Tag Archives: Andy Spears

Posted on by

Payday Loans for Charter Schools

Earlier today, I reported on the links between Nashville’s Project Renaissance/Nashville RISE and national groups promoting corporate education reform. Specifically, I noted Renaissance’s membership in Education Cities and the similarities between what’s happening in Nashville and what’s happening in other “Education Cities” like Indianapolis.

It’s important to also examine what’s happening in Indianapolis — a district following the Education Cities playbook — in order to see if that’s what we’d like to have happen in Nashville.

First, the charter schools in Indy aren’t doing so well. It may be because, as former TN ASD Superintendent Chris Barbic once said:

“As a charter school founder, I did my fair share of chest pounding over great results,” he wrote. “I’ve learned that getting these same results in a zoned neighborhood school environment is much harder.”

Chalkbeat’s Scott Elliott reported in April of this year on the struggles faced by charters in IPS:

Many Indiana schools saw rock-bottom passing rates on last year’s tougher ISTEP exam but in a city where public and charter schools compete for students, it’s worth noting that a majority of charter schools in the city had passing rates below the district’s average.

And that’s not a new phenomenon:

But of the 18 charter schools operating this year (2014-15) in the city that took ISTEP last year, about half fell below the Indianapolis Public Schools districtwide average of 51.6 percent passing.

These results may not be surprising, but they certainly don’t point to an Education Cities success story.

Here’s something else that’s interesting. Charter advocates have built clout in the Indiana legislature and used it create a charter school cash advance program — a payday loan of sorts, but with far better interest rates.

Chelsea Schneider in the Indianapolis Star reported on the plan:

The Indiana State Board of Education on Wednesday endorsed a plan to divvy out as much as $40 million in loans in the 2015-16 school year through a controversial new state program to fund charter schools.

Here’s how it works:

The per-student limit means a charter school could receive a maximum advance of $1,836 per student from their state tuition support, according to information shared by board staff. That could lead to some schools receiving less than what they requested. Two schools are seeking approximately $45,000 per student.

Under the program, eligible charter schools can request a maximum of $5 million. Interest rates on the loans are set at 1 percent.

That’s a pretty friendly interest rate provided to schools that may or may not get results.

The point is, it’s not clear from Indy’s example that theirs is a model Nashville should follow — even though Nashville’s ed reform advocates are using the same playbook used in “Education Cities” around the country.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

 

 

 

Posted on by

Nashville’s Not Alone

The involvement of Project Renaissance/Nashville RISE in this year’s MNPS school board races has been the source of a bit of controversy, from promoting (then deleting) an event with Stand for Children to a Phil Williams story raising questions about the source of funding and lack of disclosure.

A group of incumbent board members have said they won’t attend the upcoming forum and Zack Barnes on this blog asks questions about that decision.

This all may seem a bit much over a group that bills itself as a grassroots collection of parents dedicated to improving school quality.

Of course, Nashville has seen what an organic grassroots schools movement looks like. Just look at East Nashville United as one example.

There’s something a little different about Renaissance/RISE and it merits further examination.

As the Phil Williams story points out, Nashville RISE is incredibly well-funded, backed by money from philanthropic interests and by supporters of the charter school movement. Also backed by some donors who don’t want their identities revealed.

But there’s more. Project Renaissance/Nashville RISE is part of a national network of groups known as Education Cities.

Here again, the mission sounds pretty nice:

Our members are nonprofit organizations that create and coordinate ecosystems that foster the growth of high-quality public schools in their respective cities. Together, our members are improving opportunities for millions of children and their families. To find out more about our members, please click on the map or list below.

But, it’s difficult to find a true “success” story among the so-called “Education Cities.”

A closer look at two cities with Education Cities member organizations that have impacted education policy reveals a need for caution.

First, a look at Minneapolis and a group called MN Comeback. Sarah Lahm reports on this group:

In Minneapolis, MN Comeback has been meeting privately for at least a few years, and busily concocting a vague but “doable” plan to “remake our entire city’s education system.” This plan centers on the creation of 30,000 “rigorous and relevant seats” across the city, in “sector agnostic” settings, meaning they don’t care where these seats are–charter, private or traditional public school–as long as they are “high performing.”

This may all sound quite familiar, in that the rhetoric of Renaissance/RISE and Nashville’s charter sector is consistently focused on quality “seats” rather than the children who occupy those seats.

Further, Lahm notes:

Clearly, the privately managed, privately funded MN Comeback–which bears no responsibility to the “seats” it hopes to serve–has had its hands in the Minneapolis schools for some time. And their range is focused: the CPS model is one of only three things being “supported” by MN Comeback, according to the Education Cities website. The other two are MinnCAN, whose flush, reformy thumbprints are all over every MN Comeback policy “team,” and the IFF, a Chicago-based nonprofit that specializes in real estate consulting for “low-income communities.”

Next, let’s turn to Indianapolis, where their version of Renaissance/RISE is called The Mind Trust. You guessed it, The Mind Trust is also an Education Cities member. Also, Project Renaissance lists Ken Bubp as a Board Member and notes his role as Vice President of The Mind Trust.

What you are about to read may sound eerily familiar, as current MNPS board member Amy Frogge recently raised concerns about the high cost of school board races in Nashville.

Regarding the education scene in Indianapolis, Justin Miller reports for the American Prospect:

At the epicenter of the city’s reform push was the Mind Trust, a local education-reform group that promotes more school choice, autonomy, and charter partnerships. To do those things, the district needed a friendly superintendent and a sympathetic school board. The Mind Trust helped bring in DFER, the advocacy group Stand For Children, and the network of political money that came with them.

Sound familiar?

Miller continues, noting how Mind Trust-friendly groups and donors helped dramatically increase the cost of School Board races in Indy:

By the end, Cosby had raked in a total of nearly $80,000. Two other reform candidates were elected with more than $60,000 in support, including $10,000 checks from former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The purchase of the Indianapolis School Board by outside groups continued, as Miller notes:

In her campaign to oust Roof, who had been elected board president, from Roof’s at-large seat, Sullivan (the reform candidate) raised more than $70,000, inundating the city with mailers, phone-banking, and paid media. She trounced Roof by more than 25 percentage points.

Miller suggests that what happened in Indianapolis is part of a broader, national effort supported by the likes of the Broad and Walton Foundations.

And here’s something interesting about all that: The funders of Education Cities include The Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation, and The Gates Foundation — the Big Three in corporate education reform.

Perhaps more interesting is the group of partners, including the pro-voucher Fordham Institute.

All of the above are big players in the drive to remake American public schools, though it is difficult for that group to point to a true “Education City” success story.

What is clear is Renaissance/RISE is following a playbook developed by outside interests. Looking to Minneapolis or Indianapolis can help us see where that playbook may lead Nashville.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

 

 

Posted on by

Ready for 5th Grade?

As this year’s TNReady testing transition faced problems and ultimately, was not completed, 5th-grade students at a Chattanooga school were preparing a report to improve testing in Tennessee.

The report was 14 pages and was mailed to Governor Bill Haslam in an attempt to influence the state’s decisions on testing going forward.

This project, by the way, is exactly the type of project-based learning that can and should be used more often to demonstrate student understanding of what they’ve learned.

Said one student of the project:

“We wanted to help make changes about something we’re passionate about,” Romero said. “And we learned how to unite to persuade someone.”

As a report on project-based assessment in one Kentucky district indicated:

The entire curriculum at this school has been redesigned around interdisciplinary projects, which take several weeks to complete. The English and social studies seventh-grade PBATs were group projects that took place in the fall.

One by one, the students stand and give a 20-minute solo presentation with a PowerPoint or video. Separately, they’ve handed in 15-page research papers. They’re giving these presentations to panels of judges made up of teachers from other grades or the high school, officials from a neighboring district, education students from the University of Kentucky, and fellow students.

Moving toward a hybrid model of standardized tests and project-based assessments could be a way to improve Tennessee’s testing system.

Commissioner McQueen is conducting a summer listening tour about testing, and that’s a great opportunity to share alternative strategies.

For now, the students at Nolan Elementary are demonstrating they are ready for a transition to a student-centered assessment strategy.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

Nashville RISE Enters School Board Fray

Nashville RISE, a political engagement project of Project Renaissance, has entered the MNPS School Board Race with an ad touting an upcoming candidate forum.

RISE says their vision is to:

We will build a network of empowered parents through training and leadership development, collaborating to influence and increase high quality in schools for children in all of Davidson County.

As advocates for effective instruction for all students, and in an effort to close the achievement gap, we will focus on giving cultural diversity importance in building parent-staff relationships. Recognizing that every student and family has different needs, we will strive to help schools to care for students and families holistically by bridging the connection with outside resources and programs for success.

The rhetoric around “high-quality” seats in Nashville schools echoes that of the Tennessee Charter School Center’s analysis of “quality seats” in MNPS. That analysis came under scrutiny from Board Member Amy Frogge.

Additionally, Nashville RISE previously listed (until earlier today) among its upcoming events a “Day of Action” with Stand for Children, an organization with a PAC that recently released a list of endorsements in the School Board races.

Here’s a screenshot of the Day of Action which is no longer included on the Nashville RISE or Project Renaissance pages:

IMG_0874.PNG (1)

Because of RISE’s non-profit status, it is not obligated to disclose its donors.

On its website, the organization pledges: “Let’s bring stronger educational options to the city of Nashville. Our children deserve it.”

The implication being that more options need to be brought in, rather than built-up from within the system. Coupled with the co-opting of the Charter Center language around quality seats, RISE appears to be advocating a rather specific solution.

Worth watching as RISE moves forward will be how it frames issues related to schools and the solutions, if any, it proposes to improve public education in Nashville.

Here’s the ad:


For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

Now 4=3

Readers may remember that last year, after Governor Bill Haslam and the Tennessee General Assembly provided funds equivalent to a four percent increase in the BEP salary allocation, the State Board of Education accepted Commissioner Candice McQueen’s recommendation to increase the state’s salary schedule by two percent.

As McQueen wrote at the time:

We believe this proposal strikes the right balance between maximum flexibility for school districts and the recognized need to improve minimum salaries in the state. For the large majority of districts, the proposal does not result in any mandatory impact as most local salary schedules already exceed the proposed minimums. For these districts, the salary funds must still be used for compensation but no mandatory adjustments to local schedules exist.

This year, Governor Haslam and the General Assembly commendably added another four percent increase to BEP salary funds. The adjustment to the state’s minimum salary schedule, however, is up to the State Board of Education upon recommendation of the Commissioner of Education.

This year’s recommendation was a three percent increase. Today, the State Board of Education adopted that recommendation, making $32,445 the new base salary for Tennessee teachers, effectively the minimum a teacher in the state can earn.

As the State Board of Education notes:

An estimated total of 29  school districts will be required to make
increases to at least one level of their local salary schedule resulting in a specific and earmarked salary expenses.

Admittedly, this year’s increase in funding and the State Board action represent progress.

Last year, I made the following recommendations representing a way to truly improve teacher compensation in our state while supporting local districts:

  • Set the minimum salary for a first-year teacher at $40,000 and create a pay scale with significant raises at 5 years (first year a TN teacher is tenure eligible), 10 years, and 20 years along with reasonable step increases in between
  • Fund the BEP salary component at 75%
  • Adjust the BEP to more accurately account for the number of teachers a district needs
  • Fully fund RTI2 including adding a BEP component for Intervention Specialists
  • Adopt the BEP Review Committee’s recommendations on professional development and mentoring so teachers get the early support and ongoing growth they need

While the General Assembly did pass some BEP reforms this year, more should be done. For example, the new BEP formula freezes funding for the BEP salary component at 70%. Also, an adjustment in the calculation for number of teachers is still needed.

Again, however, this year’s legislative action and today’s State Board of Education action represent measurable progress.

 

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

Posted on by

A Bit of a Puzzle

Stand for Children is out with it’s list of endorsements in the School Board race and here’s how they start:

With a committed Mayor and the recent selection of Dr. Shawn Joseph as Director of Schools, there remains one major missing piece to improving our public education system: a better school board.

Interestingly, Stand advocates throwing out most of the incumbents running for re-election in order to achieve that “better board.”

But, it’s worth noting that most of the candidates Stand opposes supported Megan Barry in her campaign and the Board united to select Shawn Joseph as Director of Schools. That committed Mayor and new Director came about in as a result of the work of the current Board, not in spite of it.

Nevertheless, Stand says:

Imagine for a moment that we spent the next four years not rehashing the same old fights, but instead debating the best way to attract and support a great principal at every school; the best way to retain and develop our incredible educators; the most innovative ways to support our growing immigrant populations; and or the best way to ensure schools receive adequate and equitable funding and support.

While there have certainly been some vigorous debates on the School Board about how best to serve students in MNPS, the Board also adopted a revised pay scale designed to make the district more attractive to new teachers and bring teacher pay in line with similar urban districts. That same budget also made important investments in support of English Language Learners.

As for adequate and equitable funding, the MNPS Board has taken the state to task for leaving behind the promise of BEP 2.0.

The debate over charters is an important part of the discussion about MNPS, and there are certainly multiple perspectives. On one hand, you have those who raise the issue of cost and on the other, you have those who suggest the cost isn’t that high and the money spent is worth it. Arguably, both sides want what Stand says it wants: A Board focused on what’s best for kids.

Or, maybe they just want less of what they perceive as bickering. Or less dissent from a certain agenda.

The MNPS Board isn’t perfect, but working with Mayor Barry and hiring Shawn Joseph demonstrate a willingness to look past personal differences and focus on what really matters.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

 

Posted on by

Candice is Listening

Or, she will be. The Commissioner of Education is going on a statewide tour to talk about testing in light of new flexibility offered to the states under the federal ESSA law, which replaced No Child Left Behind.

From the DOE’s press release:

Commissioner Candice McQueen and senior department leaders are launching a statewide listening tour to gather input from educators, key advocates, parents, students, and the public to determine how to implement specific components of the nation’s new federal education law: the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The feedback will inform a Tennessee-specific ESSA plan that will guide the department’s work over the coming years and help the state capitalize on the new law’s empowerment of local leadership. These conversations will also build off feedback the commissioner has received on her Classroom Chronicles tour, during which she has met with more than 10,000 Tennessee teachers to learn how policies impact the classroom.

 

“We need to continue to elevate educators’ ideas to strengthen our education system, and the new federal law provides an opportunity to do that,” said Education Commissioner Candice McQueen. “We look forward to hearing from a variety of educators – from classroom teachers to directors of schools – as well as advocates, parents, and students as we craft a plan for Tennessee to transition to ESSA.”

The release notes that some policy changes might be in order:

Over the summer and fall, department leadership will draft a plan for transitioning to ESSA based on stakeholder and public feedback. Stakeholders and the general public will have another opportunity to provide input on the draft plan later this fall. In spring 2017, the department will work with stakeholder groups, the State Board of Education, and the Tennessee General Assembly as needed to recommend changes to state law and policy, as well as develop further guidance for school districts.

 

In addition to the various feedback loops and meetings across the state, the department will also be guided by its strategic plan, Tennessee Succeeds, which was developed with input from thousands of stakeholders over the course of several months to establish a clear vision for the future of Tennessee’s schools. It also has established a solid foundation in preparing to transition to ESSA.

Interestingly, the strategic plan referenced includes this under the category of Accountability:

Pilot first grade and career and technical education portfolio models in 2016, and continue to develop additional portfolio options for teachers in non-tested grades and subjects

Develop additional valid and reliable student growth measures for those areas that do not currently have them

Perhaps one improvement that will be suggested is that in addition to developing portfolio models for teacher evaluation (they already exist for related-arts teachers), the state should also provide funding to districts to support their implementation. Few districts use the state’s approved portfolio model for non-tested related arts teachers, likely because the cost of doing so is not covered by the state. Assessment includes both additional staff time and compensation for those performing the portfolio assessments.

The second item of note is: Develop additional valid and reliable student growth measures for those areas that do not currently have them.

This statement assumes that current methods of evaluating student growth (TVAAS) are valid and reliable. To put it simply, they’re not. Additionally, the most common method of assessing student growth is through standardized testing. This raises the possibility that additional tests will be provided for subjects not currently tested. After this year’s TNReady failure, it seems to me we should be exploring other options.

Nevertheless, I’m hopeful that this summer’s listening tour will lead to a new dialogue about Tennessee’s direction in education in light of ESSA. States like Hawaii are already taking student test scores out of the teacher evaluation process and moving toward new measures of evaluation.

Out of the chaos of TNReady, there is opportunity. Educators, parents, and students should attend these summer meetings and share their views on a new path forward for our state’s schools.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

 

Posted on by

Amy Frogge on the High Cost of School Board Races

MNPS Board Member Amy Frogge talks about the high cost of School Board races, using her own experience of being outspent 5-1 as an example. Here’s her Facebook post on the issue:

When I first ran for school board four years ago, it was the start of a new era for local elections. In prior years, no one paid much attention to school board races, and $15,000 was considered a good haul for a school board candidate. So you can imagine how shocked I was to learn that my opponent had raised $125,000 for our race! She was the highest funded candidate in the history of Nashville’s school board races.

Ultimately, I was able to raise around $25,000 for my own race (which was very difficult for me!). I spent months knocking on neighbor’s doors campaigning. Through hard work and with a lot of help from my friends and unpaid volunteers, I was able to build a strong grassroots campaign that allowed me to overcome the odds. Despite being outspent 5 to 1, I managed to win by a 2 to 1 margin- which just goes to show that money doesn’t always determine the outcome of political races in smaller local elections.

Many candidates in Nashville’s school board races now routinely raise around $80,000 for school board elections. You should ask: Why is so much money being poured into small school board races? What is at stake for the funders of these elections, particularly when the funders do not even have children in our public school system? This eye-opening article explains it well.

Nashville is part of a larger network of cities where school board seats are being bought by outside corporate interests seeking to expand charter schools (and to make money in other ways, such as through for-profit testing). I’ve seen this very clearly at the national conferences I’ve attended, where I learned that the same organizations and funders (often billionaires!) are involved nationwide. School board elections in many major urban cities have turned into high-dollar, contentious events with money flowing in from unlikely sources. This has led to the fracturing of local school boards, which have been divided by outside special interests. (Already, I expect some nasty personal attacks from these outside interests during my campaign this summer.)

Watch our school board races carefully this year. It will become clear from donations who is backed by special interests. Their campaigns will be slick and shiny, run by high-dollar PR firms, and you will likely be impressed by the marketing. But please be wary of these candidates and the agenda their backers are trying to drive for our local schools. It is not about the best interests of children.

[From the article below:

“A network of education advocacy groups, heavily backed by hedge-fund investors, has turned its political attention to the local level, with aspirations to stock school boards — from Indianapolis and Minneapolis to Denver and Los Angeles — with allies. . . . The same big-money donors and organizational names pop up in news reports and campaign-finance filings, revealing the behind-the-scenes coordination across organizational, geographic and industry lines. The origins arguably trace back to Democrats for Education Reform, a relatively obscure group founded by New York hedge funders in the mid-2000s.
The hedge-fund industry and the charter movement are almost inextricably entangled. Executives see charter-school expansion as vital to the future of public education, relying on a model of competition. They see testing as essential to accountability. And they often look at teacher unions with unvarnished distaste. Several hedge-fund managers have launched their own charter-school chains. You’d be hard-pressed to find a hedge-fund guy who doesn’t sit on a charter-school board.”]

Here’s the article she cites from Bill Moyers.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport


 

Posted on by

Rite of Passage

Ah, springtime. A time for warm days, cool nights, rain, and graduation. Yes, spring marks a rite of passage for students leaving one phase of life and entering another.

Lately, this season has brought another ritual: The Tennessee Department of Education’s failure to deliver student test scores. Each of the last three years has seen TNDOE demonstrate it’s inability to get state testing right (nevermind the over-emphasis on testing to begin with).

Back in 2014, there was a delay in the release of the all-powerful “quick scores” used to help determine student grades. Ultimately, this failure led to an Assistant Commissioner losing her job.

Then, in 2015, the way “quick scores” were computed was changed, creating lots of confusion. The Department was quick to apologize, noting:

We regret this oversight, and we will continue to improve our processes such that we uphold our commitment to transparency, accuracy, and timeliness with regard to data returns, even as we experience changes in personnel.

The processes did not appear to be much improved at all as the 2016 testing cycle got into full swing, with a significant technical failure on Day One.

As the now annual spring testing failure season approached, it was all out chaos, with the state’s testing vendor and the Commissioner of Education playing the blame game and students, teachers, and schools left with no test at all.  

All of the TNReady’s unreadiness led to an “emergency” contract for grading tests that will have them back in the hands of teachers and parents in time for the December holidays. Just the gift everyone wants!

Last year, Commissioner McQueen and her staff blamed a lack of communication during a staff transition:

Our goal is to communicate early and often regarding the calculation and release of student assessment data. Unfortunately, it appears the office of assessment logistics did not communicate decisions made in fall 2014 regarding the release and format of quick scores for the 2014-15 school year in a timely manner

This year, it was the state’s vendor, Measurement Inc:

TNReady was designed to provide Tennessee students, teachers, and families with better information about what students know and understand, and the failure of this vendor has let down the educators and students of our state.

Three years, two Commissioners, and a series of testing failures, with 2016’s the biggest yet.

What does spring of 2017 hold for Tennessee’s schools? Can we expect another testing mishap, or will the cycle be broken? Who will Candice McQueen blame if and when the testing failures we’ve come to expect happen again?

Maybe our old friend Pearson will not only provide a holiday miracle (graded tests, yay!) but also save us from the perils of yet another year with incomplete, confusing, or just plain meaningless results.

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport

 

Posted on by

Mitchell Questions Pearson “Emergency”

State Rep. Bo Mitchell of Nashville is questioning the wisdom of an emergency test-grading contract granted to Pearson for the grading of TNReady tests from this year.

According to WSMV:

“Pearson is no better than Measurement Inc.,” said Rep. Bo Mitchell, D-Nashville.

Mitchell, who has been critical of standardized testing, is not fully confident in Pearson.

“Just in the last week, they’ve lost another huge contract,” Mitchell said. “In the last few months, they’ve lost testing contracts with the state of Texas, state of New York and the state of Florida. So if they’re not producing for them, why are we to think that they will produce for us?”

He said the last minute moves are too costly for students, schools and the state.

Mitchell’s not the only one raising concerns about Pearson. According to the story:

The Washington Post recently profiled testing concerns with Pearson. It listed nearly 20 years of testing and scoring flaws that have caused the company to lose multi-million dollar contracts with schools in some cases.

It’s not clear how much value the state will receive for the $18.5 million contract as the grades 3-8 results will be incomplete (part II of testing was not completed) and the results are not anticipated until December, well past time to provide useful information for teachers and students.

In addition to this emergency contract, the state is also seeking a permanent vendor to develop and administer TNReady tests for the 2016-17 academic year.

More on TNReady:

Pearson: We’re Ready To Grade

TEA on TNReady

Why TNReady Wasn’t

 

For more on education politics and policy in Tennessee, follow @TNEdReport