Before the first question eschewed from my lips, Casey blurted out, “They didn’t pay us.” Obviously still steamed after more than two years, Casey repeated, “They didn’t pay us for Summer Institute.” This had plainly been on Casey’s mind for some time, so I encouraged the TFAer to continue.

“On campus, before you apply, they promote themselves as one of the top employers of college grads in the nation. They convinced me that after five weeks of training I would be a great teacher, even better than licensed professionals they said. I couldn’t find any other job, so I signed up to work for them. I expected to earn enough money at Summer Institute to pay my expenses to move halfway across the country to my new teaching job. But, they didn’t pay us. I started off borrowing money through a loan plan they had set up for us.”

“I don’t understand. Did they promise to pay you and then renege?” I asked. I had heard a rumor about this from a disgruntled TFAer several years ago, but had dismissed it as an isolated incident.

“It isn’t really clear in the beginning. It’s embarrassing. We’re supposed to be the best and brightest, but many of us didn’t even know we weren’t getting paid for the work we did in the summer. I’m not the only one who thought we were getting paid. Other recruits thought so, too. So, the first thing I would say to new TFA recruits is that you won’t be paid for Summer Institute. So, make sure you have enough money saved up to move to your new job, pay your first and last month’s rent and security deposit, and pay for teaching materials you’ll need when school starts.

“It’s kind of demoralizing,” Casey continued. “Right from the beginning I felt like I was being taken advantage of; that TFA wasn’t straight with us, and it was too late to do anything else. I felt like, ‘What have I gotten myself into? I’m doing all this work for free?’ Maybe TFA makes it clearer to recruits these days, and if they don’t they should. They don’t pay corps members for Summer Institute. Anyway, I started out financially in the hole and spent over a year paying them back.”

As we moved on to other topics, Casey mentioned all the things I had heard before: five weeks of training isn’t nearly enough; Casey was hired to teach another subject but observed only reading and math classes during the summer; corps members felt totally unprepared to manage a classroom, and so on. So, I decided to investigate the claim about not being paid by TFA. How could a sharp young person like Casey have mistakenly thought that corps members would get a paycheck for summer work from Teach for America?

This is what I found out and quite possibly why Casey and others thought they would be paid by Teach for America:

Eleven TFA Summer Institutes will be held June-July, 2013. This sample institute daily schedule delineates a 16.5 hour work day. If corps members are paid a minimum wage of $8.00 an hour, they would make $3,300 during Institute. (16.5 hrs. x 25 days (5 weeks) x $8.00 = $3,300) If they are paid a salary approximating a beginning teacher’s salary, oddly enough, they would make about the same amount, $3,430. ($35,672/52 weeks x 5 weeks = $3,430) According to Casey, several corps members had expected a paycheck of about $3,000 for their work during Summer Institute.

TFA does have a salary and benefits page which clearly states CORPS MEMBERS RECEIVE A FULL SALARY AND COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS.

As a corps member, you will be a full-time teacher and receive a full salary and the same comprehensive health benefits as other beginning teachers in your school district.

This statement doesn’t address Summer Institute, nor does it say who will pay the teacher’s salary. The information seems to indicate that recruits will receive a salary from Teach for America, but the amount will vary according to the school district.

Casey mentioned that campus recruiters said Teach for America was a top employer of college graduates. In 2011 College Grad.com ranked Teach for America as Number 2 in Best Companies for New Grads.

No. 2 Teach For America; hiring forecast 4,925. Average salary for teachers, $42,451

For years TV, newspapers, magazines, and websites including ABC, CBS, Washington Post, Forbes, Fortune, Bloomberg Businessweek, and Schools.com have promoted Teach for America as a top employer of college grads.

In 2010 TFA boasted about its “top employer” status to win a $50 million grant from the Department of Education (DOE), saying it ranked higher than both Microsoft and Goldman Sachs. Making the same claim in 2011, TFA was granted another $8 million SEED grant by the DOE. In that grant application TFA reported that the organization spent over $43,000 on each recruit placed in the classroom. It’s no wonder that Casey thought some of that money would be paid to corps members. Most likely the officials at the DOE and politicians promoting Teach for America have that impression, too.

Glass Door, a website that lists salaries paid by companies, reports Teach for America as paying corps member and teacher salaries. At this point I was confused myself. According to 2011 IRS form 990, TFA had assets of nearly $300 million dollars and revenue of over $270 million. You might think that an organization with that kind of moola could afford to pay recruits — their lifeblood — a salary.

Next, I called Teach for America and talked to Carrie Rankin, National Communications Director for Teach for America. I explained the claim that a corps member had made about not being paid for Summer Institute, told her I was confused about the policy myself, and asked if she could offer some clarity. She did not act surprised by my query. Neither did she confirm or deny that she had heard this complaint before. She refrained from commenting any further, and said she would send the documentation that is offered to corps members. A few days later I received this e-mail from her. I’m including her contact information here (it wasn’t easy to find) for anyone seeking clarity on this issue.

From: Carrie.Rankin@teachforamerica.org
Subject: Teach For America
Date: April 15, 2013 7:57:47 AM PDT

Deb,

I wanted to follow up on the info you requested last week.

First, you said you were investigating an alleged miscommunication about paying corps members for summer Institute. On our website, we explain that Teach For America covers the costs of Institute, but corps members are not told that they will be paid. Teach For America pays for room and board during Institute, as well as for transportation to and from school sites. Corps members are responsible for all other costs. We do have grant programs available to help corps members cover the cost of travel to and from Institute.

Best,
Carrie
—
Carrie James Rankin
National Communications Director
Teach For America
617.485.4544

The “documentation” is nothing more than a connection to TFA’s Financing Your Transition page offering INTEREST-FREE TRANSITIONAL LOANS AND GRANTS. It contains no mention of compensation for Summer Institute nor does it specifically say that recruits will not be paid for their summer work.

So, it would seem that Teach for America does not tell recruits they will be paid for their summer work, nor does the organization tell them they will not be paid. The unambiguous thing to do would be to tell recruits upfront that they will not be paid for Summer Institute. TFA should not pretend to be an employer of college grads when, in fact, they are not.

The simple truth is this: Teach for America does not employ a single teacher straight out of college. Zero. Zip. Teach for America does not employ teachers nor does it pay teachers. Teach for America is a recruiting firm. The organization provides minimally trained temps to work in place of professionals, while falsely promoting itself as a top employer of college grads/teachers.

It does seem that Teach for America is coloring reality by promoting itself as an employer instead of a recruiting firm. It is misleading, to say the least. Some might even say it’s dishonest. Certainly it is confusing to recruits who think they are employed by TFA and expect a paycheck. At any rate, the message from Casey to new TFA recruits is this: “Don’t think of Summer Institute as a summer job, and you are employed by Teach for America. TFA doesn’t pay you anything. You can bank on it.”

A memo exposing excessive erasures on high-stakes standardized tests of DC students during Michelle Rhee’s tenure as Chancellor has emerged.

This image was created by a student whose mother is a 7th grade teacher and posted on Susan Ohanian. I can’t imagine a cover more fitting for Michelle Rhee. She was hand-picked by the Billionaire Boys to be Chancellor of Washington, DC Public School, a position for which she was sadly unqualified. It’s no wonder that she would result to cheating or at least a cover-up to prove her worthiness. When she came to Seattle recently to promote her new book and StudentsFirst, our protest wasn’t covered by any news outlet. So, it’s good to see the light of day shining on Rhee’s questionable actions in regard to cheating in DC schools.

In a PBS report, The Education of Michelle Rhee, she is shown ceremoniously bestowing bonuses on principals and teachers at high achieving, or greatly improved, schools. The enormous gains in test scores raise eyebrows and lead to questions of possible cheating.

In an amazing investigative piece, John Merrow exposes the memo that could be Rhee’s smoking gun. Here’s an excerpt on Michelle Rhee’s Reign of Error, but read the entire story at Learning Matters.

Rhee failed to act on evidence of cheating because it undermined her success narrative, according to Merrow. He concludes his lengthy piece with:

This story is bound to remind old Washington hands of Watergate and Senator Howard Baker’s famous question, “What did the President know and when did he know it?” It has a memo that answers an echo of Baker’s question, “What did Michelle know, and when did she know it?” And the entire sordid story recalls the lesson of Watergate lesson, “It’s not the crime; it’s the coverup.”

That Michelle Rhee named her new organization “StudentsFirst” is beyond ironic.

PBS reporter, John Merrow talks further on All In with Chris Hayes, MSNBC (Emphasis mine.):

Chris Hayes: Michelle Rhee is presented with this document. That much we know. At least her deputy for accountablility presents her with it. Presumably she saw it.

John Merrow: I know she saw it. I have a reliable source. We verified this. Incidentally, people are very afraid of Michelle Rhee. A source high in DCPS confirmed the authenticity of this. And, I have been reporting now for 39 years. When I took it to this source’s home, that person was trembling as I presented it to that person. I have never seen anyone quite that scared. The other confirmation came from the DC inspector general. So, we know it is authentic. We know from reliable sources that Chancellor Rhee saw this and talked about it.

Click here for a larger version.

Here’s what the bill means in plain English, section by sub-section:

77th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY–2013 Regular Session
House Bill 2878

Sponsored by Representative PARRISH

Not surprisingly, Julie Parrish, District 37 — Tualitin and West Linn –  is supported by Stand for Children, an astroturf organization that has been successful in passing this type of legislation nationwide. Oregon is the only state where SFC operates that does not allow non-licensed teachers in schools. Parrish also pushed for legislation favoring charter schools and tying teacher evaluations to standardized test results.

Parrish on Twitter:

Thank you Oregonian for calling out the thuggish behavior of the OEA. Love my kids’ teachers, their union, not… http://t.co/guPJWc6o2h 02:10:04 PM March 14, 2013

Parrish is definitely anti-union.

SUMMARY

The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the measure and is not a part of the body thereof subject to consideration by the Legislative Assembly. It is an editor’s brief statement of the essential features of the measure as introduced. 

Allows person to teach certain courses in schools without being licensed by or registered with Teacher Standards and Practices Commission if certain requirements are met. Specifies restrictions to employment.

Non-licensed people can teach if they meet certain requirements.

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to teacher qualifications.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. (1) Notwithstanding ORS 338.135 and 342.173, a person employed by a school district or a public charter school may teach without being licensed by or registered with the
Teacher Standards and Practices Commission (TSPC) if:

Notwithstanding ORS 338.135 and 342.173 — Notwithstanding means forget about these laws. Not usually a good thing. What laws should we ignore? ORS 338.135 defines among other things employees licensure and registration requirements and collective bargaining rights. ORS 342.173 states the effect of employing unlicensed teacher or administrator by certain districts including penalties and fines for hiring non-licensed teachers. A person employed by a school district or a public charter school may teach without being licensed by or registered with the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission if:

(a) The person is teaching only courses for which the State Board of Education has not adopted academic content standards as required by ORS 329.045;

ORS 329.045 is a revision of common curriculum goals, performance indicators, diploma requirements, essential learning skills and academic content standards. This includes rigorous academic content standards in mathematics, science, English, history, geography, economics, civics, physical education, health, the arts and second languages. This list seems to be fairly inclusive. What courses would the non-licensed teacher be able to teach? Is there a shortage of certified teachers in some courses? What are they? Why not name them in the bill?

I contacted TSPC and asked this question. The response:

I cannot tell you exactly which courses would be allowed to be taught by a non-licensed teacher; but they would be courses for which the Department has not adopted content standards. I can tell you that it will certainly cause confusion unless regulations were clear following passage of the bill.

I highly recommend that you contact the legislative representatives for teachers at the Oregon Education Association regarding this bill.

I’m currently waiting for a response from OEA.

(b) The school district or public charter school follows the instructor appraisal committee procedures adopted by the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission; and  

Follows the instructor appraisal committee procedures? Does this mean that the non-certified teacher will be evaluated like every other teacher?  This is vague.

(c) The person meets the other training or experience requirements established by the State Board of Education and by the district school board of the school district or the public charter school governing body.

Other training or experience requirements? What are the training and experience requirement? Why would we pass a law to allow non-certified people to teach with out even know what the requirements are?

(2) A person who is employed to teach as provided by this section:

(a) Is not eligible to become a member of the Public Employees Retirement System as a result of the employment; and

No PERS for non-licensed employees posing as teachers. Will the employee have any type of retirement plan?

(b) May not become a member of a collective bargaining unit that represents licensed or registered teachers.

Non-licensed employees posing as teachers can not join a union.

(3) No more than 40 percent of the total classroom teaching time at a school may be provided by persons who are teaching as provided by this section.

Whoa! Allows person to teach certain courses in schools without being licensed is a far cry from 40 percent of classroom teaching time provided by non-licensed employees. Does this mean that nearly half of any school faculty may be non-licensed employees posing as teachers.

There are red flags all over this bill. Even if it isn’t a pretext to welcome TFA into Oregon, it is a frightening precedent in regard to retirement restrictions, collective bargaining rights, and faculty composition. This bill is slated for a hearing March 25th. Let your representatives hear from you.

More Opt Out Visuals

KBOO Opt Out of Standardized Testing

If you missed the forum, listen in here.

A panel discussion and Q & A on the growing movement of resistance to standardized testing, featuring Jesse Hagopian, leader of the teachers boycott of the MAP test at Seattle’s Garfield High School; Uvia Murillo, a Woodlawn Elementary parent who opted out of the OAKS test for her son; Elizabeth Lehl, a Vernon Elementary teacher; and Alexia Garcia, a Lincoln High student and leader of the Portland Student Union campaign urging students to opt out of the OAKS test. KBOOs Jamie Partridge recorded the forum at Grant High School on March 16, 2013.

Why Opt Out?

• High stakes testing fosters test score-driven education rather than meeting the individual needs of students.
• The emphasis on testing puts pressure on the child, who learns that it’s not learning that matters but getting a “good” test score.
• The child who does not pass the first time is identified for intensive coaching, making the child feel different. The extra time devoted to coaching is time the student may lose in enrichment subjects, PE, recess, and other activities that make school enjoyable.
• The tested subjects become the focus of instruction to boost scores, leading to neglect of useful and enriching subjects such as music, art, shop class, even writing.
• The tests favor middle class students and disadvantage low-income and minority students and students limited in English proficiency. As a result, disadvantaged students suffer a narrowed curriculum and are denied access to subjects that might engage them in school.
• Investing money towards testing, new tests, and data collection diverts money away from providing a quality, well-rounded education for all students. That is money that could be used to lower class sizes, provide counselors and aides, and more time for teachers to interact with parents and students.
• High stakes tests fuel push-outs, drop-outs and the school-to-prison pipeline.
• Opting out gives parents a say in public education. Top-down mandates from federal and state policies have left the public, and the people most directly impacted – students, teachers, and parents – out of public education policy decisions. Opting out makes your voice heard.

How to Opt Out

1. Send a letter to your child’s teacher and principal stating you are opting out of state testing for reasons of disability or religious belief. “Religion” can be construed broadly and you do not need to invoke a particular tradition or denomination. Suggest an “alternative learning activity” for your child to do during testing time, such as reading, researching, writing, helping younger students, etc.
2. You may want to call your district just to verify that they share your understanding. Try to make this process as easy on the school teachers and principals as possible by getting all the most accurate information for your district. There should be a testing coordinator at the district level that can also answer any questions.
3. If your child is in high school and opting out of the 11th grade OAKS assessment, he or she will need an alternative assessment in order to graduate, such as the ACT, SAT, or a locally scored work sample. Be prepared to state your preferred option. If your child is not in high school, no other alternative assessment is required.
4. Make sure your child wants to do this. Don’t apply any pressure.

Frequently Asked Questions

Will opting out cause my school to not receive funding?

By law, all students are entitled to a free, public education. It would be illegal to withhold funding from schools if students opt out.

Won’t test scores be required for college entry?

State test scores such as the OAKS are not required for college entry. Some colleges require SAT or ACT, but over 815 universities across the nation, including several in Oregon, do not require such test scores for admission. View the list at FairTest.

The  Test Administration Manual  from the Oregon Department of Education cites only disabilities or religious beliefs as a basis for opting out. Can I still opt out just because I don’t believe the tests are worthwhile unjust in their use?

Yes. We have checked with local ministers on this. Religion is a set of beliefs. Disagreeing in the use of high stakes testing is a set of beliefs. Additionally, it would be a violation of civil rights to allow some people to opt out due to their beliefs and not others.

Won’t this hurt the ranking of my child’s school?

It can. Schools that do not meet participation targets in all subgroups will have their overall rating lowered by one category. All subgroups with at least 40 students in assessed grades over two years combined must meet the 95% participation target. These subgroups include economically disadvantaged student, students with disabilities, English learners, and seven identified racial or ethnic groups.

Also, according to the new 2012-2013 Oregon Report Card, a school that does not meet participation targets for every subgroup for two years in a row will have their overall rating lowered by two categories and will be reviewed for particular supports and interventions. In 2013-2014, per the new Report Card, a school that does not meet participation targets for every subgroup for three years in a row will have their overall rating lowered by three categories which would result in such schools receiving either a Focus or Priority rating. However, there are no consequences to individual students.

What would it really mean to fall into a Focus or Priority category?

Schools in this category are to receive “interventions” that help students improve achievement. A team would need to examine why participation rate is low. Obviously, this forces an important discussion. Students in Priority and Focus categories based on low test scores receive interventions such as tutoring and closer monitoring of a school. Of course, it would not make sense to apply interventions simply on the basis of participation rates. This may be uncharted territory.

Didn’t receiving an NCLB waiver mean we didn’t have to have such punitive measures?

No. The waiver just renamed the measures. You can read more about that here: http://www.boldapproach.org/policy-blog-templates/stop-nclb-waivers

Won’t this harm my child’s teacher because they have to be evaluated based in part on test scores?

Participation rate should not factor into such evaluations. As a teacher would have proof from families as to their desire to opt out, this decision should not reflect negatively on teachers.

What about the new tests that are coming out, the Smarter Balanced Assessments? Will they be better and take less time and resources and provide better measures of learning?

It is hard to say what the quality will be, but we do know these tests will be more costly. They may take more time if they are given to even more grade levels. In any case, even if they are of “higher quality,” however that is defined, they will still pose the problems we have identified in terms of consequences: lack of application to student learning and narrowing the curriculum to tested subjects.

As parents, students, and educators, we need to voice how our education money in education should be spent. Should it go to more testing? Or should it go to smaller class sizes and programs and services. Find out what others are saying about the Opt Out movement, follow these links:

Do Not Judge, Do Not Condemn

My wife and I have decided not to put all the pressure of carrying out the Bartlbey Project on our son’s shoulders this year. When he is a little older and decides on his own that this is what he wants to do then we will definitely support him. However, we have not given in to the high stakes testing culture. We are going to “opt out” our son from NCLB testing (PSSAs here in Pennsylvania). We have asked other families to join us and some are considering it, but their support or lack of it will not deter us from our decision.

The Little Data Point and the Big Bad Test

This is a story written by Noa Rosinplotz, a sixth-grade student in the District of Columbia public schools. It first appeared on a Facebook page called “Children Left Behind,” a protest site for students and families. Noa sent it to her story, and she also wrote a letter, which follows the story. Students are not widgets; they are not pieces of clay. They don’t like what is being inflicted upon them. Once they become active, everything changes.

Opt Out Bumper Stickers, Yards Signs and Buttons

In January, when nearly all of the teachers at a Seattle high school decided to refuse to give mandated standardized district tests called the Measures of Academy Progress because, they said, the exams don’t evaluate learning and are a waste of time, people took notice. Since that time many other teachers, parents, and students have joined in to support them. They have released the genie from the bottle and it’s not going back in. Today many people are beginning to question the testing craze.

Social Equality Educators (SEE)

We oppose the major initiatives embodied in the Race to the Top (RTTT) program that relies on market-based approaches for our schools. Therefore, we oppose privatizing influence of charter schools that drain desperately needed funds from public schools. We oppose merit pay and other initiatives that seek to define teaching and learning through curriculum narrowing/culturally biased standardized tests.

Oregon Save Our Schools

Jesse Hagopian is a leader in the group Social Equality Educators focused on social justice unionism within the Seattle Teachers Association. He has written many articles on education reform. He co-wrote the chapter “Teachers’ Union and Social Justice” for the book Education and Capitalism Struggles for Learning and Liberation. Jesse teaches social studies in Seattle at Garfield High School and is one of many teachers boycotting the MAP Test.

Portland Student Union

The PPS and Portland Student Unions will be teaming up in organizing an Opt-Out Campaign in which students are encouraged to opt-out of taking their standardized OAKS tests. The Student Unions want to send a strong message against to the standardized testing system as we believe that standardized tests scores are an inaccurate depiction of a student’s knowledge, have an extremely high correlation to a student’s family’s income, have a high correlation with race, are expensive, and in all are taking up class time that we could use learning things that are more applicable to our lives, as well as be developing better relationships with our teachers and peers.

Seattle Education

We now have two levels of learners. Those whose fate is to memorize basic facts and the second set of learners who are learning how to think creatively and critically. The second level of students are for the most part in the private schools or the schools in the wealthier communities. With the re-segregation of our schools into neighborhood schools in Seattle, the line has been drawn quite clearly.

Garfield Teachers on Democracy Now!

Great Schools for America

It would be like a mechanic whose boss has said,” I want you to use the cheaper version of the brakes even though they’re not as good, I want you to use that.” And mechanic finally stood up and said, “You know this is bad for customers, right? You know the breaks are going to give out sooner, and I feel so strongly that that’s the wrong thing to do that I’m not going to turn to my boss and say no.”

United Opt Out National

Members of this site are parents, educators, students and social activists who are dedicated to the elimination of high stakes testing in public education. We use this site to collaborate, exchange ideas, support one another, share information and initiate collective local and national actions to end the reign of fear and terror promoted by the high stakes testing agenda.

Fair Test

The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) works to end the misuses and flaws of standardized testing and to ensure that evaluation of students, teachers and schools is fair, open, valid and educationally beneficial.

Parents Across America

By the way, the third MAP test which is given in the Fall is solely for the use of NWEA. That’s why it’s “optional”.

Rethinking Schools

I walked away from the rest of my class and over to the three computers in the corner of my classroom. Two of my 1st graders, Jasmine and Jayden, sat at their computers with their headphones off, waiting for me to reset their computers to Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) test number 2.

“I got 162,” said Jasmine. “You got 142.”

“You did better than me,” replied Jayden with a frown.

Shelly sat at the third computer. “I don’t wanna do the computer test,” she pleaded. “Do I have to?”

Save Our Schools

Dear Save Our Schools Supporters…

We wish to offer an opportunity to express your support for The Letter of Endorsement of the NYC Field Test Boycott.

We the undersigned, education researchers and scholars from across the United States and abroad, support the New York City families in their decision to boycott the field test from October 23 to 25.

We wish to offer an opportunity to express your support for The Letter of Endorsement of the NYC Field Test Boycott.

We the undersigned, education researchers and scholars from across the United States and abroad, support the New York City families in their decision to boycott the field test from October 23 to 25.

Texas Parents Opt Out of State Tests

In Texas, more than 10,000 people joined a recent rally to protest it. In Seattle, high school teachers launched a boycott over it. And in Los Angeles, school board candidates are arguing over it — a debate considered so crucial to the future of education reform that outside donors have poured millions into the campaigns.

Dr. Yong Zhao

If just 6% of the children per school site were opted out of this grossly over-rated system of assessing students and holding educators accountable, we could begin to have a productive dialogue about more humane and complex systems of assessment and education.

It would be like a mechanic whose boss has said,” I want you to use the cheaper version of the brakes even though they’re not as good, I want you to use that.” And mechanic finally stood up and said, “You know this is bad for customers, right? You know the breaks are going to give out sooner, and I feel so strongly that that’s the wrong thing to do that I’m not going to turn to my boss and say no.”

For years Indiana has had strong state standards supported by Frameworks that assist teachers in delivering the curriculum. To replace decades of work completed by the people of the state with national Common Core standards seems ridiculous to some.

Here are arguments from Indiana educators and parents reduced t “Myths” by Stand for Children. Many of these arguments can be made by any of the 45 states that have signed on to implement the Common Core. Just insert the name of your state for Indiana. Regardless of Stand’s “facts,” the point may be argues that Common Core legislation was ramrodded through state legislatures without adequate discussion or debate, and without public approval.

MYTH 1: COMMON CORE IS AN EFFORT OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO NATIONALIZE EDUCATION AND FORCE STATES TO TEACH ALL STUDENTS THE SAME WAY.
Fact: Common Core is a state-led initiative by governors, state superintendents, and nonprofit agencies to modernize education standards. It is research-based and molded with more than 10,000 comments from the public. The Indiana State Board of Education, to which the General Assembly has given the task of adopting standards, voluntarily adopted the Common Core in 2010. Indiana received no incentives from the federal government for taking this action.

MYTH 2: INDIANA’S STANDARDS WERE JUDGED SUPERIOR TO COMMON CORE, “EVEN BY COMMON CORE SUPPORTERS.”
Fact: While Indiana’s standards are high compared to many other states, children are still leaving school unprepared for what lies ahead. In addition to the students who do not graduate from high school or choose not to attend college, one-third of Indiana students who do attend college require remediation in math or English.The Fordham Institute, one of the organizations often cited praising Indiana’s standards even said some of the Common Core shifts “would benefit Indiana’s already-strong standards,” and the Common Core State Standards are quality standards for the nation.

MYTH 3: STATES MAY NOT ADJUST THE NEW COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS TO MEET THEIR STATE-LEVEL NEEDS.
Fact: Common Core allows states to add standards on top of the Common Core. This is known as the “15% Rule”, due to the amount of standards that can be added. Additionally, Indiana law allows Home Rule, which means school corporations can adopt standards above the state minimum.

MYTH 4: COMMON CORE STANDARDS REPRESENT A NATIONAL CURRICULUM AND IMPLEMENTING 100% OF COMMON CORE MEANS THAT THE STANDARDS TELL TEACHERS PRECISELY HOW THEY MUST TEACH.
Fact: Standards, by definition, are not a curriculum. Common Core defines the “what” rather than the “how” of teaching. Common Core is a set of standards that outline what students should know at a particular grade level in order to be on track to mastering skills and content to be prepared for college and beyond. Curriculum – the map, schedule, and method for teaching standards – will be a decision left up to school corporations and teachers to construct.

MYTH 5: REFERRING TO THE COMMON CORE AS “NATIONAL STANDARDS” IS THE MOST ACCURATE WAY TO DESCRIBE THEM.
Fact: Neither Congress nor the U.S. Department of Education was involved in the development of Common Core, nor have they mandated Common Core adoption. Not all states have chosen to participate. In fact, the Common Core are nationally aligned state standards because they were developed in collaboration between state and education leaders across the country.

MYTH 6: HOOSIER TAXPAYERS WILL END UP PAYING MORE FOR TECHNOLOGY AND CURRICULUM UPDATES UNDER COMMON CORE THAN THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO UNDER THE INDIANA STANDARDS.
Fact: Indiana currently spends $93.9 million annually on standards-related costs. And the costs of Common Core implementation have varied greatly. At least one estimate said a Common Core transition can save Indiana $23 million. Additionally, Indiana is in a better place than most states because the state allowed districts to make technology investments with textbook funds starting in 2009. (source) This means most – if not all – of Common Core implementation costs can be covered by existing spending.

MYTH 7: “UNDER THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS, STUDENTS MAY GRADUATE FROM HIGH SCHOOL READING AT A 7TH GRADE LEVEL.”
Fact: The fact is that currently there are too many students graduating high school reading at a 7th grade level and even lower. This is a major reason why the Common Core were established in the first place. Common Core standards push students to read at even higher levels earlier in their school careers. For example, the current standard for a 9th grade reading level will become the new standard for a 7th grade reading level under full implementation of the Common Core.

MYTH 8: “UNDER THE COMMON CORE, ‘COLLEGE READINESS’ MEANS PREPARATION FOR A SELECTIVE TWO-YEAR COLLEGE, NOT A UNIVERSITY.”
Fact: An education rooted in the Common Core standards would actually prepare students to enter a university setting having spent the last 12 years building up to the complexity of material they will encounter at higher levels of education. Nowhere in the Common Core initiative or research do the authors define “college readiness” as readiness for a “two-year college” instead of a university.

MYTH 9: INDIANA ONLY CHOSE TO ADOPT COMMON CORE BECAUSE THEY WANTED FEDERAL RACE TO THE TOP (RTTT) STIMULUS FUNDS OR WERE INCENTIVIZED BY THE OPPORTUNITY TO RECEIVE A NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) WAIVER.
Fact: Indiana did not adopt Common Core when it applied for the first round of RTTT funds, and the state did not apply for the second round. Indiana adopted the Common Core on its own terms in August 2010. (source) Indiana also adopted the new standards one year before the NCLB waiver was even an option for states.

MYTH 10: 70% OF THE TEXTS READ IN ENGLISH-LANGUAGE ARTS CLASSES MUST BE INFORMATION-TEXT IN 12TH GRADE, WHICH PREVENTS STUDENTS FROM LEARNING CULTURE THROUGH HIGH QUALITY LITERATURE.
Fact: Common Core standards call for 70% of all texts (not 70% of English Language Arts texts) read in 12th grade to be nonfiction, which includes content area texts, such as science and history. (source) This was done to support literacy instruction in other content areas and underscore the role that all teachers must play in literacy efforts. (source) This will help ensure students are graduating high school adequately prepared to read rigorous college and career-level material, a majority of which are informational texts.

MYTH 11: THE COMMON CORE WILL BE ADOPTED IN PLACE OF ALL INDIANA ACADEMIC STANDARDS IN ALL SUBJECT AREAS.
Fact: The Common Core standards provide new standards for English Language Arts and math only, not social studies, science and technical subjects. Nor will these other subjects be evaluated on the new PARCC assessment test. Current Indiana Academic Standards will be used for these subjects.

Students protest Rhee’s support of charter schools that segregate or “colonize” minority and poor students.

High-stakes tests favored by Rhee have led to a curriculum of “teaching to the test” and less art, music and P.E. in schools.

During Rhee’s tenure as Chancellor of Washington D.C. Public Schools, widespread cheating occurred.

There are at least 3,000,000 teachers in America who have more education expertise than Michelle Rhee. Jonathan Kozol is one that has written prolifically about America’s poorest students. The difference between educators like Kozol and Rhee is that Rhee is in the pocket of her billionaire funders who favor privatizing our public schools, and that buys her influence.

Charter schools disproportionately enroll poor minority children and are known to push out students with special needs, students with behavioral problems, and English language learners.

Tax cuts for the top 1%, including the richest corporations, and the abysmal design of No Child Left Behind have left our public education system in much need of repair.

This one’s for you Bill, Eli, Walton brothers and sisters. 

You can listen to an interview of Rhee by NPR’s Seattle affiliate, KUOW and a response by Seattle Education blogger Dora Taylor at the 17:15 minute mark.

Michelle Rhee, corporate education reformer was in Seattle Tuesday to promote her new book, Radical: Fighting to Put Students First. On the book jacket, Jonathan Alter champions her as “a hard-charging champion of education reform and a strong Democrat,” while Geoffrey Canada calls her “a national treasure.” Apparently reviewers at Amazon.com have a different opinion. Currently, the book has received a one-out-of-five star rating.

From Amazon cirtics:

There are a lot of stories where she’s the only one who cares about kids. She blasts the other teachers at the school where she taught at when she was in her 20′. The politicians, her central office staff, teachers and principals in DC, a funder who won’t give her enough money — they just don’t care. No one cares except Michelle.

When she quits DC’s schools, it’s more of the same. She name-drops all the people who called her and said they wanted to hire her and talk with her–foundations, the Aspen Institute, the Hoover Institution, Meg Whitman, Chris Christie, Rahm Emanuel. But she says no. Instead, she asks the Walmart family to give her $100 million to start her own organization, though it’s not clear whether she got the $100 million or what her organization, called StudentsFirst, actually does with its money. Do they put it into schools and classrooms? Is it a lobbying firm? A PAC? A charity like March of Dimes, only for schools?

If you’re really into Michelle Rhee and want to know all about her, hey, go ahead and read the book. Different strokes for different folks. But if you’re looking for an honest self-appraisal of her career, or if you’re the least bit skeptical or if you think critically about what’s really best for kids, this isn’t worth reading. Lots of people see Diane Ravitch as an alternative to Michelle Rhee, but I’d recommend John Merrow’s The Influence of Teachers: Reflections on Teaching and Leadership, which is far more serious and thoughtful than this.

Protesters in Seattle aren’t really that into Rhee, and they already know plenty about her. They met outside the townhall where she spoke passing out leaflets, picketing, and chanting for an hour before she spoke, although you wouldn’t know it from the Seattle Times coverage of the event. A more accurate account was provided by one of the attendees, Steve Nesich:

I sincerely mean no hostility or personal slight towards Sarah Freishtat, the young intern who wrote this story. I’m certain, like many young writers, she possesses a great deal of potential.

But, unfortunately, this is exceedingly poor journalism. It resembles the “puff pieces” I normally associate with some mass market magazines, replete with full page, full color ads, targeted to a demographic obsessed with frivolous distractions such as celebrity, fashion and “lifestyle”.

This view was reinforced, right down to the jarring, pseudo-Saskia de Brauw “wannabe” photo image.

For someone apparently unfamiliar with Rhee’s history, I assume it’s easy to “fall for her”, in more ways than one. Rhee is known for her ability to read and manipulate people, and leveraging that to get what she wants from them. Perhaps that explains the superficial and fawning coverage; however, it doesn’t justify or negate it.

Freishtat’s obsequious tone permeates this entire article. Her narrative demonstrates both a woeful lack of perception and the pangs of an aspiring, but malleable young journalist, desperately hoping to “stay in touch” with someone as wealthy and “connected” as Michelle Rhee.

I was at Rhee’s presentation, and the hall—with a surprising number of vacant seats—was far from “overflowing”. And a high percentage of that audience was clearly disturbed by Rhee’s “stage smile”, and overtly hostile to her many distortions and fabrications.

Ironically, one of the few clearly accurate parts of this story quoted Rhee as saying “if she could do it all over again, she would manage news sources better.”

Judging by the final copy in this “Edu Celebrity” piece, I’d say that Rhee has clearly accomplished the “news management” part of this—exceedingly well; she apparently managed to turn you from a news organization—at least in this instance—into a very compliant “marketing and promotions firm”, with all services courteously provided, gratis, by the compliant “professionals” at The Seattle Times.

In January, when nearly all of the teachers at a Seattle high school decided to refuse to give mandated standardized district tests called the Measures of Academy Progress because, they said, the exams don’t evaluate learning and are a waste of time, people took notice. Since that time many other teachers, parents, and students have joined in to support them. They have released the genie from the bottle and it’s not going back in. Today many people are beginning to question the testing craze.

Fanning the flames of the debate is a newly released study identifying a stress gene. Slate DoubleX Gabfest posts a great discussion about testing based on an article that appeared in The New York Times February 6, 2013.  According to the authors of “Why Can Some Kids Handle Pressure While Others Fall Apart?”, researchers have discovered a gene that identifies how people react to stress. The conversation focuses on stress induced by standardized testing on students. Depending on their genetic make-up, researchers say, people can have either warrior or worrier reactions to pressure. Warriors, who are more easy-going and not stressed-out by tests, do better than worriers, who are generally more intelligent and better organized, but do relatively poorly on tests under pressure.

In Taiwan, where the research study was performed, administrators stopped giving the tests because they were disadvantaging, unnecessarily, the worriers. The test had been thought to identify the best and brightest achievers to go on to the university and professional careers. But based on test results, the people with higher IQs and excellent organizing skills were being sentenced to toiling in factories. Ironic.

The Little Data Point and the Big Bad Test written by a 12-year-old girl is read by her mother who is hosting the discussion. Her point, no pun intended, in not to be taken lightly.

Listen to the conversation on here.  The test discussion begins at the 21:30 mark and lasts about 15 minutes. Well worth a listen.

United Opt Out National

We opt out of high-stakes testing and we resist all market -based reforms that seek to privatize and destroy public education.

Let your voice be heard in the testing debate. Below are bumper stickers designed to support students and teachers who have been subjugated to unnecessary tests for far too long. These were designed at Build-a-Sign, a site chosen randomly from the internet. The Opt Out signs are interspersed with education appreciation ones. You may design your own and purchase bumper stickers and signs here or from a local vendor. Buttons were designed on templates provided at Make Pins.com. The objective is to support teachers who have no choice but to give meaningless test, and students who have no choice but to take them. UNTIL NOW!

Yard Signs 

Bumper Stickers

Buttons

There will be a protest at 6:00 PM on February 19th in front of Town Hall where Michelle Rhee will be talking about her latest fundraising effort, her book. Join us. We will have signs…and tape.

Seattle Education posts a comprehensive, up-to-date review of Rhee — from her Teach for America days terrorizing little children to her scandal-ridden days as Chancellor of Washington, D.C. Public Schools, to her newest nonprofit venture (from which she will profit handsomely), Students First.

“Most of Rhee’s agenda runs counter to what parents identify as their top priorities, including small class sizes, less high-stakes testing, improving neighborhood schools, recruiting and retaining strong and experienced teachers, and giving parents a real voice in governing schools.”

It won’t be the first time teachers, parents, and teachers have boycotted Rhee. Last year at this time East Bay CTA & CFT Teachers Picketed Michelle Rhee chanting “We Are, We Teach The 99%.”

Professor Andy Hargreaves was welcomed by Portland State University President, Wim Wiewel, who talked in vague terms of Governor Kitzhaber’s pipeline to streamline Oregon education from cradle to career. He emphasized the ambiguity of the plan saying, “Where are all the boxes?” We don’t know yet. And, “Who or what will live in those boxes? We don’t know.” Hargreaves was introduced as someone to help figure this out.

What had been billed as a lecture turned out to be a 30 minute book talk followed by a short Q & A and book signing. Here are some key points from Hargreaves’ newest book, Professional Capital, co-authored with Michael Fullan, as noted in his presentation.

In his opening remarks, Hargreaves focused our attention on transforming teaching in every school. His formula: PC = f(HC,SC,DC).

“Teachers, along with parents, are the most important people in our lives. It’s the teacher, stupid.” he said.

He elaborated on the system we now have in place that knows only two strategies: to either reward or remove teachers. Then he said something that experienced teachers have known all along. He said in all the mountains of data collected on teacher quality and tying kids’ tests scores to teacher evaluations, reliable numbers correspond to principals’ judgements. Let me say that again with emphasis: He said principals are the best evaluators of teacher performance. Just as research shows that the grades a teacher assigns to a student are the best indicator of how that student will do in college (Krashen), the judgements, or evaluations, principals assign to a teachers are only reinforced by data. (One might ask why we are wasting extraordinary amounts of money on a system that tells us what we already know.)

Although I agree with much of what Hargreaves says, I am not comfortable with the language and presentation of his ideas. For example, his method of defining every idea in terms of “capital.” I have a strong aversion to using the word “capital” to describe human worth since I first came across this website: Strategic Management of Human Capital some years ago. The site elaborates in no uncertain terms the value and manipulation of human life in monetary (capital) terms. Knowing that as a teacher, I am thought of as human capital forces me, on some level, to think of my students in those terms, when for decades that thought had never entered my mind. Maybe this is a compromise educators must accede to these days in order to gain a foothold in today’s profit-driven, business-dominated education environment. I think the price is too dear.

In the words of Hargreaves:

Capital relates to one’s own or group worth –particularly concerning assets that can be leveraged to accomplish desired goals.

Business capital assumes that good teaching:

• is technically simple
• a quick study
• can be mastered readily
• should be driven by hard performance data
• is about enthusiasm, effort, talent, and results
• is replaceable by online instruction.

He then likened  so-called “teachers” produced in droves by organizations like Teach for America, The New Teacher Project/Center, and Teaching Fellows programs as delivering curriculum “karaoke style” — to applause from the educators in the audience.

Professional capital as it pertains to teaching:

• is technically sophisticated and difficult
• requires high levels of education and training over a long time
• is perfected through continuous improvement
• is a collective accomplishment
• maximizes,mediates, and moderates online instruction

“Technology and teachers work well together.  One should not replace the other,” he said.

Hargreaves defines three other types of capital as a subset of professional capital: human capital, social capital, and decisional capital.

Human capital involves qualifications, knowledge, preparation, skills, and emotional intelligence.

Social capital involves trust, collaboration, collective responsibility, mutual assistance, professional networks, and a healthy amount of push, pull, and nudge to reach goals.

Decisional capital involves judgement, case experience, practice, challenge and stretching, and reflection.

Notably absent from this discussion is the idea of how cultural capital including race, ethnicity, socio-economic, and other conditions, factors into education.

Hargreaves mentioned Finland as an example of a country that reveres teachers as professionals. In 1992, Finland had an unemployment rate of 19%. Proactively, officials decided to invest in education by investing in teachers. Every teacher in Finland must earn a master’s degree before entering the classroom. Teachers are highly qualified in the true sense of that concept: knowledgeable, prepared, skilled, and emotionally intelligent. They earn the trust of their respective communities, and together with members of the community collaborate, take collective responsibility, mutually assist each other, create professional networks, and help each other to reach goals. Based on case experience, practice, challenges, and reflection they are able to make judgements on how to meet goals. Now fifteen years later, Finland’s education system is hailed as the finest in the world.

Fifteen years ago, the Finns did not articulate their education goals in terms of capital. They did not think of their children or teachers in terms of human capital. Using the definition of humans identified as capital, how difficult will it be for us to give children in our state or country the education they need and deserve? Do the same attributes that worked so well for the Finns take on a new and different meaning when we define ourselves as capital?

He gave a statistic that I find unbelievable. He said that in this country the average time spent in the classroom by new teachers is one year before leaving. (GASP from audience.) I have not been able to confirm that statistic.

Near the end of his talk, Hargreaves announced that he would be working on the governor’s vision of cradle to career. He said that he would be working with Education Northwest, Inc., which had just been awarded a $1.8 million grant for continued support of their work. He is part of the pipeline created by the OEIB that promises to do more with less. From Education Northwest:

As Secretary of Education Arne Duncan pointed out, NWRCC (Education Northwest) and the nation’s network of comprehensive centers “will help low-performing schools and districts close the achievement gap. They provide valuable support of the Administration’s P–12 initiatives to ensure that every child is able to receive a high-quality education.”

Hargreaves mentioned vaguely these as some of the goals for Oregon:

• a smaller number of schools in districts to promote social capital
• tighter faculty groups, and a smaller number of groups to promote decisional capital
• higher standards for accreditation

On testing:

• test prudently, not profitably
• do not test every student in every grade every year
• do test less people less often and give better tests

“We are not at a stage to give up testing altogether as Finland has done,” he said.

He left us with this quote from Nelson Mandela:

There can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children and their teachers.