When the money runs out

Eventually, even billionaires bail, and when their money is gone problems remain. In some cases, big problems.

Two years into work with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to improve teacher effectiveness, city school officials have determined that the financial outlook has changed so much that the effort will be unsustainable without a major retooling.

By revamping teacher salaries -- paying for test results instead of degrees or years of service -- Memphis City Schools leaders hope to find a big chunk of the $34 million a year it will take to keep going when the Gates money stops in 2015.

The district is now spending another $250,000 on consultants to figure the mess out. Cleaning up that mess left behind by Bill Gates "philanthropy" might be a whole host of lost jobs and school closings.

One possibility, he says, is reducing the nonteaching staff -- secretaries, cafeteria workers, maintenance staff -- who work in every school in the city.

Another is closing schools and funneling the savings back to the Gates' work.

The whole idea was to institute test score based pay for teachers, but the effort turned out to be far more expensive and unsustainable that systems where pay is collectively bargained. If that doesn't strike you are irresponsible enough, it does actually get worse

"We just found out this week that the 400 new teachers in the district will have to use schoolwide data for their TVAAS score.

"Thirty-five percent of their score will be schoolwide data from a time when they were not even part of the district."

Indeed. Imagine having your performance nad pay being evaluated using scores that aren't even your own. Welcome to the wonderful world of Corporate education reform.

Clippy as the model for Bill Gates involvement in schools

Remember the obnoxious, hyperactive paperclip that popped up in Word when you were trying write a letter? As soon as you typed "Dear," up popped up Clippy:

It looks like you're writing a letter.
Would you like help?

Uninvited.

You'd been writing letters for decades, but Microsoft insisted you needed what they called "proactive help." And there was Clippy insisting he could show you how to do your job better. No matter how many times you clicked "Just type the letter without help," Clippy would pop up again, insisting you must need help.

Your train of thought melted as you tried to remember how to get rid of the dorky paperclip.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal , Stanford professor Clifford Nass reports, "One of the most reviled software designs of all time was Clippy, the animated paper clip in Microsoft Office. The mere mention of his name to computer users brought on levels of hatred usually reserved for jilted lovers and mortal enemies. There were 'I hate Clippy' websites, videos and T-shirts in numerous languages." Nass observes that "Clippy's problem was that he was utterly oblivious to the appropriate ways to treat people. Every time a user typed "Dear," Clippy would dutifully propose, "I see you are writing a letter. Would you like some help?" --no matter how many times the user had rejected this offer in the past."

And he wouldn't stop smiling. You're pounding the keyboard trying to find the "DIE!" function but he keeps smiling.

YouTube offers a hilarious "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" audio segment on the death of the reviled Microsoft mascot. Listeners voted this the funniest segment of all time. The show host Peter Segal says, "One day the engineers at Microsoft said, you know, the people using our products, they're frustrated, they're angry, but they're not insane with rage. How can we focus their rage? How about if just in the middle of doing something, an animated paperclip pops up on the screen and says: 'Can I help you? What are you doing? Oh, can I see?'"

The segment includes the Bill Gate memo titled "Clippy Must Die."

But now, teachers across America are discovering that Clippy has been reborn--with Gates barnstorming the country with pronouncements about effective teaching. Never mind you've been teaching for decades, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is there popping up with compulsory proactive help, insisting they can show you how to do your job better. No matter how much you beg, "Just let me teach," Clippy Bill is there insisting you must need help.

[readon2 url="http://susanohanian.org/show_commentary.php?id=986"]Continue reading[/readon2]

Corporate money vs the people

The campaign to support Issue 2 has been one of the most opaque campaigns in Ohio election history. In order to circumvent transparency laws and campaign finacne reports, Better Ohio created a Rube Goldberg like non profit system whereby donors could donote to a non profit that didn't have to expose who those donors were, or how much they donated. They they turned right around and donated that secret stash to their campaign.

If you look at their campaign financne reports it shows just one donor "BUILDING A BETTER OHIO INC" making all the contributions. That said, they did, under pressure release a list of who donated money to "BUILDING A BETTER OHIO INC", though not the amounts. In total 46 businesses and 950 individuals gave some amount of money to the BetterOhio campaign.

If that hasn't been unfair enough, a host of other corporate backed entities also provided financial heft to the Governor's campaign to hurt working people. Via PR Watch

Alliance for America’s Future

The Alexandria, Virginia-based Alliance for America’s Future (AFAF) has spent over seven figures in an effort to flood millions of Ohio voters’ mailboxes with fliers encouraging a “yes” vote on Issue 2 to uphold the bill. Heading the AFAF is Mary Cheney, the daughter of former vice president’ Dick Cheney, and Barry Bennert, former chief of staff to Ohio Congresswoman Jen Schmidt (R-2nd District). The Alliance does not disclose its corporate donors.

Ohio is just one of 30 states, including Wisconsin, in which the AFAF has become involved. Their official website offers no information on staff or current projects, but instead offers a single webpage stating the AFAF is “dedicated to educating and advocating sound economic and security policies that will foster growth, prosperity, and peace for America’s future.”

The group's fliers include lines such as “OBAMA wants us to do things HIS WAY? Yes on Issue 2 is our chance to do things OUR WAY,” and “Yes on Issue 2 will get POLITICIANS to do the right thing on spending.”

Dick Armey’s FreedomWorks

FreedomWorks, the D.C.-based group affiliated with the Tea Party and led by Dick Armey, has distributed tens of thousands of door hangers and yard signs in Ohio that read “Yes on Issue 2 & 3.”

FreedomWorks, which is led by people who previously worked for David Koch's "Citizens for a Sound Economy," FreedomWorks' predecessor group, does not disclose its corporate donors, and its leaders are drawn heavily from the leadership of the Republican Party and right-wing operatives. FreedomWorks asserts that it is not affiliated with any Issue 2 or 3 Campaign or Committee.

The FreedomWorks website encourages visitors to download and print available door hangers (pdf) with a promise that “tens of thousands more [are] on the way.” 

The group also created the website YesForJobs.com, which allows Ohioans to download absentee ballots and provides information on where to send them. 

Ohio Liberty Council

The Ohio Liberty Council (OLC), a Tea Party group headed by 12 council board members, has released two television ads in support of Issue 2. The OLC claims group leaders and “private citizens” fund it. President, Tom Zawistowski and Vice President, Jason Mihalick lead the OLC, which does not disclose its donors.

In one OLC ad, the narrator states that Issue 2 is not one of “pro-union” or “anti-union” but rather about “taxpayers rights.”

A second television ad, “The Story of a Broke Ohio,” states that we will be in a deficit because “96 percent of schools tax revenue will go toward staff compensation,” and what they call “Gold-plated pensions and benefits.”

This statistic was pulled from a study by The Buckeye Institute, a conservative 501 (c)(3) “research organization” that has been used in a number of campaigns and as an “expert” on SB5. The Buckeye Institute “study” highlights the projected deficits of nineteen Central Ohio School Districts, and concludes that Central Ohio School Districts will have a budget deficit of nearly $1 billion by 2015 unless compensation packages are realigned or taxes are raised.

The “study” was released as an ad that appeared in twenty-two suburban news weeklies across central Ohio. The ad on its own does not mention SB 5, but it is used in a number of pro SB 5 campaigns.

The “study” places the burden of responsibility for the deficit on government employees, and ignores the fact that Ohio union officials agreed to pay more for insurance and accept wage cuts and freezes.

Americans for Prosperity

The Americans for Prosperity Ohio branch is organizing support for SB 5. AFP Ohio has scheduled more than a dozen town hall meetings across Ohio, organized phone banks and is currently urging supporters of the bill to defend Building a Better Ohio’s “Life or Death” ad featuring great-grandmother Marlene Quinn.

Americans for Prosperity is chaired by oil billionaire David Koch and funded by Koch money and other undisclosed sources. The group includes both a 501(c)(3) that received over $10 million in 2009, and a 501(c)(4) that received over $16 million that year. Neither the national AFP nor its state arms disclose their donors.

Americans for Prosperity’s Ohio branch received a web endorsement from Gov. Kasich in June. In a web-only video, Gov. Kasich praises AFP-Ohio. He refers to the group as “fighters for freedom” and thanks them for their “support to the effort to get Ohio back on track.”

Make Ohio Great

Make Ohio Great is spending thousands to aid Gov. Kasich in his defense of SB 5. Make Ohio Great is a group founded and funded by the Republican Governors Association (RGA), which spent over $9 million to elect Gov. Kasich in 2010. The RGA is funded by billionaires like David Koch and Rupert Murdoch, as well as numerous large corporations. The RGA spent tens of millions on advertisements in the 2010 election year. In August 2010 Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation donated $1 million to the RGA, along with David Koch and others. Make Ohio Great disputes claims that they are a group set up for secret cash to flow in defense of SB 5.

Make Ohio Great reportedly bought $48,100 in airtime with WBNS-TV.

In the ad, titled “Kasich Getting the Jobs Done,” Kasich asks Ohioans to “take a new path,” and boasts that he has balanced the budget without raising taxes.

Kasich may be speaking too soon, as his economic plan for Ohio depends in part on SB 5 becoming law. The cost-savings come from requiring employees pay more for health insurance, and limiting their vacation and sick time, some of which unions had agreed to voluntarily. Ending collective bargaining, though, saved the state no money -- despite messaging to the contrary by out-of-state right-wing organizations, balanced budgets need not come at the expense of collective bargaining.

Like an untested drug?

If there was a new drug that had shown some promise in curing the flu in lab trials, but there were also some indicators that it had some nasty, in some cases fatal, side effects, do you think that drug required more testing and trials, or should be rushed into production and given out as widely as possible?

That's basically the scenario we have with using value add scores for high stakes decision making when it comes to teachers. Sure no one is actually going to die, but if corporate education reformers have their way, many might falsely lose their jobs, and the money wasted will never be used to actually educate a student, and what of the opportunity cost of missing out on getting effective reforms into the classroom being missed?

Given the context-dependency of the estimators’ ability to produce accurate results, however, and our current lack of knowledge regarding prevailing assignment practices, VAM-based measures of teacher performance, as currently applied in practice and research, must be subjected to close scrutiny regarding the methods used and interpreted with a high degree of caution.

Methods of constructing estimates of teacher effects that we can trust for high-stakes evaluative purposes must be further studied, and there is much left to investigate. In future research, we will explore the extent to which various estimation methods, including more sophisticated dynamic treatment effects estimators, can handle further complexity in the DGPs.

The addition of test measurement error, school effects, time-varying teacher effects, and different types of interactions among teachers and students are a few of many possible dimensions of complexity that must be studied. Finally, diagnostics are needed to identify the structure of decay and prevailing teacher assignment mechanisms. If contextual norms with regard to grouping and assignment mechanisms can be deduced from available data, then it may be possible to determine which estimators should be applied in a given context.

We must be able to prove that evaluations and the metrics that make them up are fair, accurate and stable, and if they are to have any real benefit they must ultimately demonstrate a cost effective way to improve student achievement and education quality. We're simply not there yet and pretending we are is dangerous and carries some very real risks.

Experienced educators are critical

Here at JTf we try to bring attention to as much of the latest reputable education policy research as possible. You can check our scribd account for the back catalogue. What consistently comes to light are the following observations

• Education policy covers a vast area of issues
• A lot of research is paid for by organizations with an agenda
• Most research is in a state of relative infancy
• There's a lot of contradictory research

As we have been delving into one policy area, namely teacher attrition, we came across 2 studies. The first form the National Center for Education Statistic, titled "Beginning Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results From the First Through Third Waves of the 2007–08". One of the questions this study is looking at is the impact of early career mentoring and its impact on attrition. This study has tentatively found

Among beginning public school teachers who were assigned a mentor in 2007-08, about 8 percent were not teaching in 2008–09 and 10 percent were not teaching in 2009–10. In contrast, among the beginning public school teachers who were not assigned a mentor in 2007–08, about 16 percent were not teaching in 2008–09 and 23 percent were not teaching in 2009–10 (table 2).

In other words, having a senior teacher mentor a younger teacher has quite a dramatic effect on the attrition rates of new teachers. This is an important finding for many reasons, but especially important to understand if we were to move away from collaborative work places to a more merit based system where competition rules.

A second study, from the US Department of Education titled "Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction Final Results from a Randomized Controlled Study", had a different finding regarding the question of mentoring

Neither exposure to one year nor exposure to two years of comprehensive induction had a positive impact on retention or other teacher workforce outcomes
[...]
-There was no impact on teacher retention over the first four years of the teachers’ careers. This was true of retention in the original school, the original school district, and the teaching profession.

These are the kinds of problems that need to be wrestled with, in order to produce the most effective education system possible.

For the record, mentoring does produce important positive results, as the Dept. of Ed study found

• For teachers who received two years of comprehensive induction, there was no impact on student achievement in the first two years. In the third year, there was a positive and statistically significant impact on student achievement.

- In the third year, in districts and grades in which students’ test scores from the current and prior year are available, students of treatment teachers outperformed students of the corresponding control teachers on average. These impacts are equivalent to effect sizes of 0.11 in reading and 0.20 in math, which is enough to move the average student from the 50th percentile up 4 percentile points in reading and 8 percentile points in math.

- These results are based on the subset of data for which students’ test scores from the current and prior year are available. If the analyses are conducted without requiring test scores from the prior year, we do not find an impact on math or reading scores. This alternative approach nearly doubles the available sample of study teachers but the lack of data on students’ prior achievement results in a less precise estimate. This means that we are less likely to detect a true impact if it exists, despite the larger sample size.

We can't build a strong education system without experienced educators prepared to mentor young teachers, and that mentorship requires multiple years of effort to show results.

A primer on corporate school reform

“Corporate education reform” refers to a specific set of policy proposals currently driving education policy at the state and federal level. These proposals include:

• increased test-based evaluation of students, teachers, and schools of education
• elimination or weakening of tenure and seniority rights
• an end to pay for experience or advanced degrees
• closing schools deemed low performing and their replacement by publicly funded, but privately run charters
• replacing governance by local school boards with various forms of mayoral and state takeover or private management
• vouchers and tax credit subsidies for private school tuition
• increases in class size, sometimes tied to the firing of 5-10% of the teaching staff
• implementation of Common Core standards and something called “college and career readiness” as a standard for high school graduation:

These proposals are being promoted by reams of foundation reports, well-funded think tanks, a proliferation of astroturf political groups, and canned legislation from the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Counsel (ALEC).

Together these strategies use the testing regime that is the main engine of corporate reform to extend the narrow standardization of curricula and scripted classroom practice that we’ve seen under No Child Left Behind, and to drill down even further into the fabric of schooling to transform the teaching profession and create a less experienced, less secure, less stable and less expensive professional staff. Where NCLB used test scores to impose sanctions on schools and sometimes students (e.g., grade retention, diploma denial), test-based sanctions are increasingly targeted at teachers.

A larger corporate reform goal, in addition to changing the way schools and classrooms function, is reflected in the attacks on collective bargaining and teacher unions and in the permanent crisis of school funding across the country. These policies undermine public education and facilitate its replacement by a market-based system that would do for schooling what the market has done for health care, housing, and employment: produce fabulous profits and opportunities for a few and unequal outcomes and access for the many....

Standardized tests have been disguising class and race privilege as merit for decades. They’ve become the credit default swaps of the education world. Few people understand how either really works. Both encourage a focus on short-term gains over long-term goals. And both drive bad behavior on the part of those in charge. Yet these deeply flawed tests have become the primary policy instruments used to shrink public space, impose sanctions on teachers and close or punish schools. And if the corporate reformers have their way, their schemes to evaluate teachers and the schools of education they came from on the basis of yet another new generation of standardized tests, it will make the testing plague unleashed by NCLB pale by comparison.

[readon2 url="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/a-primer-on-corporate-school-reform/2011/10/26/gIQAyWrUKM_blog.html?wprss=answer-sheet"]Continue reading...[/readon2]