Wait, What?

Hey, Over Here… I got this standardized test for yah… Cheap.

May 17

jonpeltoBridgeport, Education, Malloy, Stefan Pryor Bridgeport, CMT, Education Reform, Malloy, Paul Vallas, Stafan Pryor 53 Comments

Three weeks ago came the news that  Bridgeport Superintendent  Paul Vallas and the corporate reformers who are busy “turning around” the Bridgeport School System decided to add another round of standardized tests to finish up the school year (even though the state-wide Connecticut Mastery Tests just took place only a few weeks ago.)  See Wait What? More Standardized Testing, Hooray!

Vallas’s Chief Administrative Officer informed Bridgeport’s teachers about the development with a memo that read “…there will be end-of-year testing in English Language Arts and mathematics that will mirror the CMT and CAPT examinations.  These tests will be administered to all students in Grades 3-11 during the week of June 4th, including Grades 9 and 11 who do not take state assessments.”

According to this new Vallas Doctrine, “traditionally, instruction wanes after the administration of the state tests.  Unfortunately, this ‘lull’ in teaching and learning deprives our students of much-needed academic support.”

Sadly Vallas’ team of administrators and consultants failed to provide any evidence to back up their claim and, of course, classroom teachers know that it is only after the tests are done that some of the “real learning” begins.

But Bridgeport is not alone, Connecticut’s recently adopted “education reform” law institutes a new system of standardized reading tests in Kindergarten, 1^st and 2^nd grade.  Apparently legislators were persuaded that starting the standardized testing process in 3^rd grade was just way too late for children’s development.

Back in Bridgeport, neither Vallas nor anyone in his operation explained how that school system, which is already facing a deficit, will come up with the funds needed to buy and score nearly 20,000 standardized tests, but you can bet they aren’t being delivered by the copy center at Staples.

Preparing and scoring standardized tests is big business…

And not just any company has the expertise to develop these tests.

It takes special talents.

For example, the Associated Press recently wrote about the standardized testing situation in New Jersey where Governor Christi, like Governor Malloy, is a big fan of having more standardized testing.

The AP wrote that a recent New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge test included asking some third-graders “to write about a secret and why it was hard to keep.”

After some parents raised concerns, including the question of what happens if a child’s secret has to do with a crime; the state’s Education Department said they were reviewing what had occurred and would then make a decision about whether to keep the question as part of the test.

Meanwhile, it was reported that in New York, the education department decided not to count six multiple-choice questions in that state’s eighth-grade reading exam because, upon review, it was determined that the questions that followed a passage “about a hare and a talking pineapple” did not make sense.

New York officials also admitted that the standardized math tests given in 4^th and 8^th grade included errors.

Not to worry though, standardized test scores are really only intended to provide teachers and administrators with a sense of how the student is doing…oh and soon they will also count for 22 to 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation.

But think about it, as long as the questions are wrong for every child, no one teacher will be disproportionately impacted.

For the AP story go to http://online.wsj.com/article/AP474d1eae404746a8afa7174eac05333b.html

And from the most recent Connecticut Department of Education Report:

“The CMT assesses approximately 250,000 students on their application of skills and knowledge in the academic content areas of mathematics, reading and writing in Grades 3 through 8, and science in Grades 5 and 8. This year marks the sixth administration of the Fourth Generation CMT, which was first administered in March 2006. The March 2006 administration serves as a baseline year for examining changes in student performance over the course of the Fourth Generation.”  The report can be found here:  http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/lib/sde/PDF%5Cpressroom%5C2011_CMT_Press_Release.pdf

Vallas Says No Prob – $1M deal won’t affect his work in Bridgeport

May 16

jonpeltoBridgeport, Education, Malloy, Paul Vallas, Stefan Pryor Bridgeport, Education Reform, Malloy, Paul Vallas, Stefan Pryor 21 Comments

Somewhere between “Look Ma, No Hands” and the 2008 hit “Handlebars” by the rock band Flobots (lyrics: “I can ride my bike with no handlebars, No handlebars, No handlebars”), stands education reformer extraordinaire Paul Vallas who, as we predicted yesterday, announced today that there is absolutely no problem because he can be both superintendent of schools in Bridgeport ($229,000 a year plus benefits) and take on a $1 million dollar contract to “repair low-performing schools in his home state of Illinois” without breaking a sweat.

My personal recommendation is for every one of Connecticut’s 45,000 teachers and 9,000 school administrators to drop a note to your local board of education tomorrow informing them that starting next September you plan not only to be teaching (or administrating) full-time but that you are also planning to have another job outside of school but that they needn’t worry that the other job will get in the way.

Besides, as Vallas pointed out to the Connecticut Post today, the new million dollar contract is actually with The Vallas Group and not Paul Vallas directly.  His role is only to “provide guidance and direction” or as he says “my role is going to be modest. It is going to be more supervisory.”

According to Bridgeport’s superintendent, the workload will fall on his team of seven or eight other educators.

Of course, “other educator” implies that Vallas is an educator, but he was actually the budget chief in Chicago before becoming their CEO of schools.  When it comes to superintendent Vallas we can be sure of one thing – and that is that he is not an educator.

Meanwhile, you’d be able to take a look at who those other educators are, except that when you go to his “company website,” it says “under construction.”  See:   http://70.32.115.193/.

Vallas did tell the CT Post that he’ll stick with Bridgeport at least until January 1, 2013.

Although the Post also reported that Bridgeport’s state-appointed school board is rushing to extend Vallas’ contract before the new democratically elected school board can take office.

Observers will recall that the Connecticut State Supreme Court ruled that the State of Connecticut acted illegally when it took over the Bridgeport Schools and replaced the elected members of Bridgeport’s Board of Education with people appointed by the Commissioner of Education. The Court mandated that a new school board election be held.

Worried that the new school board my choose a different path, the existing illegal school board is trying to sign multi-year contracts.

One might ask Governor Malloy and Education Commissioner Pryor why that are allowing a board that they have been told was  illegally appointed to not only continue to function, but openly strive to prevent the upcoming democratically elected board from having a proper rule in their own school system.  But, apparently no reporter has asked the Governor or Commissioner that question.

Good news though, the illegally appointed board chair did tell the CT Post that while Vallas’ contract does allow him to do outside consulting, that he is not compensated for any time that he is away from his job as Bridgeport’s superintendent.

I’d like to see the vouchers on that one…

In fact, if there is anyone out there who believes that, I’ve got a bridge to sell them.

You can find the CT Post story at: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Vallas-1M-deal-won-t-affect-Bridgeport-work-3560753.php#ixzz1v4r3suRh

Meanwhile, it turns out that we have Mayor Bloomberg to thank….

May 16

jonpeltoEducation, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst Education Reform, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst 23 Comments

Yup,

Despite having his own full agenda of issues, it turns out that we have Mayor Bloomberg to thank for the obnoxious television advertising blitz that Michelle Rhee and StudentsFirst ran here in Connecticut leading up to the vote on Governor Malloy’s “education reform” bill.

As you may have seen, Reuters is reporting that:

“Rhee has set up StudentsFirst as a network of interlocking lobbying groups, advocacy organizations and political action committees. By law, she does not have to disclose her donors, and she refuses to discuss her fundraising.  

But an adviser to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg confirms that he provided financial backing for Rhee’s recent push into Connecticut politics.”

See the story here:  http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/sns-rt-us-usa-education-rheebre84e1oa-20120515,0,7834441.story

Evaluate Teachers based on Standardized Test Scores? Can an “education reformer” please answer the following question?

May 16

jonpeltoEducation, Malloy, Stefan Pryor Education Reform, Malloy, Stefan Pryor 16 Comments

As reported in today’s CTMirror, it wasn’t even two hours after Governor Malloy signed the “education reform” bill into law before the three groups representing the school superintendents, principals and school boards went back on their word, claiming that the new law gave them the right to implement policies that student’s standardized test scores can account for 50 percent of a teachers evaluation rather than the 22.5 percent that was listed in the draft bill and agreed to by all of the parties last January.

I suppose we have to admit that it is really our fault for even thinking these people were committed to a collegial process to improve Connecticut’s urban schools.

But more importantly – as to the substance of the issue of linking standardized test scores to the annual evaluation of teachers…

Let me ask the question one more time.

And hopefully, this time there will be a “reformer” out there who will explain how standardized test scores are supposed to be interpreted and used as part of the teacher evaluation process?

In Meriden, where test scores are low due to poverty and language  barriers, is a 5 percent improvement in the 4^th grade master test in reading the same, equal to or less than a 1% improvement in Avon where test scores start out three times higher. (Putting aside the fact that the 1 percent, and maybe even the 5 percent, isn’t statistically significant enough to tell us that any movement has actually taken place).

So anyway, is the 5 percent better than the 1 percent?

Okay, let’s change the framework and talk about test results from the same town.

Let’s imagine we have two 4^th grade classes.  One is taught by Ms. K and the other by Mrs. R.

This year, “Ms. K” has a class of 25 students (6 of whom aren’t fluent in English and 2 have special education needs.) and “Mrs. R” has a class of 22 students (all of whom speak English but 4 of them have special education needs.)

Once again, the test results come in.

Now we can’t rate the teacher’s skill based on this year’s 4^th grade class compared to last year’s 4^th grade since last year’s class was a completely different set of students.

And we can’t compare the teacher’s skill based on Miss Ks 4^th grade class compared to how the class did a year ago when they took the 3^rd grade test because, as we know, students don’t move forward as a block from class to class.  Most schools change the mix each year as the students go through the system.

And we can’t compare Ms. K’s class to Mrs. R’s class because the makeup of the classes is so different. (I.e. the number of English language learners, the number of special education students).

So obviously a 2 percent change in Ms. K’s class with her six non-English-speaking students is different from a 2 percent change in Mrs. R’s class with all English speaking students.

But yet the Governor, the Governor’s Chief Advisor, the Commissioner of Education, the “education reformers” and some media columnists have all said that teachers will finally be held accountable.

For example, the Courant’s Rick Green wrote today that “Finally, we may be able to clearly and fairly assess good teachers….a significant new evaluation program emerged that could become the legislation’s biggest achievement, if it works. Teachers must demonstrate they are effective. Regular evaluations will be based, in part, on whether students are learning.”

Actually, the bill doesn’t say that evaluations will be based on whether students are learning,it says it will be based on the results of standardized test scores.

Okay, so tell us — the way reformers talk about it — there must be a simple answer.  How do the results from the standardized test scores provide information that allows us to hold the teacher accountable?

See CTMirror Story here:  http://ctmirror.com/story/16357/education-celebration-ends-abruptly-over-questions-role-standardized-tests-teacher-grade

NEWS FLASH: “Education Reform is a Victory for the Children” (as Bridgeport’s Paul Vallas Nails $1 million “education reform” contract from Illinois)

May 15

jonpeltoAchievement First/ConnCAN, Bridgeport, Charter Schools, Malloy, Steven Adamowski Achievement First, ConnCAN, Education Reform, Malloy, Paul Vallas, Stefan Pryor 26 Comments

The clarion call of the education reformers was “let’s not focus on benefiting the adults… it’s all about the children.”

So, with that in mind, it may come as a surprise that today’s Crain’s Chicago Business Journal is reporting that Bridgeport’s interim school superintendent, Paul Vallas, is headed to Illinois to collect a $1 million contract from the Illinois State Board of Education.

Who said “education reform” wasn’t good business.

And what pray tell will Paul Vallas be doing for $1 million?

Wait for it —- Vallas will be coordinating the state’s new intervention program in low-performing school districts.  Hey, that was our idea!

Vallas, known for leaving a trail of destruction behind him, has already done his magic in Chicago once before.  From there he went on to Philadelphia where he started the school closing frenzy that is now expected to shift 40 percent of all of Philadelphia’s public school students to charter schools.  Then he was on to New Orleans where he literally fired every public school teacher to make room for a major “charter school experiment” and from there to Haiti (destruction unknown) and now, most recently, to Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Of course, news from Illinois is that another firm actually bid a lower price for that state contact, but things being what they are, Vallas ended up as the State Board of Education’s choice.  I’m sure it doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that the man who is presently the Chairman of the State Board of Education was previously Chairman of the Chicago Board of Education when Vallas was superintendent there in Chicago.

There is no word from Bridgeport how this development might impact his $229,000 a year salary revamping the Bridgeport school system, but Crain’s is reporting that the Bridgeport job “is a short-term gig.”

But hey, this guy is probably so efficient that he can work full-time fixing Bridgeport’s schools and the low-performing schools in Illinois without breaking a sweat.

Also, recall that despite the Malloy Administration’s illegal attempt to take over the Bridgeport school system, Bridgeport’s Mayor and Fairfield County corporate executives were able to push out the former superintendent and bring in Vallas.

One of the leaders of the coup was none other than Andrew Boas, a long-time board member of both Achievement First and ConnCAN.  Boas now serves as Chairman of Achievement First’s Bridgeport Academy.

You know Achievement First, the charter school management company that was formed by Stefan Pryor and friends and where Pryor served as a Director for the eight years before resigning to become Malloy’s education commissioner and his point person on education reform.

Wait, What? readers will also remember that Achievement First, Inc. is one of the biggest financial beneficiaries of Malloy’s “Education Reform” bill.

By the way, Malloy signed the bill into law today.

But as the reformers say —- those who support Connecticut’s public schools are for the status quo and only care about the interests of adults whereas the “reformers” know that this entire battle is really for the benefit of the children… just ask Paul Vallas.

Are StudentsFirst and other “Education Reform” groups under investigation for Ethics Violations?

May 15

jonpeltoEducation, Ethics, Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst Education Reform, Ethics, Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst 24 Comments

It’s a very valid question.

It certainly appeared that StudentsFirst, Excel Brideport, Teach for America – Connecticut Chapter and other groups pushing Governor Malloy’s “education reform” bill engaged in lobbying activities that were not properly reported to the Office of State Ethics.  If they did engage in those activities they could face significant penalties and fines for breaking Connecticut law.

The problem with answering the question is that there is a state law the exempts ethics complaints from Connecticut’s Freedom of Information law and sets up a different standard that give extensive protection to any group or person who is being charged with an ethics violation.

Innocent until proven guilty is the hallmark of our system of justice, but at least in criminal law, the public has a right to know whether someone has or has not been arrested.

But a very different standard exists when it comes to protecting public officials or those who may have violated the state’s ethics code.

Although these provisions were intended to protect people from being hit with frivolous ethics complaints, the present law actually prevents the public from getting information that it has a right to know.

However, a complaint alleging a violation of the Code of Ethics must remain confidential until one of the following criteria is met: (1) after a judge trial referee makes a finding of probable cause, (2) upon the request of the respondent or (3) upon an agreed resolution of the matter by consent order.

This means that while the Office of State Ethics is investigating a complaint, no one, including the person who filed the complainant, the respondent, any witnesses or the Board Members and staff of the Office of State Ethics may disclose the existence of a complaint.

And there is even a $10,000 penalty should the person filling the complaint reveals that he or she has taken that action.

Talk about a disincentive to step forward and file a complaint!

So the quick answer is that we don’t know if investigations are or are not presently taking place.

If I, for example, filed an ethics complaint against some or all of these “education reform” organizations, I could not inform my readers of that fact.

Furthermore, if someone else out there filed a complaint, they could not legally tell me that a complaint was pending.

And finally, if the Office of State Ethics began their own investigation, which is permitted under state law, then they could not inform anyone (except for the organization being investigated) that such an activity was taking place.

Now that I think about it, perhaps this is exactly the situation in which that great phrase comes into play — “Let me just say that I can neither confirm nor deny that the Office of State Ethics is investigating StudentsFirst or any other “education reform” group at this time.”

In fact, even if I could confirm such information, the law would prohibit me from doing so.

So there, for those of you who have been asking, you’ve got your answer.

Remember, he or she who writes the rules…. ah…. writes the rules.

With Friends Like That….Malloy’s Allies Do Him No Favors

May 14

jonpeltoAchievement First/ConnCAN, Charter Schools, Education, Malloy, Stefan Pryor ConnCAN, Education Reform, Malloy 57 Comments

Here is yet another example of why Governor Malloy’s favorability ratings have dropped to the lowest of any new Democratic governor in the nation. 

Below you will find a memo about the new education bill that ConnCAN’s CEO sent out earlier today to his list of “education reformers.” You’ll note the usual rhetoric along with a somewhat misleading interpretation of the bill and their “agenda for next steps.”

I’m actually starting to think that ConnCAN and the other “reform” groups really don’t want Dan Malloy to serve more than one term as Connecticut’s governor.

Either that or they have such little understanding and regard for Connecticut’s citizens that they don’t understand the ramifications of continuing their anti-teacher, anti-union and anti-public education rhetoric.

From the very start, Malloy and those who favor privatizing portions of Connecticut’s public education system have bullied and insulted and denigrated Connecticut’s teachers and our public schools.

First the Governor said that all that teachers have to do is show up for four years and they got tenure.  That from a group of individuals who wouldn’t last a day, let alone a week running a classroom.

Then Malloy admitted that he didn’t mind “teaching to the test” as long as the test scores went up.

And throughout the entire debate, ConnCAN and the rest of these corporate reformers have sought to cast Connecticut’s 45,000 teachers and our state’s public schools as utter and complete failures.

However, those of us who grew up here in Connecticut, as well as those who moved here, truly appreciate how lucky we are to have such great teachers and schools for our children.

There’s simply no doubt that that the overwhelming majority of Connecticut’s teachers and other school personnel are outstanding professionals who are dedicating their lives to providing our children with the knowledge and skills needed to succeed.

There is also no question that poverty, language barriers, insufficient state funding for schools and other factors beyond the control of teachers continue to have a major negative impact on the education system in our urban centers.

And yes, our state government must do more to address those problems.

But to suggest that Connecticut’s “education system” is broken is beyond absurd.

Connecticut’s graduation rates exceed 92 percent, well above the national average, and that includes the unacceptably low numbers in our cities.  In the vast majority of our school districts, graduation rates exceed 95 percent.  Last year, with more than 175,000 public high school students, the statewide dropout rate was 2.8 percent.

Furthermore, as stupid and useless as the standardized tests are, the state-wide results are nothing short of extraordinary.

Take the most recent 8^th grade Connecticut Mastery Test scores in reading.  75 percent of Connecticut’s 8^th graders were at or above goal and an incredible 1/3^rd scored at the advanced level.  The percent of 8^th grade students who got below basic scores has dropped 50 percent since 2005 and is now below 10 percent.

By every measure, Connecticut schools are the envy of the country.

And yet, once again, ConnCAN begins their “assessment” of the “reform” bill by bashing teachers claiming that the bill “brings about essential steps to raise standards for educators.”

Raise standards for teachers?

To Riccards and the rest of them I say enough of the bullsh*t!  Their lies don’t work  and are not welcome in our state.

It should come as no surprise to Governor Malloy and his advisors that his favorability ratings have tumbled to record levels.  For months he has been engaged in a series of unwarranted and inappropriate attacks on Connecticut’s teachers.  Between his own actions and those of his allies, Connecticut’s citizens have a growing sense of how little he and the people around him really understand about Connecticut and its people.

Take a look at ConnCAN’s memo and you’ll undoubtedly conclude, as I have, that Malloy’s favorability ratings will certainly climb the day ConnCAN closes its operations.

***********************

MEMORANDUM

May 14, 2012

TO: Interested Parties

FR: Patrick Riccards, ConnCAN CEO

RE: ConnCAN Analysis of Senate Bill 458: An Act Concerning Education Reform

At the start of the 2012 legislative session, Governor Malloy put a stake in the ground and called on the legislature to enact bold reforms that would result in better outcomes for students. Over the course of the last few months, despite efforts to water down these reforms, the governor, education commissioner, and legislative leaders prioritized children’s needs ahead of adults’ interests and passed the most significant, sweeping education reforms in Connecticut’s history.

ConnCAN supported the call for bold, student-centered reform and joined with families, faith leaders, educators, community and business leaders, principals, superintendents, school boards, and countless others in the calls for change. The final result, Senate Bill 458, brings about essential steps to raise standards for educators, allows immediate action to improve failing schools, increases access to high-quality public school choices, and sets the table for real school finance reform. These are policy goals ConnCAN has long supported and that have been enacted in other states. Finally, Connecticut is no longer tinkering around the edges or dipping a toe in the water. This comprehensive set of reforms will establish a strong foundation for efforts to ensure great schools for all Connecticut children and ensure a bright economic future for our state.

Following are some highlights from S.B. 458 and recommendations for next steps on priority issues.

Principal and Teacher Quality

Research shows that great teachers and principals can literally change students’ lives, and that just one ineffective educator can have a lasting negative impact on students. S.B. 458 recognizes educators’ impact and will help attract, identify, and develop talented teachers and school leaders based on their effectiveness with students. It will also allow for swift and fair dismissal of ineffective educators. The law builds upon the evaluation guidelines developed by the Performance Evaluation Advisory Council (PEAC) and approved by the State Board of Education to ensure a high-quality evaluation system that puts primary emphasis on student achievement growth. Specifically, the law will improve:

• Teacher and Principal Evaluations. The state will pilot the PEAC evaluation model in 8-10 districts in the next two years, which will then be implemented statewide. This system will measure teacher and principal performance with a balanced set of measures that emphasizes student achievement growth. Teachers and principals will be evaluated annually and will receive one of four performance ratings: Ineffective or Below Standard, Developing, Proficient and Exemplary. In addition, the State Department of Education (SDE) will conduct an implementation audit in a select number of districts each year to assure that the system is implemented faithfully and effectively.
• Recruitment. The 10 lowest-performing districts will be eligible for grants of up to $200,000 to offer employment to up to five college seniors who attend an in-state teacher preparation program and graduate in the top 10 percent of their class.
• Preparation. Teachers will be required to have more clinical experience (four semesters). In addition, the State Board of Education and the Board of Regents created an Education Preparation Advisory Council that holds teacher preparation programs accountable for measures of quality, including graduates’ performance in the classroom (e.g., on teacher evaluations and student achievement data).
• Professional Development. The law eliminates the requirement of Continuing Education Units (CEUs), many of which have little connection to educator needs, and replaces them with at least 18 hours per year of small group or individual instructional training focused on best practices to improve student achievement. Professional development for school/district leaders must also include 15 hours of training to improve evaluation and support of teachers in the new state evaluation program. The commissioner of education will also create professional development in reading instruction based on student assessment data, and will annually review professional development of early childhood teachers (those who teach students up to third grade) to ensure quality.
• Tenure. Teachers can only earn tenure after four years based on effective practice as shown in their evaluation ratings.
• Dismissal. Ineffectiveness is now one of the grounds for dismissal. The law also reduces the hearing timeline for a tenured teacher’s dismissal based on ineffectiveness from 75 to 45 days and places a limit on the hours of evidence and testimony. Further, it maintains the school board’s authority over dismissal decisions, reduces the panel of arbiters from three to one, and limits the scope of the hearing to whether the evaluation process was followed in good faith and the evaluations were reasonable in light of the evidence presented.

Next Steps

Once the evaluation system has been vetted through the pilot, teacher placement, certification, salary, and career advancement opportunities must be overhauled so that they are based on an educator’s effectiveness, not just seat time and degrees earned. Although the law creates a new “Distinguished Educator Designation,” this is not a certification level and will not necessarily entitle teachers to additional pay or career advancement. The state also must fix binding arbitration to add students’ best interests to the statutory list of priority considerations. Finally, to ensure we have the highest-quality cadre of school leaders, the state should create a School Leadership Academy (funding for this Academy was cut by the General Assembly).

School Finance

S.B. 458 established commonsense measures to improve transparency, efficiency, and equity in school funding across all our public schools.

• Common Chart of Accounts. Beginning in June 2015, the state will have a Common Chart of Accounts for all public schools’ and districts’ expenditures and revenues. This uniform accounting system will finally allow the public to access and compare school financing consistently and transparently.
• Conditional Aid for the Lowest-Performing Districts. S.B. 458 includes millions of dollars in ECS increases for the 30 lowest-performing districts (the “Alliance Districts”) on the condition that the districts spend the money wisely. These districts must develop an SDE-approved reform plan and implement it faithfully. This program establishes an important precedent for conditional aid in Connecticut.
• Increased Funding for Charter Schools. Connecticut’s public charter schools are showing promising results, particularly for students with the greatest learning needs, and are an essential component of state efforts to close our worst-in-the-nation achievement gaps. Families are increasingly demanding these high-quality options, and the state heard their call. Funding will be increased for students in public charter schools to $10,500 in 2012-13, $11,000 in 2013-14, and $11,500 for 2014-15 (up from the current $9,400). This represents the largest increase in per-pupil expenditures for charters in the state’s history and brings charter funding closer in line to what students in surrounding districts receive in public dollars for their public education.

Next Steps

In the coming years, the state must fully overhaul our broken school funding formula. At a minimum, this must include improvements to the formula that better account for student need and town wealth. The formula must also include all public school students in all public schools. Future reforms should also encourage districts or regions to adopt student-based budgeting (Hartford currently uses this method). Such systems direct funds to all public school students in the schools they attend based on their learning needs, and shift more resources from central offices into schools, providing schools with greater flexibility over how these dollars are spent. Finally, the state should provide financial rewards and increased flexibility for our highest-performing or most improving schools and districts and create of an innovation fund to spark reform at the school and district level.

School Turnarounds

S.B. 458 provides the State Department of Education with the tools needed to perform the difficult work of turning around failing schools. Thousands of students in Connecticut currently attend schools that are failing to educate them, and many of these schools have been failing their students for years. S.B. 458 finally sets the stage for dramatic, results-oriented, student-centered interventions that will change the trajectory of students’ lives.

• Commissioner’s Network. The centerpiece of these efforts will be a system of state support and intervention for up to 25 of our lowest-performing schools within the next three years. The Commissioner’s Network offers the right ingredients for success, but let there be no mistake: turning around low-performing schools is incredibly hard work for all involved in the process, and it will require a sustained good-faith effort by all involved to get these schools where they need to be. The commissioner will provide funding, technical assistance, and operating support to Network schools, and may also provide financial support to teachers. Details of the Commissioner’s Network include:

• No more than two schools from the same district each year, and no more than four schools in any district may be included in the Network within the first three years of the program.
• Schools will remain in the Network for a three-year minimum, with the potential for one-year extensions up to a total of five years. After three years, the commissioner will determine if a school is ready to return to local district control. If a school remains in the Network for five years, the commissioner will develop a plan with the local board of education to transition the school back to local district control.
• The commissioner and SDE will issue guidelines to clarify the turnaround process, but the basic process is as follows:
• Step 1: Turnaround committees will be established at each school, consisting of one district administrator and one district parent appointed by the local board of education, two teachers and one parent appointed by the union, and commissioner/designee (the superintendent is a non-voting member).
• Step 2: An “operations and instructional” audit will be conducted by SDE in consultation with the committee, as well as the local board of education and School Governance Council. Following the audit, the committee must develop a consensus turnaround plan based on one of five approved models.
• Step 3: If consensus is reached, the turnaround plan is developed and submitted to the State Board of Education for approval. If there is no consensus or plan, or the commissioner does not approve the plan, he/she will develop a plan for the school. Plans will be implemented no later than the start of the 2014-15 school year.
• High-performing non-profit organizations (such as charter school operators) can run up to six of these schools. The commissioner will also develop a plan for one school starting July 2012 that may turn management over to a non-profit education management organization.
• The commissioner will be able to use turnaround plans to supplement and/or amend current collective bargaining agreements and conduct financial impact bargaining in these schools. Any disagreements about contracts will go through an expedited binding arbitration process. In resolving these contract disputes, the arbitrator must put the highest priority on the educational interests of the state and the students’ needs. This bill also permits “election to work agreements,” an important reform that can allow for increased flexibility not allowed in traditional labor-management contracts.
• The commissioner will issue a report annually to the legislature’s Education Committee on the performance of Network schools.
• Increased access to public school choice options. The bill calls for additional state-authorized charter schools and provides financial incentives to create locally authorized charters. In addition, the bill explores alternatives to the current enrollment practices to try to serve more high-need learners, especially special education students and English language learners. Unlike previous drafts of this bill, the final law does not impose an untested statewide opt-out lottery system, but requires instead that SDE conduct a study of the opt-out lottery for charters to identify feasibility, cost, methods, etc. to be submitted to the Education Committee by February 2014.
• Pilot program to get all kids reading by grade four. The bill creates a program to implement an evidence-based approach to teaching children to read. It will provide the instruction, measurement, and accountability to get all kids reading at grade level by fourth grade.
• Early childhood education. The bill creates 1,000 new preschool seats with a priority on serving children in our lowest performing districts.
• School Performance Index (SPI) and District Performance Index (DPI). The bill creates a new system of accountability, support, and intervention for districts and schools. These systems weight student performance by the number of students performing at Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, Goal, and Advanced on the CMT and CAPT tests, with higher weights applied to students at higher performance levels. Districts and schools will be assigned a rating on a 1 (highest performing) to 5 (lowest performing) scale. Districts and schools with a rating of 3 will be required to submit improvement plans to SDE, while those rated 4 or 5 will be subject to more intensive intervention, including the appointment of a superintendent or special master, who is selected by the commissioner.

Next Steps

Future reforms must ensure that all schools, especially schools of choice, have sufficient flexibility and autonomy from local rules and collective bargaining agreements in order to implement changes that will meet the needs of students. Additional efforts must be made to recruit the highest-quality leaders, teachers, and education providers to work in our highest-need schools. In addition, students trapped in failing schools should be given the option to choose to attend a higher-performing public school, and more high-quality schools of choice must be created to meet the significant demand for these options by students and families.

“Education Reform’s” Corporate Advocates spent $2.2 Million and counting in support of Malloy’s bill

May 14

jonpeltoAchievement First/ConnCAN, Charter Schools, Education, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, Stefan Pryor, StudentsFirst, Teach for America Achievement First, CABE, CBIA, ConnCAN, Education Reform, Malloy, Students for Education Reform, StudentsFirst 6 Comments

Over the first 120 days of the 2012 Legislative Session, corporate lobby groups spent over $2.2 million (and counting) in their effort to pass Governor Malloy’s “education reform” bill.  These numbers reveal that corporate reformers outspent those supporting district schools by at least two to one.

Under Connecticut law, corporations and organizations must report how much money they spent on lobbying, although they don’t need to reveal where they got their advocacy funds.  Unions, on the other hand, may only use funds provided by their union members.

The reports (or lack thereof) also reveal that some of the groups involved in the lobbying effort on behalf of Malloy’s “reform” bill failed to register to lobby and failed to report their activities as required by Connecticut law.  Individuals and groups involved in lobbying who fail to register can be fined up to $10,000 per violation.

An assumption can be made that investigations into these illegal lobbying activities have or might begin in the near future.

Michelle Rhee’s national organization, StudentsFirst (called, as we now know GNEPSA in Connecticut) led the way spending nearly $700,000 to back Malloy’s bill.  ConnCAN, the charter group advocacy firm set up by Achievement First, the charter school management company spent a half a million dollars.  The newly formed Connecticut Council for Education Reform added over $100,000 to the effort.

CBIA, the Connecticut Business and Industry Association, also spent close to half a million dollars on television ads supporting Malloy and his “education reform” proposal.

As to those annoying and misleading phone calls people got, you have Patrick Riccards and ConnCAN to thank.  They sank over $107,000 into a contract with a Chicago firm for calls to Connecticut voters urging them to contact their legislators in support of Malloy’s bill.

Some of the lobbying violations appear significant enough that I’m sure we’ll hear more about it.

Malloy Not Alone: Last Minute Corporate Contributions from StudentsFirst to Missouri Democratic Legislators pays off

May 13

jonpeltoCharter Schools, Corporate Viewpoint, Education, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, Steven Adamowski, StudentsFirst Adamowski, Education Reform, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst 29 Comments

A few readers have complained that it’s been unfair to single out Governor Malloy for his support of “education reform.”  Despite the fact that he proposed the most anti-teacher, anti-union proposal of any Democratic governor in the nation, these apologists claim that there are lots of Democrats supporting Michelle Rhee and the corporate reformers.

Well, these Malloy defenders will be happy to hear that a few days ago a small group of Democratic state legislators joined their Republican colleagues in Missouri to pass a ‘reform” package there that includes outlawing the use of seniority when it comes to teacher contracts.

The bill passed by a vote of 83-78 (one vote more than constitutionally required in Missouri).

Democratic Minority Leader Mike Talboy, one of a group of legislators who had recently received campaign contributions directly from StudentsFirst switched sides providing the “reformers” with the votes necessary to pass the bill.  Not only are corporate contributions allowed in Missouri, but corporations can give unlimited amounts to political campaigns and can do so during the legislative session.

According to published reports from Missouri, “the bill initially did not have the required constitutional majority of 82 votes, but the voting board was held open for nearly fifteen minutes while House Majority Floor Leader Tim Jones and other caucus leaders walked the floor, pressuring representatives to change their votes. Eventually, enough votes were changed to pass the bill by a vote of 83-76, one more than the required majority and the board was closed.”  Representative Jones was another one of the legislators to recently receive a campaign contribution from StudentsFirst.

Originally the bill also required that 50 percent of a teacher’s annual evaluation must reflect the standardized test scores of their students.  In Missouri, the mandated link between evaluations and standardized test score was removed prior to the final passage of the legislation, whereas in Connecticut, Malloy’s plan now provides for a 10 district pilot program linking evaluations and test scores before the concept is spread statewide.

Considering test scores are linked to many factors beyond a teacher’s control, such as poverty and language barriers, neither the Malloy Administration nor the Republicans in Missouri have been able to articulate how linking evaluations and test scores will work.

For example, is a 5 percent improvement in a low-income district the same as a 1 percent change in a high income district?

Alternatively, if a teacher with 20 students has four special needs students and four students who aren’t proficient in the English language, is a 2 percent improvement in test scores the same as a 2 percent improvement for a teacher with 22 students of which five have special education needs and two face language barriers?

As we know from their work here in Connecticut, the most effective way reformers improve test scores is by removing the lowest performing students from taking the test at all.

When Windham’s Special Master, Steven Adamowski, was superintendent of schools in Hartford, he won renown for increasing test scores by 4 to 5 percent.  It was only later that researchers discovered that the success in raising test scores was statistically due to the fact he removed 10 percent of Hartford’s lowest performing students from the pool of students who even took the Connecticut Master Tests.  You have to give them an A for ingenuity.

Surprisingly, despite a major report on the maneuver published this year by Connecticut Voices for Children, Governor Malloy overlooked the facts when his “education reform” road show stopped in Windham.  There, Malloy publicly applauded Adamowski’s track record in getting Hartford test scores up.

Meanwhile, none of these issues seem to bother the corporate “reforms” who continue to “invest” in the blossoming education reform industry.

Here in Connecticut “education reformers” spent over a million dollars in the last three months to support Malloy’s “education reform.”  It should come as no surprise that in states like Missouri, where corporations can donate directly to legislators, groups such as StudentsFirst successfully used that strategy, handing out checks in the days immediately leading up to the vote on the reforms they were supporting.

Oh, it’s good to be Michelle Rhee;

May 12

jonpeltoEducation, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst Education Reform, Malloy, Michelle Rhee, StudentsFirst 35 Comments

Imagine.  Knowing you are always right…

And regardless of whether you are right or wrong, having the resources to influence public policy at any time and in any place around the nation.

GNEPSA – the group formerly known as StudentsFirst (well, the group StudentsFirst created to be their more politically acceptable front in Connecticut), dropped another $283,889 on behalf of Governor Malloy’s “Education Reform” bill in the last month of the legislative session.  That brings her reported total Connecticut lobbying expenditures over the past three months to just about $640,000 and counting.

Michelle Rhee, the woman Malloy refused to stand with at an “education” rally was, none the less, kind enough to pay for a half a million dollars in radio and television advertising proclaiming Malloy and his plan the savior when it came to putting Connecticut’s public education system on track.  Trashing teachers and their unions throughout the ad, Rhee’s operatives were kind enough to mention Malloy’s name no less than 8 times during the 30 and 60 second spots.

And on May 9^th, as Governor Malloy crowed about his “victory” over the forces dedicated to the “status quo,” the most anti-teacher, anti-union force in the “Education Reform” industry packed up and headed on to the next battle ground.

Readers will recall the arrival of StudentsFirst and GNEPSA earlier this Session.

Initially StudentsFirst set up an office in Hartford and hired DePino Associates to lobby for them at the Capitol.  Michelle Rhee, Founder and CEO of StudentsFirst, came to Hartford on March 14th to speak at a Capitol rally, lobby officials and conduct media interviews.

But what stuck out was how the paperwork they filed with the Office of State Ethics didn’t reflect reality.  Actually, now it turns out that in February, StudentsFirst DID register but almost immediately withdrew their registration and, instead, a group called GNEPSA registered but listed StudentsFirst employees as their organization’s representatives.

By February 17, 2012, Angelia Dickens (StudentsFirst’s General Counsel) filed that second set of paperwork.  One of StudentsFirst’s Vice Presidents was listed as a “Principal Officer or Director” of GNEPSA and StudentsFirst’s Chief Operating Officer was listed as the person responsible for overseeing the group’s lobbying activities in the state.

Nearly 60 days later, on April 11th, Jeri Powell, another attorney with StudentsFirst filed amended paperwork, again under the name of GNEPSA, for 7 employees of StudentsFirst to lobby in Connecticut (including Michelle Rhee who had already been lobbying in the state a month earlier). The report also back-dated the names of seven StudentsFirst employees who were now listed as having been lobbying since about February 22, 2012.

On top of all that (two days earlier, on April 9th), Angelia Dickens, the StudentsFirst General Counsel who filed the original paperwork in February, filed GNEPSA’s mandatory quarterly lobbying report showing that GNEPSA had spent $1,684.45 in February and another $4,469.48 in March to lobby the Legislature, along with $326,120 for television ads, $18,225 for fundraising activities and $8,362.22 on other expenses.

Oh, and last but not least, on April 9th, the same day GNEPSA filed its quarterly report, StudentsFirst also purchased GNEPSA.org through GODaddy.com.  The required paperwork revealing that the Director of Technology at StudentsFirst was the individual purchasing the website name.

Why go through these gyrations?

Because someone, probably based here, was smart enough to appreciate that in a Democratic state like Connecticut it was far better to end the radio and television ads with the words paid for by GNEPSA rather than paid for by StudentsFirst, an organizations that has received its funding from some of the biggest anti-Democratic corporate leaders including Rubert Murdoch.

It was at that point that Brian Lockhart, the reporter for the Stamford Advocate and Hearst newspapers, started digging into the story and finally managed to get a response about all these developments from StudentsFirst.

The StudentsFirst spokesperson wrote;

“You got us. When we listed the CEO of StudentsFirst on GNEPSA’s public disclosure forms, designed GNEPSA’s logo to be derivative of the StudentsFirst logo and had the GNEPSA website take you to the StudentsFirst website* where you saw a StudentsFirst TV ad, we were sure no one would know GNEPSA and StudentsFirst were connected. All joking aside, it’s not uncommon for advocacy groups to use different names when carrying out different functions. Our 13,000-plus Connecticut members have been working in the state for over a year organizing at the grass-roots. And with this important legislation being debated now we are looking at a number of different vehicles to carry their voice to the legislature. You’ll be hearing more about GNEPSA and our other StudentsFirst effort in the coming days.”

I guess you have to give them credit for their honesty.  Their decision to break Connecticut’s ethics laws was because “it’s not uncommon for advocacy groups to use different names in carrying out different functions.”

I’m actually not sure if it is or isn’t common, but in Connecticut it is illegal.

And as pointed out in an earlier post, the StudentsFirst spokesman also admitted that they have been engaged in lobbying here in Connecticut for over a year, despite the fact that they only registered to lobby in February (if what they did even counts as registering.)

Now, one would assume the Office of State Ethics is presently engaged in an investigation into what appear multiple violations of Connecticut law by StudentsFirst, GNEPSA and Michelle Rhee.

If such an investigation is taking place, it will be interesting to see how and when it is resolved. Those of you who keep a close eye on Connecticut state government will remember that as a result of Governor Malloy’s state re-organization plan last year, the Office of State Ethics, which was originally created to be an independent watchdog agency, has now been folded into the new Office of Governmental Accountability where it reports to a Chief Operating Officer appointed by Malloy.

That said it’s not like Michelle Rhee doesn’t have the money to pay a few bucks for violating Connecticut Ethics Laws.  At worst, the penalties are only $10,000 per violation, pocket change for the likes of Rhee and her accomplices.