Monday, February 10, 2014



California Students File Constitutional Challenge to Weak Teacher Firing Practices

Three cheers for a group of nine California students who are fed up with tenure rules that protect not only incompetent teachers, but also sexual predators.

Reuters reports California students challenge teacher employment rules in lawsuit.

    A group of nine California students will challenge employment rules they complain force public schools in the most populous U.S. state to retain low performing teachers, as opening arguments kick off on Monday in a lawsuit over education policy.

    The lawsuit seeks to overturn five California statutes that set guidelines for permanent employment, firing and layoff practices for K-12 public school teachers, saying the rules violate the constitutional rights of students by denying them effective teachers.

    Among the rules targeted by the lawsuit is one that requires school administrators to either grant or deny tenure status to teachers after the first 18 months of their employment, which they complain causes administrators to hastily give permanent employment to potentially problematic teachers.

    "The system is dysfunctional and arbitrary due to these outdated laws that handcuff school administrators from operating in a fashion that protects children and their right to quality education," attorney Theodore Boutrous of the education advocacy group Students Matter said in a media call.

    The plaintiffs are also challenging three laws they say make it difficult to fire low-performing tenured teachers by requiring years of documentation, dozens of procedural steps and hundreds of thousands in public funds before a dismissal.

    Lastly, the plaintiffs want to abolish the so-called "last-in first-out" statute, which requires administrators to lay off teachers based on reverse seniority.

    The group says that the layoff policy disproportionately affects minority and low-income students, who are more likely to have entry-level teachers and poor quality senior teachers assigned to their district.

    "When the layoffs come, the more junior teachers are laid off first, which ends up leaving a higher proportion what we call the ‘grossly ineffective' teachers," Boutrous said. "It's really a vicious cycle."

Testimony Started Monday

The lawsuit was filed by the nonprofit advocacy group Students Matter, which contends education laws are a violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantee because they do not ensure all students have access to an adequate education.

The LA Times reports Testimony begins in trial over California teachers' job protections.

    Arguments begin Monday in a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of laws that govern California’s teacher tenure rules, seniority policies and the dismissal process -- an overhaul of which could upend controversial job security for instructors.

    The lawsuit, filed by the nonprofit advocacy group Students Matter, contends these education laws are a violation of the Constitution's equal protection guarantee because they do not ensure all students have access to an adequate education.

    Vergara vs. California, filed on behalf of nine students and their families in Los Angeles County Superior Court, seeks to revamp a dismissal process the plaintiffs say is too costly and time consuming, lengthen the time period for instructors to gain tenure and dismantle the "last hired, first fired" policies that fail to consider teacher effectiveness.

    The lawsuit aims to protect the rights of students, teachers and school districts against a "gross disparity" in educational opportunity, lawyers for the plaintiffs said.

    Many students — overwhelmingly those who are minority and low-income — are destined to suffer from ineffective and unequal instruction because administrators are unable to remove ineffective teachers from schools, attorneys said.

    Students Matter was founded by Silicon Valley entrepreneur David F. Welch, a research scientist who went on to co-found Infinera, a manufacturer of optical telecommunications systems based in Sunnyvale, Calif. The group is partly funded by organizations known for battling teachers unions. The foundation of Los Angeles philanthropist Eli Broad, which has backed numerous education initiatives, also supports it.

Gross Lie of the Day

In the gross lie of the day category, "The California Department of Education contends districts have the opportunity and discretion to remove ineffective teachers from classrooms and decide whether to grant tenure."

In contrast, L.A. schools Supt. John Deasy, is a supporter of the effort to repeal the statutes. He declined to comment because he is a witness in the case.

Lay it on them John!

Unions are the Child Molester's Best Friend

I am quite sure Deasy can testify how hard it is to get rid of incompetent teachers, even child molesters.

If you think I am making this up, sadly, I am not.  I highly recommend reading the LA Times report: Failure Gets a Pass L.A. Unified Pays Teachers Not to Teach.

You can find similar articles about New York, in fact, anywhere unions rule.

SOURCE






Making the case for school choice in Illinois

Last week was National School Choice Week.  Negative vibes and views about school choice whether achieved through vouchers, charter schools, Educational Savings Accounts, or by other means are quite common. Three years ago a study by Greg Forster, PhD used available empirical studies to show that vouchers improve outcomes for both participants and public schools in A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice.

It’s easy to understand how participants would benefit by giving them more options, but schools likewise benefit as vouchers introduce healthy incentives for public schools to improve.  Forster’s 2011 report indicates how 11 out of the 12 gold-standard studies on school choice found that choice improves student outcomes; the other study found neither a negative nor positive impact (Friedman Foundation for Educational Excellence, April 2013).

Chicago’s celebration of School Choice Week was commemorated at a joint venture held by The Heartland Institute and the Illinois Policy Institute.  Members of the panel were Joseph Bast, Heartland’s president; Tom Morrison, Illinois State Representative (R-54); and Ted Dabrowski, Vice President of Policy, Illinois Policy Institute.  All were credited as having expertise in education policy.

The discussion centered on how to improve our schools and give children a chance at a better future.  There was ample time provided for attendees to direct questions to the three panelists.  Free school choice educational materials was on hand to help spread the reform message, as was the book “What American Can Learn from School Choice in Other Countries,” which presents a wealth of information and insights into how parents in many other countries have more freedom of choice in education than Americans do and without the financial penalty.

In his opening statement moderator Burno Behrend spoke of the need to transform instead of reform, questioning why school districts and administrators even have to exist.  The panelists were given a series of questions by Behrend for general response.  At other times a specific question was directed to only one of the panelists for his consideration.

The following article is worthy of consideration prior to the responses of the three panelists when quizzed by Burno Behrend about the use of technology to advance education.

Frederick Hess and Bror Saxberg in their joint article published in the SPRING 2014/ VOL. 14. NO 2 of Education Next, “Schooling Rebooted: Turning educators into learning engineers”, advances the understanding of technology as a tool rather than some kind of secret sauce. . . The most important thing is the vision of what you’re going to do.  Once you’ve got vision, there are various kinds of support that are needed in terms of curriculum and infrastructure.  Trying to backfill technology into existing systems can be difficult.

All three panelists spoke favorably about the use of technology in education.  Ted Dabrowski is convinced that technology will break down the status quo in education, allowing for more innovation.  Tom Morrison spoke of the use of tablets enabling students to work at their own pace with a teacher available to check that students are doing their assignment, while Joe Bast believes that a technology revolution is already taking place outside of the school in virtual learning.

Selected statements made by Ted Dabrowski, Tom Morrison, and Joe Bast on a variety of subjects:

Ted Dabrowski -

    Children who are forced to remain in failing schools must be turned into heroes and not the victims they are perceived to be by those resisting vouchers or school choice.

    Four of 100 kids in Illinois’ worst schools won’t be college ready, meaning 96% aren’t going to make it.

    Make the case for vouchers by 1) doing a better job of promoting the money case, 2) having an action plan when the anti-choice side fights back with massive amounts of money, and 3) thinking more of being in a constant campaign mode as is the practice of unions.

    The pro school choice side is lousy at building coalitions.  We miss opportunities by not partnering with parents who have children in the worst schools or who do want a choice.  There are those even in suburban schools who would prefer to send their children to a private school. [Moderator Behrend raised the issue of how to overcome the stigma of poor kids attending mostly white suburban schools.]

Tom Morrison -                                                        

    Taxpayers are no longer willing to keep paying higher tax rates even if guaranteed a better educational outcome, in a realization that throwing more money at education is not the answer.

    The term “voucher” has gotten to be a bad word and doesn’t sell well with so-called soccer moms.  Might be better to call them “opportunity scholarships” instead, where the money follows the child.

    In crafting a bill for Educational Savings Accounts, a family would receive the money and could choose how to spend it.  Shopping around is possible as there is no need to spend the money all at one place.  Any bill would need to stipulate non-means testing and a further requirement for qualification at 1-1/2 times the poverty level. Without these factors the legislation would be difficult to sell to legislators.

    Raised the question of whether it’s fair to force kids in Chicago to attend faulty schools?

Joe Bast -

    People in the front lines are the last ones to realize how much progress has taken place in school choice:  1.6 million children are attending charter schools. 250,000 are attending private school through vouchers.

    The other side has lots of money.  We are outspent 100 to 1.  We must win the political argument and the rest will fall into place.

    In answer to Ted Dabrowski who suggested that every child might be given the opportunity of school choice, Bast cited the lack of money and of political support for Ted’s universal proposal.

    Teacher burn out does happen.  Burned out teachers who remain in the teaching profession, lured to stay by generous pension, do just as well as do younger and more enthusiastic teachers.  How so?  The really talented teacher leave the teaching profession to work in other fields, leaving in its wake the burned out teachers.

    Believes the next governor will sign on to vouchers or choice legislation.  Illinois is way out of line with other states.

Question and Answer Highlights -

    Jeff Berkowitz of Chicago Now spoke about the importance of keeping the message simple.  As related by Berkowitz, there are 15,000 students in the Chicago Public Schools.  Unless we get 30 senators to vote for voucher legislation it won’t happen.  At the end of the day it will be a pitchfork political battle with the fierce educational lobby.  Whether school vouchers or pension reform, it’s all about money which is the driving force.  When you can’t get the money, what do you do?  Said Berkowitz:  If the right message (public policy) is presented to get the people to move, the money will be found.  Legislators must then be convinced to vote the right way.  A better job of messaging is needed.

    Education doesn’t appear anywhere in the Constitution because the Founders didn’t want the government to manipulate schools.

    Common Core with its standards for each grade level might sound good to many.  This presents the opportunity to show how ineffective Common Core actually is with government centralization.  Common Core was referred to as “Obamacore.”

    Schools are to serve the children; children are their customers.

    The best schools in Chicago are charter schools.  Even when located in areas with the same demographics, children fare better than in a traditional school setting.

    There is 60% support for school vouchers.  The pubic gets it.  It’s all about politics!

    All total there are 6.3 million individuals in public school education.  Half of the system (3.2 million) is made up of pricy and often unnecessary administrators.

Moderator Behend’s closing thoughts:

The envelope must be pushed. Common Core was depicted as the “last gasp of centralized, top-down education.”  And why doesn’t centralization work?  Because one size fits all just doesn’t work.

SOURCE





Regulators vs Higher Ed Innovation

College tuition has increased 1,120 percent since 1978. American students have now racked up over $1.2 trillion in debt trying to pay for these higher tuition prices. Despite all this spending and debt, 53 percent of recent college grads are either jobless or underemployed, and twice as many college grads are working in minimum wage jobs today then five years ago.

Meanwhile, the federal government is making $40 billion a year off of its student loan business. If ever there was a sector of the economy that needed less government interference it is the higher education sector today.

But California regulators just can't help themselves.

Last week the Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education sent letters to more than half a dozen "coding academies" threatening to shut them down unless they started complying with state higher education regulations. Inside Higher Ed reports:

The startups -- which include places like App Academy, Dev Bootcamp, General Assembly, Hack Reactor, Hackbright Academy, and Zipfian Academy -- offer intensive, full-time, short-term training programs in computer languages and other programming skills designed to lead directly to jobs. The fees are often steep -- typically between $8,000 and $12,000 for a six- to 10-week course -- and are paid directly by the students, since the classes and programs (which do not award degrees) do not qualify for federal or state financial aid.

And these startup firms appear to be delivering results. Venture Beat reports that, "at Hack Reactor, where tuition costs over $17,000, 99 percent of students are offered a job at companies like Adobe and Google."

But none of that matters to the bureaucrats at BPPE who are demanding that the coding academies "must run any change in curriculum by the agency" and that all instructors must have three years of teaching experience.

Problem is, computer science is a fast paced industry and many coding academies change their curriculum every three weeks. Which is a problem since BPPE approval for curriculum changes often takes six months. Coding camp instructors also usually lack the three mandated years of formal teaching experience despite an average of 7-10 years experience in the industry.

"What that looks like and what makes sense for our schools is not necessarily going to fit in the current regulations,” Hack Reactor cofounder Anthony Phillips told Venture Beat.

Unless government gets out of the way, our higher education system will continue to fail both students and employers.

SOURCE



No comments: