Do your homework

I'm intentionally not doing anything with this on any other platform, but I do want to note that Pioneer Institute demonstrates that they don't understand charter funding, school budgeting, or special education in their latest.
The idea that somehow only the districts that are suffering if they are majority locally funded for charters is patently false. The reason that districts are majority state funded is those are districts that lack local resources to pay for education. In a number of the districts that "only" receive minimal amounts of state aid, the state aid is a fairly minimal part of their funding. Districts receiving 17.5% of their foundation budget in state aid in some cases could entirely fund their school budgets themselves. And then some. It is ridiculous to point to such districts as the "only" ones suffering from charter reimbursement, when the minimum funding model is generally regarded a political necessity more than a budgetary one.
All general fund funding for schools is pooled in a school budget; state aid isn't something that is dipped into when the inclination takes a district. This is a silly framing of how this works. The charter tuition "only being paid for with state money" doesn't mean it hurts the district any less to lose the funding.
And charters, exactly like district (non-vocational) schools, get 3.75% of their enrollment as assumed in-district special education. That is it. No one counts anything, and the assumption for the charters is the same as it is for every non-vocational school.

Learn something before opining.

Pioneer's argument for yes: Help those big out-of-state charter management organizations "achieve scale"

I had to read this twice to be sure that this wasn't a joke:

The biggest reason there are so few CMOs operating in Massachusetts is the existing charter school cap, which prevents the organizations from achieving scale.

So, yes, Pioneer's argument for why you should vote yes on question 2 is so charter management organizations can come to Massachusetts and "achieve scale."
What's darkly amusing about this argument is that the Yes crew has been at some pains to separate themselves from the problems described (for example) by John Oliver regarding charter schools. It's the CMO's that in many cases have been the crux of the problems described.
Massachusetts largely does not have them (with the exceptions of KIPP and Sabis). Pioneer, however, would apparently like us to.

Or, you could vote no on 2.

Chester and door number 3

At last night's Board of Ed meeting, Commissioner Chester floated the notion of a third way between PARCC and MCAS:

“I am considering this new model, this door number three, that takes advantage of our access to PARCC development ... but uses that development for the construction of a MCAS 2.0, and gives us the running room to ensure that MCAS 2.0 is exactly the test that we want,” Chester told the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education at a special meeting focused on student assessment...

“Any path to MCAS 2.0 that involves PARCC must be a direction over which we have complete control,” Chester said, adding that the state must be able to customize any exam it gives to meet “our needs and desires.” Chester said that the board’s discussions so far and public comment on the exams have helped him realize the importance of Massachusetts retaining control. “It’s critical that we ensure our control of our standards and assessments, and not leave that to chance or to decisions of other states,” he said.

 Let's first of all--PLEASE--set aside any notion that this is totally coming out of nowhere. It was clear from last month's Board discussion that a number of members of the Board had what Professor Fryer termed "governance" concerns: in other words, who runs the show. As the argument from the beginning has been that it was important for Massachusetts to not only be in PARCC, but be on the Board of PARCC, and as Chester's position of chair of PARCC has repeatedly been defended as furthering this end, this isn't new. 
What is new is getting the Commissioner himself to a place where Massachusetts not just going with straight PARCC was going to fly. It's somewhat hard to back off when you've been chairing a board tasked with creating the test, and when you've been saying for months that states dropping out of PARCC has been purely political (I could link to my notes on that, but it would be multiple links!).
This is not to say that Massachusetts leaving (as it appears is being recommended) isn't political. It was impossible for me to read yesterday's column against PARCC by the Pioneer Institute without recalling who their first director was--Charlie Baker--and who their director was shortly after that--Jim Peyser. So as much as it pains me, no, it's impossible to view this through a purely educational lens.
But then, that's what got us into this mess in the first place. 
Instead, it's been clear in the Board meetings that there really isn't a plan B: we don't have a renewed contract for MCAS, we don't have a technical backup (beyond PARCC), and we're running up against deadlines all over the place. That was most particularly clear from Deputy Commissioner Wulfson's responses at the last meeting (that's the previous link), and how the state decides to deal with that remains to be seen (and here's hoping the Board thinks to ask!).


For all those, like me, who are waking up this morning wondering what would have happened in Massachusetts had just stayed out of Race to the Top all together and instead used this time to develop an actual authentic assessment, all eyes on Margaret McKenna:

Suffolk University President Margaret McKenna said she didn’t think either MCAS or PARCC was the answer, citing a recent report conducted by Mathematica Policy Research for the state Executive Office of Education, which found both tests to be comparable predictors of college readiness.

“We just need to start thinking maybe more creatively about how we get there,” McKenna said of developing a new exam.

 Count me in.

Oh, Boston Globe (regarding PARCC)

Because the Board of Ed meets tonight and tomorrow and PARCC is on the agenda, the Globe editorial board apparently felt that it couldn't put off deciding any longer, and came out in support of PARCC. The Pioneer Institute could not, of course, let that go unchallenged, and Joanna Weiss doesn't understand this very specific math problem.
Oh, Boston Globe (sigh)...
The survey the Globe is citing (72% of teachers support) is this Teach Plus survey of teachers who attended a Teach Plus PARCC conference. Yes, it was a self-selected group, and they offer no evidence that, as they say, "The views of Massachusetts teachers who attended the “Testing the Test” events are similar to the views of the teachers across the sites." It was a survey that included 351 teachers. So all that we can conclude is that 252 teachers think it's better. That's about 1/3 of 1% of Massachusetts teachers. Note that their only support for "great teaching" is also from a Teach Plus fellow (which Board member Margaret McKenna pointed out at a previous meeting is a group that comes to this with a certain agenda).
The column by Jim Stergios, writing for the Pioneer Institute, is replete with myths and errors: PARCC will take more time (no, particularly now that they rolled both parts into one); kids will delay entering algebra at all (no) and kids will end math with Algebra II (no); oh, and this:

That demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of standards-based reform. PARCC tests the elements of Common Core shared by all states, not the supplemental math or higher-level reading individual states may add. Given that over time what isn’t tested isn’t taught, PARCC represents a race to the middle for Massachusetts.

Well, throw out calculus and AP physics, then, folks!
 The column by Joanna Weiss is a more measured version of the hysterical forwards replete on social media around Common Core math homework, which more-or-less boil down to "I didn't learn it this way; why should anyone?"
Because we can do better. Because kids who actually understand how math works rather than just memorizing formulas actually are better at mathmatics, long term, no matter what they do in the rest of their lives.

Please understand: I post all of the above not because I am a PARCC apologist. I made my own position clear--neither--back in July when I testified before the Board of Ed. There are other options out there. If we are going to have this conversation about testing, though, let's please at least attempt to do without making things up, misleading the public, repeating things that are wrong, and otherwise trying to cloud the issue.
What if we debate this on its relative merits?

Vouchers aren't the answer

Last week, the Pioneer Institute hosted a forum and released a report, touting vouchers as something Massachusetts should chase down. The proposal, specifically, is:

school vouchers, worth $6,000 per year for grades K-8 and $8,000 for high school, be offered to 10,000 students with household incomes below 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines.

Note that, per the Private School Review:

The average private school tuition in Massachusetts is $11,847 for elementary schools and $29,049 for high schools

..leaving families that are below 200 percent of the poverty rate to somehow come up with nearly $6000 per elementary student and $21,000 per high school student. Private schools, particularly, the parochial schools Pioneer seems to be targeting, aren't going to be able to scale up their financial aid systems to that level for additional kids.

Additionally, voucher systems are coming under wide criticism across the country, as they aren't doing what they were touted as doing: they don't improve student performance, they don't create "better" schools...they just don't do what they're said to*.

And while harkening back to the "Know Nothing" laws is clever ("we wouldn't want to be perceived as anti-Catholic, now, would we?"), I suspect that the Catholic schools don't really want the degree of state regulation and oversight--and testing--that the public schools now have.
We wouldn't, after all, want to give up "accountability," now, would we?

 *this last link is from 2008, demonstrating that the failure has been going on for some time. And these links are only a few of the plethora from which one can choose with a quick look at voucher research.

And back at the state level of politics

Not a great surprise, since we knew they weren't fans, but the Pioneer Institute is calling for Commissioner Chester to be fired.
UPDATE: I posted this over on Twitter:

Yes, @MassGovernor appts Sec'ty & selects chair from BoE members, but Sec'ty doesn't (correct me if I'm wrong) control DESE budget. 2/2
— Tracy Novick (@TracyNovick) January 15, 2015

Pioneer got back to me with this:

@TracyNovick It's in MGL, part of 2007-08 Patrick reorg, DESE firmly under exec branch, days of independent DESE gone
— Pioneer Institute (@PioneerBoston) January 15, 2015

...which is a little nonspecific. So I looked it up! The powers and duties of the secretary and the commissioner are spelled out in Chapter 69, sec. 1A, which says this about the budget:

The commissioner shall propose a budget to the board; said budget shall reflect the goals and objectives of the board and the secretary of education, in this chapter called the secretary. The board shall review and make recommendations regarding the budget to the secretary. The secretary shall then prepare and submit a budget request on behalf of the department to the house and senate committees on ways and means, the joint committee on education, and the secretary of administration and finance.

The Secretary thus fulfills his role as the connection between DESE and the Executive branch (which then proposes the budget to the Legislature). From this, it doesn't look as though the Secretary has actual veto power, though to interpret this generously, he presumably could refuse to forward the proposed budget to the Governor.
...which could get interesting...

On the education front in Massachusetts

With last night (this morning)'s election of Charlie Baker as the next governor of Massachusetts, a word on the direction we're heading in on education: among the first announcements made this afternoon after Martha Coakley's concession was that of the appointment of James Peyser as transition chair. If you haven't been around Massachusetts for a few decades, the name may be new to you. In Massachusetts, he may be best known for being was chair of the Board of Education from 1999 to 2006.
It's what he did before that, and what he's done since, that should be of grave interest to public education advocates. Peyser came out of the Pioneer Institute (as did Baker). Currently, Peyser is the manager partner for CityFunds at New School Venture Funds. You can read his latest blog posts here. Per his New School Venture Funds bio:

In 1995, he served as Under Secretary of Education and Special Assistant to the Governor for Charter Schools. He spent more than seven years as Executive Director of Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, where he helped to launch the Massachusetts Charter School Resource Center, which supported the development of the state’s first charter schools. Prior to joining Pioneer Institute, Jim held various positions at Teradyne, Inc. in Boston, an electronic test equipment manufacturer.asIn his role with NewSchools, Jim currently serves on the board of directors for Achievement First, New Schools for New Orleans, Success Charter Network, and Uncommon Schools. He is also chairman of the board of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA). In June 2011, Jim was inducted into the Hall of Fame by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

I would say that this is indicative.

Watertown debate (?) on the Common Core

I don't usually post these, but this line-up is priceless!

Information Session on the Common Core

There will be an informational session about the Common Core which will include proponents as well as opponents. There will be a four person panel which will feature Dr. Sandra Stotsky (Common Core Validation Committee member), Dr. Mitchell Chester (Commissioner for Elementary and Secondary Education), Jamie Gass (Pioneer Institute) and Mark Aliegro (Liberty Chalkboard and 9th Congressional candidate). This educational event is sponsored by Liberty Chalkboard, in conjunction with the Watertown, Newton and Belmont Republican Town Committees.

Event Details:

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

6:45p.m.

Watertown Public Library

123 Main St.

Watertown, MA 02472

If the names don't mean anything to you: Stotsky was on the Common Core development committee, refused to sign off on them, and now is publicly questioning their adoption; Chester is the MA Commissioner of Education who did not advocate adopting the Common Core for the first round of Race to the Top, then did for the second round, and now is defending their adoption; Gass and the Pioneer Institute are convinced that the Common Core is sending Massachusetts educational standards down the tubes; and Aliegro is running against Rep. Keating in the 9th Congressional district as a conservative Republican. Man, I hope someone liveblogs this!

Point/counterpoint on the Common Core

This month's edition of Commonwealth magazine has Commissioner Mitchell Chester defending the Common Core, Jim Stergios of the Pioneer Institute attacking it, and then each going for another round. Gets surprisingly personal towards the end.

As it happens, I think they're both partly wrong--the Mass Standards were stronger and it was a political move; the dependence on the MCAS has not made us a stronger state academically--but this is the second time recently I've seen Chester being somewhat defensive about the academics of the choices made.

Also, it was recently called to my attention that the BBC noted back in February that the UK Education Secretary was basing their system off of the Massachusetts system--the one we had before the Common Core.

With the usual caveats*

...I have to say that Jim Stergios at least captures the conflict of interest, revolving door nature of much of whats going on in the national standards movement.



*including, but not limited to: it's the Pioneer Institute thus: the usual bit about how if the teachers' union likes it, it must be bad; the Mass Frameworks were practically handed down on Mount Sinai; the MCAS is the Best Examination Ever; everyone else is trying to undermine our work...you get the idea.
He had a decent one last month on similar themes.

2011 Massachusetts Budget Map

The Pioneer Institute has sponsored this rendering of the 2010 Massachusetts Budget.

Speaking of politics making strange bedfellows

Of all things this post on the Red Mass Group site from (of all things) the Pioneer Institute raises some legitimate concerns about the jump by the DESE onto the Common Core standards bandwagon. (Note that the Pioneer Institute and Charlie Baker were part of the push to get the frameworks evaluated by a standardized test rather than a true "comprehensive" assessment, so take that part with a grain of salt.)
I would particularly echo their concern with the lack of public comment period on this very significant change in Massachusetts education.
UPDATE: and a hat tip for Valerie Strauss for some pointed analysis.