Who is smarter than an education bureaucrat? The taxpayer paying for the bureaucrat!!

Posted For STLGretchen
Missouri Education Watchdog




State and national educational policymakers once again illustrate how out of touch they are with taxpayers, parents, teachers and administrators when it comes to crafting more onerous mandates. Instead of education reform, the plans from DESE and the Department of Education will add to the bureaucratic nightmare of public education, creating more harm than true reform.

From the St. Louis Post Dispatch:

An attempt to recalibrate how school districts are rated by the state has triggered a unified uproar among educators and administrators throughout Missouri.

Groups representing teachers, principals and superintendents say they're concerned about a proposal that could double the number of standardized tests issued in public schools, including 10 more exams at the high school level in such courses as chemistry and physics. They don't like a recommendation to report the percentage of each high school's graduates who earn college degrees within three or six years, particularly if it means school administrators have to do the tracking.

While they say they agree with (Commissioner) Nicastro's goal, they oppose more testing and more tracking. State exams in chemistry and physics, they argue, would push schools to require students to take these courses, when there aren't enough science teachers to educate them. The groups also question who would pay for the additional tests, who would be responsible for tracking high school graduates through college, and whether expecting all students to take chemistry and physics exams is the same as the state dictating that every student take higher level science.

The increased tracking of students at the district levels is time-consuming and costly. At a time when Missouri (and other states) are having education budget cuts, how can these goals be accomplished? It's not only a concern at the state level, but national level as well. Arne Duncan is under increased scrutiny for the mandates he wants for education:

Frustrated by what he called a "slow motion train wreck" for U.S. schools, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said he will give schools relief from federal mandates under the No Child Left Behind law if Congress drags its feet on the law's long-awaited overhaul and reauthorization. (Grumpy emphasis and red, think Obamacare waivers)

Duncan has warned that 82 percent of U.S. schools could be labeled failures next year if No Child Left Behind isn't changed. Education experts have questioned that estimate.

Still, no one thinks states will meet the law's goal of having 100 percent of students proficient in math and reading by 2014. A school that fails to meet targets for several consecutive years faces sanctions that can include firing teachers or closing the school entirely.

Duncan said he's encouraged by talks with federal lawmakers in recent weeks indicating the law might see revisions this year. But he said he wants a backup plan in case that doesn't happen.

"We can't afford to do nothing," he said. (Emphasis added)

Reading the comments from the readers, superintendents, administrators and teachers on these mandates from DESE and the Federal government, it seems as if the vast majority of them believe it would actually be best for education reform if the governmental bureaucrats did nothing. It would be preferable to them if no action was undertaken, the "slow motion train wreck" occurred, and the authority to education students was left to the local districts.

Here is a reader's comment from the msnbc.com site:

C'mon now, this has been law through half of Obama's term without a whisper of change. Shooting for 100% proficiency in what would be its 13th year is not exactly like setting a goal for zero crime. All they did was shoot for reasonable improvement each year to get kids up to grade level, and obviously they failed.

The Federal Education Department needs to be disbanded - they are a waste, a redundancy, and accomplish nothing except to spend our money on useless bureaucrats. Tell me exactly what does some idiot in DC know about a school district in Dos Palos, or anywhere else for that matter?

All education is local - it's far passed time to stop sending money to DC to waste on useless bureaucracy.

Sun Jun 12, 2011 2:12 AM EDT

and from the St. Louis Post Dispatch article:

westcountyteacher said on: June 11, 2011, 7:44 am

There will never be enough money to do any of this. The state mandates, but provides no funding. The state cannot even afford to maintain its own program let alone expect schools to jump through more hoops. Will private schools have to jump through these hoops? Doubtful, which once again gives private schools another advantage over public schools. Private schools can use their money to actually help students and not waste the time of teachers and administrators. Is DESE trying to destroy public education?

Once again, the taxpayers who are paying into a system in which they have no administrative control or voice, demonstrate they have more common sense than the bureaucrats deciding what children must learn and how they are tested, with no regard to the cost or outcome

***********

Grumpy Note:

Recently I was told that because I oppose Obama's Education Reform proposals I was using Grumpy to promote liberal propaganda,,,

Since STLGretchen also writes for the St Louis Tea Party, I thought it might be a good time to clear up any misuderstanding... Please read the comments I posted.  It looks like there's a whole host of conservatives who agree with me.

Bill Gates is the PAC MAN of Education. He's eating the Constitution

from the, Missouri Education Watchdog,
by stlgretchen, With Permission.

Remember the Pac-Man game? It introduced Americans to video games, replacing arcade games such as pinball, foosball and skeeball. What's the difference between current video games and the old fashioned mechanical games?

Video games are computerized and do not having moving parts, such as balls or pucks. Everything is contained in a screen and the movement is a blip. You are controlling the movement but it's more of a passive control and takes only fingers on a stick or pad to create movement. Physical movement is minimal in video games; the game itself is in a screen, rather than involving balls and a person directing that move in an overtly physical manner. Video games perhaps could be considered activity through a simulation setting vs actual physical action.

Is that what is happening in education? The taxpayers, parents and students have for quite some time been in a simulated educational program. Taxes have been paid into a system in which taxpayers have little to no voice and minimal effect. Parents can complain about objectionable material taught to their students but since it is set by the state and not the district, these objections are often futile for change. Students are taught to the test so the school won't lose funding and the real goal of education is whittled down to basic test questions. School "reform" options are crafted by lobbying groups and PACs, not the local communities in which they are located.

Teachers, administrators, superintendents and state educational agencies discover they are further drawn into the simulation of education. Their hands are tied by No Child Left Behind, students are not tested or taught to as individuals, rather as subsets, and federal regulations strangle innovation. Throw Common Core standards (heavily funded by Bill Gates) into this equation, and the perfect video game of public education emerges.

Bill Gates has become the Pac-Man of the United States Public Education system!

He's been named as a gobbling Pac-Man as early as 1991:

Hey everyone. I've just posted my latest project called Pac-MANager (which moves Bill Gates around as Pac-Man as he tries to "eat up" the competition) on PSC, which includes a lot of stuff that different people on this forum helped me with -- thanks all!

Back then Gates was eating up business competition. Now he is eating the traditional stakeholders in education: students, parents, taxpayers, school districts, etc. that he considers competition to his educational vision. How is Gates sating his appetite for educational control?

We and other bloggers have been writing about Gates' idea of philanthropy. Unlike previous philanthropists, these new philanthropists drive the reform, rather than leaving organizations to do so. The New York Times published findings from a graduate student who has studied how Gates is taking over education:

For years, Bill Gates focused his education philanthropy on overhauling large schools and opening small ones. His new strategy is more ambitious: overhauling the nation’s education policies. To that end, the foundation is financing educators to pose alternatives to union orthodoxies on issues like the seniority system and the use of student test scores to evaluate teachers.

In some cases, Mr. Gates is creating entirely new advocacy groups. The foundation is also paying Harvard-trained data specialists to work inside school districts, not only to crunch numbers but also to change practices. It is bankrolling many of the Washington analysts who interpret education issues for journalists and giving grants to some media organizations.

Bill Gates is not stingy with his money and the vast amount given to various entities buy acquiescence for his vision:


The foundation spent $373 million on education in 2009, the latest year for which its tax returns are available, and devoted $78 million to advocacy — quadruple the amount spent on advocacy in 2005. Over the next five or six years, Mr. Golston said, the foundation expects to pour $3.5 billion more into education, up to 15 percent of it on advocacy.

Given the scale and scope of the largess, some worry that the foundation’s assertive philanthropy is squelching independent thought, while others express concerns about transparency. Few policy makers, reporters or members of the public who encounter advocates like Teach Plus or pundits like Frederick M. Hess of the American Enterprise Institute realize they are underwritten by the foundation.

“It’s Orwellian in the sense that through this vast funding they start to control even how we tacitly think about the problems facing public education,” said Bruce Fuller, an education professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who said he received no financing from the foundation. (emphasis added)

What does this vast amount of money buy?

The foundation paid a New York philanthropic advisory firm $3.5 million “to mount and support public education and advocacy campaigns.” It also paid a string of universities to support pieces of the Gates agenda. Harvard, for instance, got $3.5 million to place “strategic data fellows” who could act as “entrepreneurial change agents” in school districts in Boston, Los Angeles and elsewhere. The foundation has given to the two national teachers’ unions — as well to groups whose mission seems to be to criticize them.

“It’s easier to name which groups Gates doesn’t support than to list all of those they do, because it’s just so overwhelming,” noted Ken Libby, a graduate student who has pored over the foundation’s tax filings as part of his academic work.

What might be an effective method to demonize teacher unions?

While the foundation has given money to both the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, totaling about $6.3 million over the last three years, some of its newer initiatives appear aimed at challenging the dominance that unions have exercised during policy debates. Last year, Mr. Gates spent $2 million on a “social action” campaign focused on the film “Waiting for ‘Superman,’ ” which demonized Randi Weingarten, the president of the federation.

"Waiting for Superman" and screenings for legislators were concerns we wrote about in this past legislative session and the multi-million dollars poured into the school choice movement. "Waiting for Superman" was touted as a grassroots movie, but the mass infusion of cash and influence is far removed from grassroots philosophy. Most of the grassroots comments from various blogs about "education reform" mention the desire to abolish the Department of Education and not so much about charters, trigger options and the redistribution of teachers. The movie and school choice movement have been shown to be a carefully orchestrated public relations move:

A document describing plans for the group, posted on a Washington Post blog in March, said it would mobilize local advocates, “establish strong ties to local journalists” and should “go toe to toe” with union officials in explaining contracts and state laws to the public.

But to avoid being labeled a “tool of the foundation,” the document said the group should “maintain a low public profile.”

The Gates Foundation has been exposed for what it is: a version of the Pac-Man game eating all the unnecessary and cumbersome stakeholders in its way for the quest of remaking the United States educational system:

Gates Memo to Support "Race to the Top"

Note that Gates tells applicants what questions will be asked--and what the answers must be. This is their view of education in a nutshell.

The Gates Foundation had already handpicked 15 states to receive $250,000 each to help them apply for Race to the Top funds: Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas. Now, probably because of whining of "unfair," they're offering a bone to the other 35 states --if they can answer "Yes, master," enough times.

See the Gates memo here.
September 23, 2009

This is how our government is operating. It used to be tycoons like Gates wanted to eat their business competition for a larger piece of the business pie; now they want to control the government in which they operate. This is a Pac-man version of our constitutional right to self-govern being eaten up by special interests. Taxpayers have been co-opted in the past by educational unions (even the retiring NEA counsel states it's not for the children or because it has a vision for great public education for every child) and now it's Bill Gates and his funding of think tanks, professors, software companies, governors and even the Department of Education. Watch this video by retiring NEA counsel Bob Chanin, and substitute Gates' names and organizations he's funded:



The United States Public Education System has become one big huge power grab by special interests such as the Federal Government (isn't this interesting how it has become a special interest), the unions and the corporations. In the meantime, the student, taxpayer and parents are not receiving a quality education focused on education and use of these taxes is not free of these special interests. Education is centered not so much on teaching sound educational material; rather, much of education today teaches politically correct theories and is delivered in a way that will make hedge funders, venture capitalists, and technology companies quite wealthy.

This is a great history lesson on how not to let control of your local school district be given to a state agency, then a federal agency and then to a consortia controlled by Gates money. Stop the money train to all these organizations (government, union and private), bring it down to the local level (where it belongs) and then maybe, just maybe, the dialogue can begin about authentic educational reform.

Arme Duncan, Big Brother

                             

Gretchen

from

The Missiouri Education Watch dog
with permission

Personally identifiable information (PII)

Does the DOE need ot know your

religious and politacal affiliations

for educational purposes

Have you heard of "Personally Identifiable Information" (PII)? PII plays a large role in the proposal to reshape the privacy regulations in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Here's a basic definition from Wikipedia:

Personally Identifiable Information (PII), as used in information security, refers to information that can be used to uniquely identify, contact, or locate a single person or can be used with other sources to uniquely identify a single individual. The abbreviation PII is widely accepted, but the phrase it abbreviates has four common variants based on personal, personally, identifiable, and identifying. Not all are equivalent, and for legal purposes the effective definitions vary depending on the jurisdiction and the purposes for which the term is being used.

The Department of Education uses the term PII in the description of needed data for the Longitudinal Data System; this is from the National Center for Educational Statistics:

In order to ensure that the necessary data protections are in place, the Governance Committee or a Data Subcommittee for each entity that holds student records must first identify the personally identifiable data elements that need to be protected. Personally identifiable information (PII) includes information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity either directly or indirectly through linkages with other information. In the case of education data, FERPA regulations (34 CFR § 99.3). (page 2)

The document delineates direct and indirect identifiers for student information:


The inventory should include all current and proposed data elements (National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST], Guide to Protecting the Confidentiality of Personally Identifiable Information (PII), 2010 Special Publication 800-122, pg. 2-2). It should also identify both direct and indirect identifiers. Direct identifiers provide information that is unique to the student or the student’s family (e.g., name, address, Social Security Number, other unique education-based identification number, photograph, fingerprints, or other biometric record). Indirect identifiers are not unique to the student or the student’s family but can be used in combination with other information about the student to identify a specific student (e.g., racial or ethnic identity, date of birth, place of birth, mother’s maiden name, grade level, participation in a specific program, course enrollment). (page 3)

Direct identifiers that might raise red flags for parents is the use of fingerprints or other biometric records. There are some indirect identifiers the Department of Education wants to gather that might bother those who are concerned with student privacy concerns (pgs 3, 4):

At the elementary and secondary level, an analysis of the indirect identifiers should also consider whether any of the data elements are protected under the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) (20 U.S.C. § 1232h; 34 CFR § Part 98). To protect the privacy and related rights of students and parents, the PPRA requires written parental consent before a minor student can be required to participate in any survey, analysis, or evaluation funded by the U.S. Department of Education that includes information concerning the following:

1. Political affiliations or beliefs of the student or parent;

2. Mental and psychological problems of the student or the student’s family;

3. Sex behavior or attitudes;

4. Illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating, and demeaning behavior;

5. Critical appraisals of other individuals with whom respondents have close family relationships;

6. Legally recognized privileged or analogous relationships, such as those of lawyers, physicians, and ministers;

7. Religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs of the student or the student’s parent;

8. Income (other than that required by law to determine eligibility for participation in a program or for receiving financial assistance under such program).

The government realizes parents might have a bit of a problem with the request for information regarding political affiliations, mental problems, sexual behavior, etc:

The Pupil Protection Rights Act requires parental notification if a study to be conducted in a school includes any information or questions about the student or the student’s family related to the eight identified sensitive topics: political affiliations or beliefs; religious practices, affiliations, or beliefs; mental and psychological problems; sex behavior or attitudes; illegal, anti-social, self-incriminating and demeaning behavior; critical appraisals of family members; legally recognized privileged relationships; or income. (emphasis added) (pgs 13, 14)

The document goes on to state if the survey is funded by the US Department of Education, the parents must be notified, approval must be given by the parents and the surveys must be shared before the survey is given if the parent requests perusal. However, under FERPA, data not deemed sensitive are handled in this manner:

The annual notification (FERPA) does not have to be made individually to parents. Instead, it can be done through any of the following: local or student newspaper, calendar, student programs guide, rules handbook, or other reasonable means. (pg 13)

Question: does the needed approval for "sensitive information" pertain to surveys that are not funded by the US Department of Education, but perhaps surveys from other Federal agencies such as Health and Human Services (it funds school educational programs) or the EPA (it funds school environmental programs)? Will parents have those privacy assurances and right to refuse when their child is asked about his/her sexual behavior, mental problems...and critical appraisals of family members if not funded by the DOE? Who and/or what agency has the constitutional authority to make critical appraisals of a student's family members? Is this really about education?

Question: Why wouldn't ANY information gathered on students need direct parental permission? How can permission be granted by posting the notice in a school newspaper, rules handbook, etc.? Your child can't receive Advil without your written permission; neither should their information be given to the school or other agencies without your written permission either.

But at least the parent can opt out his/her child out of this "educational" experience:

Parents must also be notified of their right to decide whether or not their child will participate in any non-emergency, invasive physical examination or screening that is scheduled in advance and administered by the school as a required condition of attendance but that is not necessary to protect the immediate health and safety of students. (pg 14)

Why would a student have to undergo a "non-emergency, invasive physical examination or screening that is scheduled in advance and administered by the school as a required condition of attendance but is not necessary to protect the immediate health and safety of students?" Again, what does this have to do with education?

Contact the DOE and inform them you are against loosening student privacy regulations. You have until Monday, May 23, 2011 to register your comments.

DOE to the States, Might As Well Accept It; You're Addicted the Bucks

Similar to the way Sandra has been reporting on the issues associated with eductation reform here in Florida, Gretchen has been following very similar issues in Missouri..  Her profile describes her s

Gender: Female,    Occupation: Concerned Citizen

Location: St. Louis : MO : United States

About Me

To encourage American innovation starts with innovative and creative people. But a one-size-fits-all education approach, standardized and narrow curricula, tests-driven teaching and learning, and fear-driven and demoralizing accountability measures are perhaps the most effective way to kill innovation and stifle creativity.

What America really needs is to capitalize on its traditional strengths—a broad definition of education, an education that respects individuality, tolerates deviation, celebrates diversity. America also needs to restore faith in its public education, respects teacher autonomy, and trusts local school leaders elected or selected by the people.--Yong Zhao, presidential chair and associate dean for global education at the University of Oregon's College of Education

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




Lyrics Adapted from Robert Palmer's "Addicted to Love":

Your lights are on, but you're not home
Your mind is not your own
Your heart sweats, your body shakes
Another buck is what it takes

You can't sleep, you can't eat
There's no doubt, you're in deep
Your throat is tight, you can't breathe
Another bailout is all you need

Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh
yeah

It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough, you
know you're

Gonna have to face it, you're addicted to bucks

You see the signs, but you can't read
You're runnin' at a different speed
You heart beats in double time
Another bailout and you'll be mine, a one track mind

You can't be saved
Oblivion is all you crave
If there's some left for you
You don't mind if you do

Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh
yeah

It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough, you
know you're

Gonna have to face it, you're addicted to bucks

Might as well face it, you're addicted to bucks (x 5)

GUITAR SOLO (ONCE AROUND)

Your lights are on, but you're not home
Your will is not your own
You're heart sweats and teeth grind
Another bailout and you'll be mine

Whoa, you like to think that you're immune to the stuff, oh
yeah

It's closer to the truth to say you can't get enough, you
know you're

Gonna have to face it, you're addicted to bucks

Might as well face it, you're addicted to bucks (x 5)


This is a fitting song for an additional (announced May 5, 2011) $9,000,000 grant Missouri received for "turnaround" schools from the Federal government. Here's the PDF from DESE dated December 2, 2010 applying for School Improvement Grant (SIG) money. What does the grant provide?


The $8.9 million made available to Missouri is being distributed by formula to the state and will then be competed out by the state to school districts. Missouri's application, which includes its list of persistently lowest-achieving schools, as defined by the state, can be found here: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/summary2010/index.html.

School districts will apply to the state for the funds this spring. When a school district applies, it must indicate that it will implement one of four school intervention models in each of its persistently lowest-achieving schools for which it receives SIG funds, based on school needs:

•TURNAROUND MODEL: Replace the principal, screen existing school staff, and rehire no more than half the teachers; adopt a new governance structure; and improve the school through curriculum reform, professional development, extending learning time, and other strategies.

•RESTART MODEL: Convert a school or close it and re-open it as a charter school or under an education management organization.

•SCHOOL CLOSURE: Close the school and send the students to higher-achieving schools in the district.

•TRANSFORMATION MODEL: Replace the principal and improve the school through comprehensive curriculum reform, professional development, extending learning time, and other strategies.

This will cost $9,000,000 for these implementations? Closing schools, hiring/firing and reopening will cost that much money? Why is the Federal Government giving money to states and MANDATING how the states will address the problem of turning around failing schools? The Federal Government is not given the constitutional authority for such mandates.

Coincidentally, Missouri was addressing this same issue in HB393 during the current session: it was a STATE bill for a turnaround model. The House bill is almost identical to the turnaround model Missouri will now adopt under the federal mandates, except the federal money doesn't include tuition to private schools or vouchers, as the state bill listed. What happened to HB393 (the "Trigger Option" bill)? It stalled in the House and the last activity was February 16, 2011.

Could the representatives have known DESE had applied for federal funding in 2010 for these "turnaround" mandates? Could the representatives have decided it was easier and cheaper for the Federal government to bypass the legislature and secure these initiatives? Have our representatives decided to take money from the Federal government, thereby giving additional educational control to the Federal government? Do the people have no legislative redress for yet ANOTHER round of educational federal mandates?

Are the politicians accepting this money the ones who believe in state sovereignty or are these the politicians willing to cede sovereignty for federal dollars...which ultimately means more federal control? Is there group of "sovereignty minded" elected officials in the legislature willing to say NO to more federal money and send this money back before it is doled out and spent? Do the people have no say in how the schools are run any longer? If the running of the schools is decided on the Federal level, we might as well abolish school boards.

This is yet another step toward total federal control of the schools. And you thought the state legislators were going to protect us from the power grab? They seem to be "addicted to bucks". However, when you talk to them, they say they are for "local control". You might let your representative know this "turnaround model" was first introduced in... Race to the Top:

E. Turning Around the Lowest-Achieving Schools

Reform Plan Criteria

(E)(2) Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)

The extent to which the State has a high-quality plan and ambitious yet achievable annual targets to—

(i) Identify the persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice) and, at its discretion, any non-Title I eligible secondary schools that would be considered persistently lowest-achieving schools (as defined in this notice) if they were eligible to receive Title I funds; and (5 points)

(ii) Support its LEAs in turning around these schools by implementing one of the four school intervention models (as described in Appendix C): turnaround model, restart model, school closure, or transformation model (provided that an LEA with more than nine persistently lowest-achieving schools may not use the transformation model for more than 50 percent of its schools). (35 points)

Race to the Top is nothing less than the Federal Government mandating all aspects of public education. Now it is renamed in the package of School Improvement Grant (SIG).

Where exactly is local control in the current construct of public education? Local school boards can only hire/fire personnel, set salaries and provide maintenance on buildings. Curriculum is being crafted by the federal government, standards and assessments are crafted by the consortia which is funded by the federal government. Call or write your representatives. See if you get an answer to your questions on local control and that latest Federal government mandate of "turnaround schools"...which was ONCE a House bill that morphed into the Federal realm.

Here's one other question you might want to ask. The shortfall for next year's DESE budget was expected to be at least $9,000,000. Is any of this SIG grant going to plug up budget holes?

**And if you don't live in Missouri, you might want to check to see how much YOUR state applied for and how much it received from the SIG fund. Missouri is just one state that can't "get enough". The Department of Education is more than happy to provide the "guidance" the states need: they are all in deep

Read More from The Missouri Watchdog

.,.

Education: Prevention of Tyranny

In reading the book, “The Coming Insurrection” by The Invisible Committee I found quite a few things that I saw happening here in America. Used as part of the evidence in an anti-terrorism case in France, this book tells us how the progressives think. They believe in anarchy, completely and totally: until they get what they want. Then everything changes. What is it they want? They want to be in charge.

They don’t want “equality”. That’s for the bourgeoisie. They don’t want “freedom”. That’s for those who think too small. They want anarchy: murder, mayhem, burning whole cities if necessary to put them in charge.

Read more here.