Education Post Touts Failing Chicago Charter To Give Free Publicity To TFA

Teach For America has done a lot of rebranding over the past few years.  For most of their existence, TFA has had to deal with criticism that their corps members are not very diverse and that most TFAers don’t teach, on average, much beyond the two-year commitment.

For the diversity issue, TFA now says that they are actually the most diverse teacher training program with only 51% of their recent cohorts identifying as White.  And for the reputation they have that TFA teachers don’t generally remain in the classroom, they have all kinds of different schemes they do with the data to claim that about 85% of alumni are still involved in either education or something that impacts low-income communities.

Of course I’m one of the alumni who has remained in teaching and without TFA it is likely that I would have never become a teacher and there are some TFA alumni I know who have also remained in education in various roles and who I have a lot of respect for.  It really is hard to measure the impact of TFA taken as a whole.  Even if only 10% of TFAers remain in education but if that 10% does a lot of good, then TFA could be considered a good thing.  The problem is that TFA has also produced the likes of people like Michelle Rhee, Cami Anderson, Kevin Huffman, John White, Marc Sternberg, and others who have done so much damage to education, it really isn’t possible for the cumulative good to outweigh the bad caused by even just those handful of people.

Education Post and The 74 are the two most biased outlets of reform propaganda on the internet.  I’d say that The 74 is a bit worse, but Education Post is a very close second.  A few days ago I read an article at Education Post entitled ‘Without TFA I Would Have Never Become The Principal I Am Today’  In this post, TFA alum Elizabeth Jamison-Dunn writes about her journey from TFA corps member in 2007 to current principal of a charter school in Chicago.

This post has all the clichés from the reform playbook.  Here are some quotes:

“There was no reason that all children shouldn’t have access to a high-quality education, and where you live should never dictate the type of education that you receive.”

“Although it was very gratifying to see my scholars achieve at high levels, what was more inspiring was to see scholars who had hated math their entire life show over three years growth in one academic year”

“As a school leader, I will do everything in my power to make sure my scholars have access to a world-class education regardless of their ZIP code.”

The education reform movement is built on the lie that public schools are ‘failing’ and that charter schools prove this by outperforming the public schools.  It is critically important for reformers to keep promoting this lie since if charter schools are not much different than public schools and if public schools are ‘failing’ then charter schools are ‘failing’ too.

Elizabeth Jamison-Dunn is the principal of a school called Catalyst Charter Circle Rock in Chicago.  Jamison-Dunn says that when she was a teacher there her students would get 3 years of growth in a single year and now as principal the school has “seen significant increases in our math and reading scores.”  Also the school culture has improved so that “we have retained over 90 percent of our staff each year.”

Illinois has a very good public data site for checking claims like this and it didn’t take me more than a few minutes to learn that this school, which is a K-8 so they cannot claim that they inherited students that were not served well by other schools, had some of the lowest PARCC scores in Chicago.  Only 12% of the students met the standards compared to 34% for the state.

For some of the grades, things were particularly bad with many of their percents in the single digits.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 7.44.34 PMScreen Shot 2017-10-10 at 7.44.15 PM

The data system also has a tool to see how a school’s test scores compare to schools with similar demographics.  In this we see that this school is not any sort of outlier at all, the light dots are all the elementary schools in Illinois while the black dots are the elementary schools in Chicago where the x-axis is the poverty level and the y-axis is the PARCC composite.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 7.53.38 PM

The red triangle for this school is a bit hard to see, so here is the scatterplot again with that school identified.

catalyst parcc

About the claim that this school has a 90% retention rate, there is pdf with basic data for the school for the 2015-2016 school year.  According to this document, the teacher retention rate is 32% with the state having about an 80% retention rate so I don’t know where the 90% she cites comes from.

Screen Shot 2017-10-10 at 7.58.56 PM

Reformers always want to have it both ways.  They want to label public schools with test scores like this as ‘failing’ yet it is a school run by a TFAer they want to ignore the low test scores and present the school as a success.  Whether or not this is a good school or not, and it may very well be one, isn’t the point here.  The point is that if a school with ties to the ed reform movement can be considered worthy of celebrating despite test scores in the basement, why was it necessary to shut down 50 public schools in Chicago with low test scores and replace them with charters that get the same test results?

Posted in Uncategorized | 44 Comments

I Taught At The XQ Houston Super School

On September 8th Steve Jobs’ widow, Laurene Powell-Jobs, purchased a prime time commercial free hour on the four major TV networks to broadcast something called XQ Super School Live.  Reformers were celebrating and tweeting about viewing parties and things like that.  Though about half the broadcast was musical numbers, there was some content, though it is a bit difficult to know exactly what this program was supposed to accomplish.

Now it’s been about two weeks and this thing really has come and gone with little traction.  In some ways it had a little of something for everyone and it also had things that disappointed reformers and other things that disappointed reform critics.


The first two minutes of the program had a typical ‘Waiting For Superman’ message that our schools are failing since on the international test scores we ranked 31st in math and 20th in language skills.  Numbers like this always imply to the audience that there was once a time where we were 1st in these tests even though we have actually moved up in these rankings from last place to somewhere in the middle since these kinds of tests were first given.

After a few songs, Viola Davis, who you may remember from the anti-teacher union bomb, “Won’t Back Down” even more directly says (at 7:19) “Tonight we hope to inspire you to join this movement and make sure that our high schools become the best in the world again.”

Then the show introduces an analogy to argue that high schools have not changed in the past 100 years so we are not preparing students for today’s world.  This is something I have heard a lot of reformers saying recently.  Betsy DeVos is fond of this analogy.  Though Teach For America pretends to distance themselves from DeVos, TFA CEO Elisa Villanueva-Beard recently used the ‘schools haven’t changed in 100 years’ mantra too.  While it is true that some aspects of school haven’t changed so much in 100 years, other aspects have changed.  And the ones that haven’t changed are things that have proven to be efficient ways for students to learn.  I have two children in elementary school and I’d be pretty nervous if their schools looked nothing like schools looked 100 years ago.

Because of these outdated schools, and here comes an important motif, the narrator of the video says it is time to “rethink” high school and they introduce the #rethinkhighschool hash tag.

Screen Shot 2017-09-21 at 2.34.08 PM

It is doubtful that it is a coincidence that three days later Betsy DeVos announced a tour of the country that was called the ‘Rethink Schools’ tour.  I suppose that it is possible that Powell-Jobs and DeVos independently came up with this phrase.  Also it is possible that DeVos watched this program and copied the phrase.  But I think it is most likely that they worked together to come up with a catchy phrase and one of the purposes of this hour infomercial was to get that phrase into people’s minds so that three days later when DeVos announced her thing with the same phrase, people would already have a good feeling about it.

Later in the program, around the 20 minute mark, Maria Bellos answers the question “Why High Schools?”  It is a great question since the trend nowadays is to fix early education and get kids into PreK programs and things like that which will lead to improved high schools.  But she says, without further explanation, that “If we change high schools so they truly guide and support students, the rest of the education system will follow.”  I don’t think anyone who knows anything about education believes this is true.  That’s not to say that it is a bad thing to want to improve the high school experience, but it shows how little the people behind this program understand the issues.

At the 10 minute mark there is a speech / dance routine by Jordan Fisher where it is explained that the problem with high schools is that there is too much sitting at desks and memorizing.  Students need to be up and moving around more and doing more ‘personalized’ learning where they are following their interests.  At the 11:30 mark we get a nod to reformers where we imagine that everyone will get a quality education regardless of ‘zip code,’ but after that there aren’t many more reformer talking points.

The ‘problem’ with high schools, apparently, is that they haven’t evolved quickly enough into something better.  So Powell-Jobs and her foundation gave millions of dollars to different schools, the “Super Schools”, to show what a more innovative model of education would look like.  And based on what they showed, the new thing is that high schools need less sitting at desks and listening to teachers and more hands-on experiences.

At this point, reformers must be pretty frustrated.  There is not direct talk about ineffective teachers who can’t get fired because of union job protections.  There is also not direct talk about charter schools.  There also isn’t direct talk about DeVos’ favorite thing, vouchers.  But I suppose these things are implied in some way and this program is a good complement to what DeVos will be saying about how school choice including charters and vouchers will help these innovations flourish.  Charter school cheerleaders were not so much celebrating this program after it ended since they know that Charter schools have a lot of test prep and ‘rigor’ and they are not so big on hands on projects and authentic learning experiences.

There is an odd contradiction about the message of this program so far.  They started by bemoaning the low standardized test scores on international tests and then offered a solution that is unlikely to bring up those test scores.  I’m no fan of test prep and I do like when students get the opportunity to learn in a more authentic way than sitting at a desk in a classroom.  The reason that schools look a lot like they looked 100 years ago, and this include ‘high performing’ charters, is that learning in a classroom environment is an efficient way to learn.  Of course teachers should mix it up and have group discussions and group learning and field trips and other out of classroom experiences.  But I think that there is some ideal amount of experiential learning that should happen in a school.  I don’t want to commit to an exact percentage, but I’d say that anything more than 25% of school time done in this ‘non-traditional’ way might be too much of a good thing.

At the 13:26 mark, Justin Timberlake introduces the first Super School.  No show like this would be complete without some school that proves that implementing these reforms can transform it from a dropout factory into a miracle school.  So as he prepares to say the name of the school, my eyes widen.  I’ve made a name for myself as the ‘debunker of miracle schools.’  If a school is held up as a model of how some half-baked reform caused a school to get so much better in such a short period of time, it is my job to show that either there were other factors involved in the transformation that need to be considered or that the data shows that the school didn’t really make much of a transformation after all.  Watching a show like this with my notebook in hand, I can tell when they are about to show a supposed miracle school and, like some kind of hitman receiving the envelope of my next target, I open it and read the name.  And my jaw drops.  Like a hitman getting an envelope and seeing the name of his mother on the directive, the first Super School is none other than Furr High School in Houston, Texas.  Furr High School where I taught in my Teach For America days from 1992 to 1995.  Furr High School where I was voted the teacher of the year in 1995.  Furr High School where about 30 out of my 200 friends on Facebook are my former students, now all in their 40s.  Furr High School where I still know some of the teachers and where the children of some of my former students are now students there.

Back when I taught at Furr from 1992 to 1995, I thought it was a great school.  There were a lot of very good teachers there and the vast majority of the students there worked hard and were a pleasure to teach.  But one issue with the school was that there was a large gang population.  I remember having a 21 year old student appear in one of my 9th grade classes once with a note that said that he had to attend high school as part of his parole agreement.

The gang members would often fail their classes and they would have to repeat 9th grade over and over.  As a result of this, there were about 400 9th graders, 250 10th graders, 200 11th graders, and only 150 12th graders.  So in a sense it was a school that reformers would describe as a ‘dropout factory.’  But the thing was that while the gang population would repeat 9th grade over and over until they got old enough to drop out, they were mostly ignored by the other students.  So the gang members were a bit like ghosts in the school.  They were there and they would be in the 9th grade classes, but the vast majority of students did not let it distract them.  So 9th grade could be annoying in that way for students, but once you were out of 9th grade you were very likely to graduate in three more (or maybe four for some) years.

Test scores at Furr were not high.  At the time the standardized test was called the TAAS and I remember teaching a test prep class for 12th graders so they could pass the test and receive an actual diploma instead of a ‘certificate of attendance.’  The school, though, was not a test prep school.  At that time, there wasn’t this big focus on the tests and how that would affect the school rating.  So we had freedom to do things other than prepare for the tests and it was a very pleasant environment.

There wasn’t a lot of violence in the hallways, though there would be a fight from time to time.  There was a time I got punched in the head while trying to break up a fight — lesson learned, but generally I found the school to be pretty tame.  I left the school in 1995 and four years later in 1999 the principal at Furr was replaced by the current principal, Bertie Simmons.  Though she was nearly 70 at the time, she is the principal to this day, 17 years later.

I guess that violence at Furr increased sometime between 1995 and 2013 since the last time I saw Furr featured in the news was this article from 2013 in The New York Times about how the school had reduced the violence in their hallways by responding to violence with counseling rather than arresting students.

In this program Simmons is presented as one of those movie principals who tamed a school, like Joe Clarke in ‘Lean On Me.’  My friends who taught under her said that she was not much of a leader.  But one thing she apparently was able to do was to win a $10 million XQ grant from Powell-Jobs.

Now I am all for a school like Furr getting a $10 million grant.  It seems like they used it to increase out of the classroom learning opportunities.  For instance, there is now a garden students maintain there, which is something that I think is great.  For some students, something like a garden could be the thing that gets them excited about school and motivates them to even perform better in their other classes.  But surely a garden isn’t the sort of thing that would have motivated the 21 year old parolee I once had there in my 9th grade class, so I got very interested when I saw in the XQ program some of the text they put on the screen about Furr.

For example, at the 15:09 mark a graphic flashes on the screen that says “Furr students meet all their academic standards both inside and outside the classroom.”

Screen Shot 2017-09-21 at 3.21.04 PM

To the regular viewer watching this program on a Friday night, it seems like they are saying that 100% of the students passed their standardized tests.  Since test scores and growth numbers are a big part of the Houston Independent School District school ratings, this would show up in their score.  But it seems that Furr got a F on the 2015-2016 HISD report card and a D- on the 2016-2017 report card.  As recently as 2013, the principal was almost fired for not getting high enough standardized test scores compared to her peer schools.

The next graphic touted the change in graduation rates at Furr since Simmons took over as principal.  It said “Since 2000, graduation rates at Furr have increased from 50% to 95%.”  Pretty impressive if it is true.

Screen Shot 2017-09-21 at 3.22.10 PM

Now in many districts including HISD ‘Graduation Rate’ doesn’t mean exactly what you would expect it to.  Even back when I taught at Furr though there were 400 9th graders and just 150 seniors the ‘dropout’ rate was still something like 10%.  The reason for this was that if a student left school and even signed up for a GED course, which most kids would, they would not officially count as a ‘dropout’ even if they never actually attended the course and never took the test.  Now if by ‘Graduation Rate’ they mean ‘Completion Rate’ I was able to find data going back to 2004.  According to that data, the completion rate for Furr in 2004 was 87.7% which suggests it is highly unlikely that they only had a 50% completion rate in 2000 as the graphic says.  Even if by some chance the graduation rate back in 2000, however they calculated it, was 50%, it would be more meaningful to compare the current graduation rate to the current graduation rates of other schools now.  The 95% rate seems to have come from the 2014-2015 school report card under the category ‘4 year longitudinal rate (Grades 9 to 12)’.  Looking at the current graduation for all the high schools in Houston, I notice that even some of the most chronically low schools in the city, like Yates High School, now have graduation rates around 80%.   If by some definition Furr had a 50% graduation rate in 2000, then a school like Yates would have had a rate of 30% back then.  All the schools in Houston have improved their graduation rates significantly in the past 17 years.

So there may or may not have been a big improvement in graduation rates under the new leadership, but it is possible that there has been a change in the school climate at Furr which has made it a better school.  But if there were improvements, should we assume that they were due to the modernization of the school and the introduction of the garden and other out of classroom learning experiences?  Based on my research which includes people very familiar with Furr as it was and as it now is, there are two reasons to believe that whatever improvements are not due to things like the garden and the radio station.  The first is that, according to a current Furr student, the school is still one in which most of the instruction is done in classrooms with students at desks much like they did it 100 years ago.  Some students, depending on what program they are in, get more of an opportunity than others to use the garden or work at the radio station, but most instruction is still done in the classroom.  For the small percent of time that students get to do the things featured on the video, it would not be enough to transform the school.  So what then did improve the school?  Well the answer to that question has nothing to do with the Powell-Jobs money, but with something called Reach Charter School.

“What the Hell is Reach Charter School?” You ask.

Well that’s a charter school located at 528 Mercury Drive in Houston.

“528 Mercury Drive?  But isn’t that the same address as — I mean, isn’t that where — I mean –”

Yes, you are right, 528 Mercury Drive is the address of Furr High School.  And Reach Charter School is a a school for at-risk students that was started by the principal of Furr, Bertie Simmons, around 2007.  Furr High School had a 95% graduation rate in 1995 with 208 students while Reach Charter School had just a 32% graduation rate for their 161 students.

Screen Shot 2017-09-21 at 10.57.23 PM

So according to my sources, Simmons transfers a significant number of the most at-risk Furr students into this Reach Charter School located at the same campus.  The former HISD superintendent, Terry Grier, felt that the numbers for Furr and Reach should be combined, but Simmons said that this would not be fair since not every Reach student came from Furr.  And while it may be true that not every student who goes to Reach transferred from Furr, enough of them did to significantly influence Furr’s numbers.  Furr graduated 197 out of 208 students to get that 95% graduation rate.  Increasing that 208 by even twenty students who got transferred to Reach would lower Furr’s rate to levels on par with peer schools like Milby.

Now I’m not saying that is a bad thing to have a school within a school for serving the most at-risk students.  If done well, it can help those students and also benefit the students who remain at Furr.  But I wonder if Powell-Jobs is aware that the bump in graduation rate from 88% to 95% (I found no evidence that the graduation rate was ever 50% in any official way) has nothing to do with Furr’s futuristic schooling model and more to do with this school within a school changing who gets counted in Furr’s graduation rate.

OK, that’s all I think I want to say about Furr High School right now.  I loved working at Furr, the kids were great and the teachers were great and the school had a lot of heart.  I never thought it deserved to be thought of as a dropout factory back then.  I felt it was a super school back then and it still is, but now it is also an “XQ Super School” and with that it needs to be scrutinized since I wouldn’t want every school in the country forced to spend $10 million on gardens and out-of-classroom learning opportunities in order to get our international test scores up.  Still I love gardens and I love $10 million even more, it just concerns me when I see someone like Powell-Jobs taking over four networks to claim that she has found the fix for schools.

There really weren’t any other examples of schools that made dramatic turnarounds.  They featured the Hunter school that Lin-Manuel Miranda went to and had his love of drama nurtured in.  This wasn’t an XQ Super School, but the most sought after and exclusive public school in Manhattan.  To get in you have to have your 4 year old take a $300 IQ test.  Then if they are one of the 300 top scorers, they get to go to round 2 where there is a ‘playdate’ and the children are prodded and asked questions and followed around with clipboards to see who the lucky 50 students who will be and who will get to go to the school from kindergarten to 12th grade.

There was also a school in Los Angeles which TFA was very happy about since it was started by a TFA alum.  The school for at-risk students had just 30 students and I’m sure it is a great place, but this is a special situation and not one that can be scaled up very much.

There were some other strange things about this program.  Like the part where two YouTube celebrities who have a viral science channel got up and said that since they are doing something that didn’t exist 50 years ago, schools need to prepare kids for the jobs of the future, not the jobs of the present.  But this doesn’t really make sense.  These two guys are essentially teachers, which is a job that has existed for a while and if it is really a new kind of job, weren’t they prepared for this by their teachers in the old fashioned way of teaching them science?  I really don’t get this whole “prepare kids for jobs that don’t exist yet.”  How does that work?  I’m expecting one day there will be teleportation and surely after someone is teleported there will likely be some residue left in the origin chamber and maybe even some in the destination chamber.  One job in the future will be to collect this residue and feed it into the supercomputer for analysis.  Should we start offering a course on this to high schoolers?

One thing that this program definitely accomplished is product placement.  It seems that one feature of innovative high schools is that students use a lot of laptops and it seems like most of those laptops are Apple products.  While iPads were once considered to be something that was going to be a big part of education, the thing most schools are actually using are a type of laptop called a Chromebook, which is an inexpensive Google product.  Since the kids in these schools are using Apple laptops, maybe one purpose of this show was to help with Apple’s competition with Google for the education market.  Perhaps this is also why the focus of this program was on high schools.  Steve Jobs felt electronic devices were a distraction for young children, so he would not have approved of rethinking elementary schools with so many laptops and iPads.

One thing we did not see a lot of in this was overt teacher bashing.  I suppose this is why Randi Weingarten attended and tweeted about how wonderful a program this is.

Now even though there wasn’t overt teacher bashing, there was some less direct bashing like the part where celebrities were asked what they wish they learned in high school.  Based on their answers, the only conclusion is that their teachers must not have taught those things to them very well.

This program didn’t really seem to resonate with anybody and most people on both sides of the education reform wars have pretty much forgotten about it already.  It was a colossal waste of money and shows that being rich doesn’t mean that you necessarily have the right to dictate education policy.

I think that it is not an accident that there was no mention of evil unions or miracle charter schools or school choice in this program.  My sense is that reformers realize that most of the talking points from Waiting For Superman don’t work anymore.  The public has wised up.  They don’t believe as much that teacher’s unions are the problem or that charter schools are the solution.  So this program is an attempt to get a new rationale that the public can believe and get behind whatever reforms the reformers want to try, which of course will be more union busting and charters and vouchers.  So the new thing is that schools haven’t evolved much in the past 100 years and that’s a problem.  All that matters is that the public believes there is some problem, whatever it is.  It doesn’t need to be the unions, but it must be something so the 100 year thing will likely be repeated a lot of over the next decade as the new villain for them to save us from.


Posted in Uncategorized | 12 Comments

Tennessee ASD Gets Lowest Possible Growth Score In 2017

Six years ago, the Tennessee Achievement School District (ASD) was created with the promise that within 5 years they would ‘catapult’ the schools in the bottom 5% to the top 25%.  They would do this by either taking over schools or finding charter schools to take over those schools.

Things were not looking good for the ASD four years into the experiment and then they got a reprieve in the 5th year when the state test results were nullified because of technical snafus.

The spring 2017 test scores would settle the question about whether or not the ASD would be a success or a failure.  But the test scores were not announced at the usual time, over the summer.  Instead they released the high school scores a few weeks ago, which were awful for the ASD with less than 1% meeting the standard in math.  A few days after that, the superintendent of the ASD, Malika Anderson, resigned after less than 2 years on the job.  She had replaced ASD founder Chris Barbic, who resigned after 4 years.

Well, the 3-8 Tennessee test scores still haven’t been released, but the other day the state released the ‘growth scores’ for the districts.  Tennessee is actually the birthplace of the value added growth model and the version of it that they use is called TVAAS.

The Achievement School District probably made a mistake in making their name something that would likely be on the top of an alphabetical list of scores.  Looking at the chart from Chalkbeat Tennessee, it can be seen very clearly, that The ASD students, on average, did not ‘grow’ at least according to the magical TVAAS formula that they have so much confidence in.

Screen Shot 2017-09-21 at 9.27.16 AM

Looking at the individual school results from the state website, we see that 19 out of 29 schools in the ASD got a 1 on their overall growth for 2017.  Among those schools was KIPP Memphis prep

In a few weeks I suppose we will get the actual test results from the schools.  I’d expect that with such low growth, it is unlikely that many of the ASD schools catapulted from the bottom 5% to the top 25% in 5 years.

Before Malika Anderson resigned recently, she was the last remaining member from the original ASD leadership team.  They have all gone on to different jobs and they will not be held ‘accountable’ in any way for the con they played on the parents who allowed them to take over their schools or give them away to charter schools on the promise that they knew better how to improve those schools.

Update:  This post received an interesting comment that pointed out that using the 1 growth score as proof that the ASD is failing is a dangerous thing to do since it gives some credibility to the growth calculation.  I usually say this on posts like this, so let me respond to this.  I definitely think that the growth scores are garbage, just like value added for teachers, they are practically random numbers.  I still like to do posts like this because it forces the reformers into a Sophie’s choice where they have to either admit that the growth scores are meaningless or they have to concede that the ASD is a failure.  I like to be able to say “Even by their own metrics, their schools are failures.”  There is a risk in this because they can just make up new metrics that make those schools get good scores and then I won’t be able to use that argument anymore.  But, yes, I don’t think that the TVAAS scores are a real measure of much.  It is ironic though the way that the reformers only wants to look at growth scores when they make charter schools look good and ignore them when they don’t.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

Underachievement School District Superintendent Resigns In Disgrace

One of the most high profile experiments in education is Tennessee’s Achievement School District (ASD).  As part of their Race To The Top funding, the former commissioner of education, TFAer Kevin Huffman, hired another TFAer Chris Barbic to make a plan for the lowest performing schools in the state.

Funded with millions of dollars, the ASD launched in 2011 with a very specific goal spelled out very clearly on their website (until about six months ago when they changed it)

Screen Shot 2017-09-09 at 12.08.47 AM

Any school that was in the bottom 5% of schools based on test scores could be either taken over and run by the ASD or could be handed over to a charter organization with the plan to ‘catapult’ them into the top 25% within 5 years.  The ASD started with a cohort of six schools in 2011 and has about 30 schools today.

In 2014, three years into the experiment, Barbic claimed in an interview that of the first 6 schools, three were on track to meet that top 25% goal including one school that was on track to meet the goal one year ahead of schedule.  Around this time, Barbic was inducted into Jeb Bush’s ‘Chiefs For Change’ organization, a who’s who of ed reform, many of whom are now working as high paid consultants rather than as school or district leaders.

In 2015, four years into the experiment, things were not looking good for the ASD.  Of those original six schools, four of them continued to be in the bottom 5% while the other two had merely catapulted into the bottom 6%.  Barbic resigned at the end of 2015, about 8 months before we could learn if he was able to accomplish the goal of moving those schools from the bottom 5% to the top 25%.  Fortunately for Barbic, computerized testing glitches caused the Tennessee state tests in the spring of 2016 to be invalidated so we will never know if the ASD got any of those schools where they promised in the five year window.  Also fortunately for Barbic, he got a job for the billionaire John Arnold working on their education initiatives.

Barbic was succeeded by a member of his leadership team, Malika Anderson.  Some time during her term, the ASD changed their mission on their website.  No longer are they talking about catapulting the bottom 5% to the top 25% in 5 years.  Some time between March 2016 and April 2017, the website now states that their mission is ‘By 2025, we will close the opportunity gaps long persistent in Tennessee’s public education.’  So they want 8 more years and they learned not to make any specific promises, like how much they want to reduce those gaps even.

Screen Shot 2017-09-09 at 12.09.38 AM

Anderson was the superintendent during the latest state tests in the spring of 2017.  Though the scores for elementary and middle schools have not yet been released, the high school scores were and they were so bad that even the normally forgiving Chalkbeat Tennessee wrote an article entitled Tennessee’s turnaround district scores worse in nearly all high school subjects.  In this article it was revealed that the students in the ASD high schools, despite having been in ASD schools for six years had 8 percent passing English and less than 1 percent passing math.

Chalkbeat Tennessee actually tried to make a lame excuse for this poor performance

Four of the ASD’s six Memphis high schools are turnaround schools: Fairley High, GRAD Academy, Hillcrest High and Martin Luther King Jr. College Preparatory. Two are alternative schools that aim to help off-track or disconnected students attain their diplomas. Comprising a third of the scores across the ASD’s high schools, those two alternative schools likely skew the district’s test results down.

This shows a complete lack of numeracy since even if those other two schools got 0% passing, that would mean that the other four schools would have at most 2% passing in order to have an average of 1% passing.  So, no, those two schools would not ‘likely skew the district’s test results down’ as they claim.

Anderson herself takes the opportunity to defy the ‘no excuses’ philosophy of ed reform by responding to the scores with “[Our] students have often spent most of their educational careers in underperforming elementary and middle schools and have very little time before they will have to transition to postsecondary life …,” even though those students spent much of their educational careers in ASD schools that she helped run.

With the elementary and middle school scores coming soon — and really the final nail in the coffin of the ASD as even with an extra year on that five year plan they likely did not move the bottom 5% of the schools even out of the bottom 5% — I was not surprised to learn four days ago that Malika Anderson (also a recent inductee into ‘Chiefs For Change’) has ‘decided’ to resign and become a consultant.  It turns out that Anderson was actually the final member who remained of the original team that started in 2010 with Barbic.  So not one person will be around to be held accountable for the failure of the ASD we have already seen in the high school and very likely to see when the other scores are soon released (which surely Anderson has already gotten an early preview of).

Chalkbeat Tennessee misses the opportunity to write about this as the scandal that it is.  In describing the failure of the ASD to improve the test scores of the schools it took over they wrote

While scores have been lackluster for most ASD schools (scores released last week for high schools were disappointing), even its critics acknowledge that the district has nudged Memphis school leaders out of complacency and created a sense of urgency to address longstanding deficiencies in neighborhood schools.

Words like ‘lackluster’ and ‘disappointing’ do not accurately convey what a disaster this overhyped experiment has resulted in.  And to give the ASD any credit for ‘nudging’ other school leaders into improving is somewhat deluded, I think.

Chalkbeat Tennessee had another chance to cover this story appropriately, though instead the same reporter did an exit interview with Anderson with the absurd title ‘Outgoing ASD chief reflects on Tennessee’s turnaround journey’ .  She clearly resigned before she got fired so ‘outgoing ASD chief’ is too gentle.  And ‘Tennessee’s turnaround journey’?  It wasn’t a ‘journey’ it was more of a ‘fiasco.’

In this interview, the reporter — I can’t believe that this is actually someone’s full time job to report about education in Tennessee and they can’t even identify a newsworthy story — avoids any tough questions about the test scores.  Anderson answers the last question about what she would tell her successor and she says

Also, to maintain exceptionally high expectations for what our kids can do. When we hit challenges, or don’t see the outside gains that we all want for our kids in a very short time, some people could start to lower expectations for what’s possible for our kids, that’s the wrong move. We have to keep expectations high and adjust our own perceptions and resources to help our kids, who we know get there.

This is ironic since she is supposedly resigning on her own will so if that’s true, she’s giving up on the kids.  And as far as keeping the expectations high, why is it that under her leadership the ASD changed their mission from the ambitious and clearly measurable goal of getting the bottom 5% to the top 25% in 5 years into the nebulous thing about closing the opportunity gaps by 2025, 14 years after the ASD started?

Incidentally, the ASD is being replicated around the country and even in the Every Child Succeeds Act there is a nod to it as states must come up with an intervention for their bottom 5% of schools.

The main thing for Anderson is that, like Barbic, she got her induction into Chiefs For Change which generally gains you a pretty good job as a consultant.  So nobody will be held accountable who was responsible for the ASD failure and the only people who get punished are the children and the parents who had to endure the instability that this program caused.


Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

TFA’s ‘Political Arm’ LEE Reveals Their Support Of DeVos’ Main Priority

Teach For America has become a lot less outspoken, politically, since Trump became President and DeVos the Secretary of Education.  During the Obama/Duncan years, TFA would often have blog posts and tweets supporting some ed reform policy about charter schools or about standardized test based accountability.

Wendy Kopp, before she stepped down as CEO to be replaced by Matt Kramer and Elisa Villanueva-Beard, was a bit better at, at least, saying the right things to make it seem like she was not a complete ed reform zealot.  Her second book, for example, had an entire chapter about how there are no silver bullets in education.  Wendy also wrote an op-ed opposing the release of teacher evaluation scores in the newspaper, even though Arne Duncan praised them.  But Wendy often showed her extreme pro-reform side, most recently, just two months ago, in a revisionist history of the impact TFA has had in Los Angeles while failing to mention that two of the most prominent reform critics (Former board president Steve Zimmer and current union leader Alex Caputo-Pearl) are TFA alumni.  In this piece, Wendy even goes so far to quote the first judge in the Vergara case about how teacher tenure there causes inequity that ‘boggles the mind’ even though that case was overturned and that judge was completely duped by misleading statistics presented by the prosecution.

Matt Kramer and Elisa Villanueva-Beard took over as co-CEOs in 2013.  They quickly proved to be very one-sided in their understanding of ed reform.  Villanueva-Beard, in particular, would give speeches where she was quick to use phrases borrowed from prominent reformers and reports from Michelle Rhee’s TNTP.  In 2015, Villanueva-Beard went ‘full Rhee’ in a speech that evoked the title of the failed anti-union Walton funded propaganda film “Won’t Back Down.’

Eventually Kramer resigned leaving Villanueva-Beard as the sole CEO.  As sole CEO, Villanueva-Beard has not tried so hard to conceal her allegiance to the Duncan style of reform.  One example is a panel that she moderated at the TFA 25 event on the influence of Joel Klein and the TFA alumni he mentored.  And most recently, in a speech, Villanueva-Beard actually took a quote from a DeVos speech when she said that education has not changed much in the past 100 years.

Most of the time, however, TFA does try to at least pretend that they are somewhat neutral when it comes to the education wars.  They are happy to point out that 60% of their teachers are not at charter schools.  They mention that some of their members are union representatives.  But I recently came upon something that leaves no doubt where TFA stands politically, and much of it neatly aligns with the Trump / DeVos which isn’t all that different from Obama / Duncan when it comes to education.

Over the years, TFA has struggled with its public messaging.  They have tried to do various blogs and podcasts.  For a few years they had something called On The Record where they would respond to criticisms of TFA in the media.  These responses were so defensive, it actually made them look worse so they stopped adding to that site about a year ago.  It looks like they recently scrubbed the page, actually.

A few years ago they dabbled in podcasting.  A staffer named Aaron French did a podcast called ‘Education on Tap’ for 21 episodes.  Though he was reform leaning, he actually did a pretty nice job on this podcast and even had as one of the guests Jennifer Berkshire (AKA EduShyster).  When he left TFA, French actually teamed up with Berkshire to work on a podcast called Have You Heard before he left that podcast too.  I’m not sure what he’s up to now.

The ‘political arm’ of TFA is called The Leadership For Educational Equity or LEE.  The main purpose of this group, it seems, is to aid TFA alumni who want to run for public office.  LEE produces a podcast called The Leaders’ Table which I find to be very revealing.

Each episode begins with the producer Mollie Stevens who formerly worked for the failed Edison project setting up the episode.  The guests on the podcast include people from the ‘who’s who’ list of reformers like John Deasy, Kaya Henderson, and Chris Cerf and also some from the ‘who’s that?’ list, like Marc Holley of the Walton Foundation.  One thing for sure, you will not see any people critical of ed reform on the list of the 21 guests.

After the introduction, the host gives an introduction about who he is about to speak to.  I haven’t listened to every episode, maybe a third of them, and the name of this host is never mentioned as far as I can tell.  [Update: The host has been identified by a reader as Jason LLorentz, whoever that is] We know a little about him from some things he says in almost every podcast, like that he ‘survived New York City schools’, but we never get his name.  He asks the same five questions in each episode, things like “What would you tell your younger self” and “What piece of technology do you find indispensable?”

The focus of most of the podcasts I listened to had to to with charters and choice.  In the one with Nina Rees of The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools she said that all studies show that students with special needs do better at charter schools, which I found surprising since it is pretty well known that charters serve students with special needs at lower rates than their district counterparts and some charters get out of the responsibility of accepting special needs students by saying that the school is too small and doesn’t have the staffing to serve those students.

In the one with Chris Cerf, who is now the Newark superintendent and used to be the commissioner of education for New Jersey, Cerf claims that they closed down a significant number of charter schools, something that was news to me.

The host rarely challenges the guests.  He is just there to ask the questions on his sheet.  In one interesting part of the interview with Kaya Henderson, she actually said something somewhat controversial for this podcast.  She said that charter schools were not much different than district schools in the way they were educating students.  I really though the host might ‘push back’ on that or at least ask a follow up to that bombshell but instead he just kind of said ‘uh huh’ and moved on to his next question.

If you were to ask Betsy DeVos to summarize her ideas about education into one word, that word would certainly be ‘choice’ and many of the guests of this podcast would completely agree.  There was even a podcast with someone from an organization called Friends Of Choice in Urban Schools or FOCUS.  And when the Walton guy is interviewed, he also says that ‘choice’ is the number one thing that school systems need.

In my younger days I would have listened to all 21 podcasts and summarized them and transcribed key quotes.  I tried to listen to some but they were so vapid and these ‘leaders’ clearly had nothing interesting to say and knew nothing about education, I just didn’t have the stomach for it.  But I thought maybe this could be ‘crowd sourced.’  If you are a reader of this blog and you have an hour of your life to waste and never get back, maybe you could pick one of the 21 podcasts and listen to it and leave a comment on this blog post.



Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Teach To None

Teach To One is a math program sold by New Classrooms.  Currently used by about 16 schools in the country, the Teach To One program incorporates a mix of video tutorials, small group instruction, and full class instruction.  A computer creates a ‘playlist’ for each student each day which, in theory, will help the students learn more efficiently as the computer can keep track of the individual needs of each student more easily than a human teacher could.

The CEO of New Classrooms is Joel Rose who created the program, then called ‘School Of One’ when he worked for the New York City DOE under Joel Klein.  After leaving the DOE he began selling the technology around the country including, and controversially, in New York City.  I think for the first few years the city paid either nothing, or a very small amount to use Teach To One.  At one point, there were 11 schools in New York City using the program.  I actually got a chance to witness this program 5 years ago and was horrified by it.  Most of the schools using Teach To One are unhappy with it which is why currently only 5 schools in New York City use it.  Recently a school in California was so unhappy with this program that they abandoned it mid-year.

In about a week, the New York City Panel For Education Policy (or PEP), will vote on whether or not to award Teach To One a contract worth $669,000.  The New York Daily News wrote a nice summary of the issues involved in this contract.

Knowing, first hand, how awful this program is and what a waste of money this is, I delved into the test results of the schools in New York City that currently use this program.  The program is mainly for middle school math, grades 6, 7, and 8.  Since this is a program obviously geared toward getting math state test scores up, I thought the most useful numbers to look at were the 8th grade math scores at the schools involved.

The 2017 test scores have not been released yet, so I downloaded the 2016 test scores from the city’s public data site.  According to New Classroom’s 2015 annual report , there were 16 schools in the country using the program.  The five from New York city were:

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 4.36.41 PM

So I checked for the 8th grade test scores for these 5 schools.  To put these numbers into perspective, the citywide average for 8th graders on this test was 25% getting either a 3 or a 4.

SCHOOL % getting 3 or 4
IS 228 24.3%
JHS 88 11.1%
I.S. 381 14.4%
I.S. 49 1.8%
 I.S. M286 0.0%

The last school is no longer called Renaissance Leadership Academy, but now it is The Urban Assembly Academy For Future Leaders. and still has the M286 code number so I am pretty sure it is the same school with a new name.

So there’s a school with 0% and another with 1.8%.  And they are asking for three quarters of a million dollars to expand?  With numbers like these, surely this program has not proved itself to be effective.  But in reform marketing is much more important than results which is why this program continues to grow and to get these large contracts.

Of course this program is funded by the usual list of reform cheerleader, with over $1 million from The Gates Foundation and from the Bezos Family Foundation.  You can also see Reed Hastings on there and Joel Klein and all the other reform types.  Here is their list of funders from their 2015 report.

Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 4.51.22 PM

One final irony is revealed in the list of the Board of Advisors:

Screen Shot 2017-08-12 at 4.51.57 PM.png

The two founders of KIPP, Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin (as well as TFA founder Wendy Kopp, who is married to another leader of KIPP, Richard Barth) are all on the board yet this Teach To One program is not in use by any of the 200 or so KIPP schools across the country.  That is quite a non-endorsement of their own product!

I actually know Joel Rose from way back.  We met at college when we lived in the same dorm in 1989.  I went to TFA in Houston in 1991 and he did TFA in Houston in 1992.  Even now, twenty five years later, I run into him time to time as we live less than a block from each other.  He was always a nice guy, pleasant, funny.  He was actually the recipient of one of my famous ‘open letters’ that I wrote years ago.  I don’t know what happens that makes some of the TFA types get involved with the likes of Joel Klein and lose their minds.  Maybe it is the opportunity to make money, I really can’t say.  But for sure if this post can be seen by the members of the PEP voting on whether or not to award $669,000 to this failure of a program, it would be great to not reward an ineffective program with any money at all.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Alum-lie Spreads

Two weeks ago, The 74 published the results of The Alumni which claims to show that the graduates of certain charter school networks go on to graduate college at a rate of 3 to 5 times the rate of low-income students on average.

They say that only 9% of low-income students graduate college after six years while among the nine charter networks they studied, their graduates had college completion rates ranging from 25% (approximately 3 times 9%) and 50% (approximately 5 times 9%).

The problem with this calculation is that the charter schools are only counting students who completed 12th grade at that school (or for KIPP, 8th grade).  So if a school only has 14 graduates and 7 of them graduate after six years, it is accurate that 50% of their graduates went on to complete college, but if that cohort of 14 students was 40 students three years earlier, then their rate is really 25%.  In other words, by just counting the ‘graduates’ they get an inflated college completion rate.

In the original The Alumni article the author, Richard Whitmire, admitted as such.  He even put a comment from the KIPP network about how the other schools should use 8th grade as the cutoff so they don’t get unfairly inflated percentages.  I argued in my first post about this that 5th grade would be an even more accurate cutoff.

In a follow up article on The 74 called The Data Behind The Alumni the case is made even stronger:

The one network that insists on including students who leave the system is KIPP, which reports its college success data starting in ninth grade for students new to the KIPP system and at the end of eighth grade for existing KIPP students. YES Prep, part of the United for College Success Coalition in Texas, has promised to start calculating its college success data from ninth grade, but no figures are yet available.

All the other networks start their data set in 12th grade — and say they don’t have data that begins in ninth grade. KIPP takes a principled stand on that issue, refusing to release any results that start the tracking in 12th grade, despite the fact that it would boost its college success rate.

Within the charter community, this is turning into a hot-button issue. KIPP feels very strongly that the only honest method for reporting graduation is to start in ninth grade. In theory, a charter network could increase its college success numbers by pushing or counseling out weak students before their senior year. That would apply to any high school, not just charter high schools.

You’ve got to love the part about the other networks “say they don’t have data that begins in ninth grade.”

Also on The 74, and again to their credit, they published something by the chief executive officer of YES prep.  He brags first that the class of 2010 had a 54% college completion rate, but then, a few paragraphs later admitted about that same cohort:

When I was principal of YES Prep North Central in 2010, only 34 percent of our founding sixth-grade class went on to graduate from our campus. This unacceptably low persistence rate, a symptom of a “no-excuses” culture, needed to be addressed to align with our mission of increasing the number of students from underserved communities who graduate prepared to lead.

Suddenly the 54% turns into 54% of 35% which is just 18% college completion.

He says that from now on they are going to use the 8th grade cutoff like KIPP, though of course he should be pushing it to 6th grade based on what he just said about their huge attrition numbers.

Another interesting statistic in that follow up article is that if you want to do a more fair comparison you would want to compare not to the 9% number but to the percent of low-income high school graduates that go on to graduate college within 6 years.  To their credit, The 74 does say that this is actually 15%, to which they then say:

Even if as many as 15 percent of low-income minority students who make it through high school earn college degrees, that means these top charter networks are still doing three and a half times better.

So suddenly it goes from 3 to 5 times better to 1.6 to 3.3 times better.  This is important since surely the 3 to 5 number is the thing that is going to be remembered by people who read just the first article or one of the editorials Whitmire has published in The New York Daily News, The Wall Street Journal, and, most recently, The Hill.  There was also a report about The Alumni by another writer in The Houston Chronicle.

So after reading Whitmire’s The Hill piece which has no mention at all the issues with the calculations, I reached out to him on Twitter and we had this amusing exchange.

Screen Shot 2017-08-08 at 4.09.59 PMScreen Shot 2017-08-08 at 4.10.13 PMScreen Shot 2017-08-08 at 4.10.46 PMScreen Shot 2017-08-08 at 4.11.05 PMScreen Shot 2017-08-08 at 4.11.23 PMScreen Shot 2017-08-08 at 4.11.40 PMScreen Shot 2017-08-08 at 4.11.52 PM

And that was it.  I have no idea what his last tweet means.  I think Trump might have written it.  Why would I back off if I found flawed data.  I just don’t get it.  This is why most reformers don’t engage with me.  In any kind of debate they have with me on equal terms I absolutely embarrass them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 21 Comments