thousands of student essays overseas was revealed back in 2008 by Arizona blogger David Safier. But it wasn’t until September 2013 that K12 verified at least one Idaho charter school was also involved. After being pressed, K12 admitted that Idaho Virtual Academy (IDVA), Idaho’s largest virtual school and operated by K12 Inc., had outsourced student essays.

In fact, K12 schools in 8 other states participated in the outsourcing. We'll see whether K12 spokesperson Jeff Kwitowski will admit to the other cases as well.

Travis goes on to note current concerns at IDVA.

IDVA’s 2013 Annual Update also reveals that, “There appears to be potential for conflicts of interest to result from IDVA’s administration and management staff being K12 employees.” And, in a 2012 study by Western Michigan University, 27% of K12’s schools in 2010-11 reported making adequately yearly progress, compared to 52% for brick-and-mortar schools. Perhaps K12, which donated 44K to Superintendent Tom Luna’s 2010 campaign, shouldn’t also get transportation costs for “bring(ing) the school to the children.”

The column is very timely, coming as it does on the heels of hedge fund manager Whitney Tilson's epic takedown of K12 Inc., explaining why he's "shorting" the corporation. Tilson is convinced the corporation's educational model is fatally flawed and it's poised to collapse like a house of cards. We'll see if Tilson is right. The way the corporation is run now, most of its students would be far better off if it failed.

An apology to Mr. Huppenthal

by David Safier

A few days ago, I wrote a post questioning the motives of Superintendent of Education John Huppenthal when he gave a personal gift to the Sunnyside School District. When I wrote it, I disregarded a line in the Star article which stated he gave part of the gift "in honor of his mother," even though I quoted that line in my post. I have since been informed that Mr. Huppenthal's mother passed away a matter of months ago.

I regret writing the post and have taken it off the blog. It was insensitive and inappropriate. I apologize to Mr. Huppenthal and his family.

Curtis Acosta makes Huffington Post's "10 Latinos in Politics to Keep an Eye On" list

by David Safier

Congrats to our own Curtis Acosta, a former TUSD teacher in the Mexican American Studies program who often served as its public spokesperson. He was included in HuppPo's 10 Latinos In Politics To Keep An Eye On. The list is nonpartisan and filled with such well known names as brothers Joaquin and Julian Castro, Ted Cruz, Eva Longoria and George P. Bush. Also included is Tony Diaz, founder of Nuestra Palabra: Latino Writers Having Their Say, who led the Librotraficantes caravan from Texas to Tucson carrying books removed from TUSD classrooms when MAS was dismantled. The fact that two people connected with the MAS struggles were spotlighted indicates that this was, and continues to be, a big deal on a national level.

Way to go, Curtis.

(h/t to David Morales for the link)