States that want to opt out of the Common Core Learning Standards (CCLS) and/or the tests aligned to or based on its standards are being threatened by a toothless tiger that doesn’t want the states to know the tiger has no claws.

States are hearing, “It’s too late to back out”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on implementing the [low-level Common Core] standards your state board of education adopted three years ago”; “You’ll waste all the money you’ve spent on [self-described] Common Core consultants who have given [very costly] professional development to your teachers and told them what to change in their classroom curriculum to address Common Core”; “You will have to pay back all the money you got under Race to the Top (RttT)”; or, “You will lose your waiver and not get your Title I money.”

Can the U.S. Department of Education (USED) demand repayment from states that got RttT funds? Can it withhold Title I money from a state that loses its waiver? It is important to recall that Congress didn’t pass legislation requiring Common Core’s standards or tests. All it authorized in 2001 was a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). ESEA hasn’t been re-authorized since then, so there are no new or different education policies passed by Congress. A variety of conditions have been attached to the recent waivers issued by USED, but they may have no constitutional legitimacy since Congress didn’t approve them. States can certainly raise that objection.

At the national level:
If a state received RttT money and spent it, it most likely doesn’t have to pay it back if it now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards (by any name) and any tests aligned to or based on these standards. Neither the RttT application nor the grant award from USED contained a repayment penalty for withdrawing from a commitment. Moreover, the Grant Award Notification from USED implied withholding of future RttT funds, not repayment of RttT funds already expended. 

In other words, there seem to be no likely penalties if a state accepted a USED award of RttT funds and now chooses to withdraw from the agreement. States can justify their withdrawal on the grounds that the Common Core standards do not meet the original requirements of “common standards” outlined in the RttT application. These standards were supposed to be “supported by evidence that they are internationally benchmarked.” But they are not. The Common Core Validation Committee never received any evidence.  

Nor has evidence been provided by two post hoc attempts to provide such evidence: the 2011 report by David Conley at the University of Oregon and the 2012 report by William Schmidt and a colleague at Michigan State University, Richard Houang. Conley’s report, funded by the Gates Foundation, contradicted the findings in his 2003 pre-Common Core report on college-readiness standards, while Schmidt and Houang’s report has been severely criticized on methodological grounds. It is unclear who funded it.

Moreover, RttT was a three-year program extended to last four years. It expires in the fall of 2014. Whatever changes states make after 2014 cannot affect the grant. In addition, no state committed itself explicitly to maintain forever the new policies required by RttT. Once RttT grants expire, it is unclear how the USED could demand repayment for an expired program.

If a state obtained a waiver from some aspects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and now seeks to opt out of using Common Core’s standards and tests aligned to or based on them, it is highly unlikely to lose Title I money. Title I is implicated in the Common Core issue only because the state committed to the CCLS to obtain the waiver.

If the state applies for an extension of the waiver through the 2015-2016 school year, it would need to replace its commitment to implement the Common Core with a commitment to implement alternative standards approved by its institutions of higher education (IHEs). IHE approval of more demanding “college- and career-ready” standards would allow the state to retain the waiver, without penalty. Legislators need to ask their public IHEs to approve standards that enable mathematically and scientifically ambitious high school students to take STEM-preparatory coursework while in high school, not in transition courses elsewhere after high school graduation or after passing a GED test.

If the US Department of Education (USED) decided to be punitive, it could withhold at most only 5%-10% of the 1% of Title I funds set aside for state administrative functions. For example, if a state received $200 million under Title I, the administrative set-aside is $2 million. The most severe federal punishment would be 5-10% of that, or a maximum of $200K.

If the state chose to give up its waiver, the state would be under the NCLB mandate again to get all students to proficiency by 2014. NCLB has a range of sanctions for persistently failing schools and districts, ranging from conversion to charter schools, closing the school down altogether, replacing a large percentage of the school’s staff, to carrying out turnaround plans. If states give up their USED waivers from NCLB requirements, they would still have to assess their state’s standards annually with tests that, by law, must be based on these standards, and NCLB’s sanctions would again apply for failing schools and districts. It is not clear what the sanction would be for failing to get all students to proficiency by 2014, that is, if most schools failed to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for all subgroups. 

The primary financial consequence of relinquishing the waiver would involve flexibility, not amount, of funding. Under NCLB, failing schools must allocate 20% of their Title I funding to Supplemental Education Services, typically outside tutoring. The waiver doesn’t change the amount of funding those schools receive but allows them to redirect 20% of it to other Title I uses. These districts would lose flexibility, not money.

USED would find it politically difficult to impose financial penalties on waiver cancellation when Common Core is not, in theory, a federal program. Or so we are regularly told.

At the state level:
Districts can select their own curricula and, in some states, their own standards. What they cannot do easily is avoid state testing. State tests operate under state laws which force all districts to participate, although sanctions vary by state. Typically, the results of these tests are used to rank or grade schools publicly, and they serve to label the schools as meeting or not meeting NCLB's requirement of proficiency.

A district with a stronger curriculum than one addressing Common Core’s standards is betting implicitly that its results will be better on the state test. If schools choosing to address more demanding standards than Common Core’s are ranked low on a Common Core-aligned test for several years, they may face state department of education sanctions, which can range from the state managing the district to reshuffling school administrators. Legislators can address this power play by withholding funding of the state’s department of education if it seeks to prevent schools with low scores on a Common Core-aligned test from addressing more demanding standards than Common Core’s. All the district should be required to do is produce evidence of evaluations showing that its standards are more demanding than Common Core's.

A future post will further address districts that want better standards and tests than their state board and department of education are imposing on them.  


Click HERE to read the original article written by Dr. Sandra Stotsky.  Sandra Stotsky, Ed.D. is Professor Emerita, University of Arkansas.  She was one of 2 professional educators on the original Common Core Validation Committee and refused to sign off on the Common Core standards.  ClickHERE to hear, in her own words, why she refused to put her signature on Common Core standards and the secretive way the standards were written.

Some brave teachers, who are also Moms & Dads, have made the difficult choice to defy their district administration and the TN Department of Education.  These teachers have REFUSED testing for their OWN children.  Teachers are required by the state and district to administer the tests to students in their classes.  However, the state and district cannot trump their parental rights to do what is best for their own children.


Why did they do it?  One teacher tells why...
As a teacher, I made a decision for my own children, as their parent. I am most fortunate to be very involved in my children's education. I'm sure most parents feel the exact same way. Unless you are a teacher, you really aren't as involved as you think you are. I teach for the same system my children are educated in. I know things that I'm grateful to know, but at the same time the wind is often knocked clean out of me because of what I know. Because of what I know, I chose to opt my children out of unnecessary testing.

• I chose to opt my children out of computerized testing as a means of determining intervention needs.
• I opted my children out of tests that contain material they haven't been taught yet according to the curriculum maps teachers follow.
• I opted my children out of tests written for the sole purpose of assisting the developers of PARCC test which will replace TCAP next school year.
• I opted my children out of feelings of failure when material is placed in front of them that they haven't been exposed to yet, in the form of a test. I opted their teachers out of feelings of betrayal because that's how we feel when we do this to the children we teach.
• I opted my children out of the DEA, given three times per year as a predictive measure to determine how they might perform on TCAP. The DEA is also full of skills not introduced according to the curriculum maps. Test A - 18 of 32 skills not introduced yet. Test B - 19 of 32 skills not introduced yet.  
• I opted my children out of the CRA which is an assessment used for the sole purpose of assisting the developers of PARCC, and is written in a form that children are not capable of being successful on.
• I opted my children out the practice writing assessment for the practice writing assessment which I opted them out of too. Really? Practice for practice? Not to mention, it is computerized and children as young as 8 are expected to sit at a computer for two hours to analyze informational texts and write an essay through typing their responses. Our children do not know how to type.
• I opted my children out of IStation computerized testing to determine if they have a need for intervention.
• I opted my children out of all computerized programs designed to determine their needs. I chose to leave that up to their highly qualified teachers. 

As a teacher, I must endure the guilt and shame I feel each time I test my students on material they haven't been yet exposed. As a parent, I will not tolerate such with my children.
- A teacher and mother in Shelby County
 

How did they do it?
It is simple.  These brave parents simply sent letters and emails of refusal  to their sons' and daughters' teachers and principals stating that they will not allow their child to take the tests. (Note the wording says "refusal" and not "opt-out" since TN does not have an "opt-out" law, yet, and the attorney general seems to be forcing parents into testing their children against their wishes by saying it is not "legal" to "opt-out")

Some states have laws and policies that allow parents to opt their children out.  Tennessee does not.  Yet...  
There is currently a Bill in the Legislature that, if it passes, would allow parents to legally Opt-Out of testing for their children without penalties (HB 1841 / SB 2221) .  The Bill's sponsor, Rep. Gloria Johnson, is also a teacher.  (Unfortunately, a half a BILLION dollar fiscal note has been attached to the bill, and the bill has been rolled to the final calendar to prevent it from passing.  Contact Governor Haslam if you're not happy about that.  His phone # is 615-741-2001 and his email is: bill.haslam@tn.gov). 

What are the repercussions of REFUSING tests?
In TN, refusing or opting a child out of the TCAP test counts as a zero on the child's final report card (state mandated 15%-25%).  In some districts, this means that 10% of a child's final English grade will be a zero, and 10% of a child's final Math grade will be a zero.  (Check with your local school district to find out).  Despite the lower report card grades, having to keep their children at home on testing days, and having unexcused absences on their child's records, parents feel strongly enough that the tests are inappropriate for their children to REFUSE the tests for their children.  
(This could work: Parents in other states have gotten around the testing by un-enrolling their children from school to "homeschool" before the mandated test and then re-enrolling them after the testing window is completed.  This method works to avoid hurting the child's report card grade and attendance, but, gosh, it sure is a hassle!)
 

Links to Opt-Out testing websites & groups:
United Opt-Out website
United Opt-Out in Tennessee website
Stop TN Testing website
Stop TN Testing Madness facebook group
Stop TN Testing facebook page
Knox County Parents Against Testing facebook page
Williamson County Parents Concerned about Common Core & Testing facebook group

 
These brave teachers and parents are sending a clear message that they do not agree with the tests and that their child is more than a test score.

 

There’s been a lot happening on Twitter this past month in regards to Teach for America. The #resistTFA twitter bomb went off and is still resonating. Apparently the “bomb” resonated enough that it encouraged one of the upper ranking TFA administrator’s to write a lengthy piece trying to counter the “myths”. TFA communication specialist, Juice Fong, jumped into the fray as well. Unfortunately countering a “myth” with a "myth” doesn't make a truism. If we hadn't all but decimated Liberal Arts education we would already know that.

A more academic type person would take the TFA pieces and systematically point/counter point them. Yea, I’m not that guy. There are people much more talented then I for that and the truth is they’ve already done an exceptional job at it. So, you’ll just have to bear with me as I kind of free-associate through the various themes.

The first counter argument that really got me irritable was the argument that TFA applies for open positions available to every teacher. True they do. What they fail to mention is that, due to their contract with the school districts and the 5k per corp member fee, TFA teachers go to the head of the line. In Tennessee, state law requires that you hire a displaced teacher first. However, you can bypass a displaced teacher if you are hiring a TFA corp member. Only after all TFA teachers and displaced teachers are hired will the district consider a new teacher.

Teach for America typically contracts with a district for anywhere between 75 and 100 teachers. That means as a district, you have to run through the whole displaced teacher list plus the 100 or so TFA fresh new faces before you can hire a potentially exceptional new candidate. That includes candidates fresh out of college or an experienced high quality teacher that just moved into your district. That’s a lot of people to stand in line behind. A line that automatically reserves a spot at the front for TFA.

So yes, Teach for America does just apply for jobs open to all teachers, but its like going to an Easter egg hunt and getting to start 10 minutes before everybody else. Non-TFA teachers get invited to the hunt but have to stand around and watch all the good eggs get gathered up before they get a chance to search. Doesn’t really seem fair does it? That’s because its not, but Teach For America won’t tell you that part.

Another thing they won’t tell you about is that vaunted “on going” training that TFA supposedly supplies. You know where that actually comes from right? The district, through their own existing teachers, coaches and personal development programs. I know the contract is full of fancy language about observations,   personal coaches and consultations, even mentions of video taping and reviewing. The truth is their professional growth is managed the same way all first year teachers growth is managed, through experienced teachers and coaches. The difference is that most first year teachers don’t come with a 5k price tag.

Teachers that have come through a traditional licensing program have usually spent a year student teaching. That means they show up with some basic classroom management knowledge. TFA corps members get five weeks in the summer with virtually no student teaching. You tell me which of these two are going to require the most district training resources? Lets add that up, 5k plus taking away valuable time that could also be used on another first year teacher. Deal gets better all the time doesn’t it.

This leads us right to the "usually quit after their 2 year contract is up" argument. TFA likes to point out the large amount of corp member’s that remain in education and the fact that there is an incredible turn over rate in teachers regardless of what TFA does. As far as the latter goes, when I was a kid, the “everybody’s doing it” defense never held up. My parent’s always held me to a higher standard. Why should TFA be any different. If there is a problem with retention why shouldn’t we demand that they try to help solve it instead of acerbate it? Like I tell my kids, we’re in the solution business, not the problem business.

I’ll be honest with you, I know of some good TFA corp members that are good teachers, and could become great ones, who are leaving this year as their two year commitment is up. Some are moving to non-profits that work in education, or going to work for senators that sit on education committees, while some may be even going to work for the Tennessee Department of Education. TFA will be touting the fact that they will be remaining in education and thats true, but aren’t we in the midst of a drive to put a great teacher in every classroom? So shouldn’t every effort be focused on keeping these “best and brightest” in the classroom? Lets also not forget those previously discussed diverted training resources that could have been dedicated to another first year teacher that might have been retained.  Just another inconvenient truth we are not supposed to talk about.

Which brings us to that "best and brightest thing", its a good example of saying something enough times and people will take it as fact. Often touted is a recent study that supposedly demonstrates corp member add an average 2.5 months to a child’s learning. How they arrive at that number completely baffles me. An argument that somethings adds 2.5 months to a child’s learning has to begin with the assumption that all chidren develop at a similar rate. Anybody that has spent anytime around children can attest that’s pretty much not true. So how can you calculate two and half months added learning unless you are using voodoo math or “value added.”

Yep, the study uses value added figures.  Now this is good. Value added is like me giving you the formula on how I’m going to calculate your paycheck and then cutting you a check with out ever giving you the figures that went into that formula. That’s right, the individual test scores that make up the value added grade aren't available to the general public. The testing companies claim they are proprietary. You’ll just have to trust that those numbers are correct. I’m assuming you’d trust me if I applied this method to your paycheck right?

Now for my last counter argument. TFA likes to scream, “Everybody’s a critic. They just like to point out flaws. Nobody has solutions.” Well, once again, that’s not true. There have been lots of suggestions on how to make the program more effective. Julian Vasquez-Heilig has one of the best. Change the recruitment program to target education majors and provide them with a two year internship. Put in a stipulation that during the summer between years they be required to take classes at a local university. This ensures that they remain a part of the community during the summer. Problem with this? J Crew doesn’t print shirts for interns.

There’s also suggestions of lengthening the commitment period, greater professional development that would encourage them to remain in the classroom and having corp member’s work as teacher’s aides for the first year. The problem with all these is that they mess with the business model. Businessman donate to TFA not because they are effective but because as NPT puts it, they are sexy. See, we like sexy, we are not so fond of the unglamorous tedious work that is often required to make a difference. We also like to feel good. Unleashing bright shining faces on the down trodden masses, makes us feel good. We need to work a little more on feeling a sense of accomplishment instead of just feeling good.

I’d like to think that my counter arguments won’t fall on deaf ears. That confronting people with the facts will actually change opinions on Teach for America. However, at this juncture, I have no illusions about that. TFA is a juggernaut and will roll right over critics today. The key word in that sentence though is, today. I do believe that some eyes are beginning to open and there are some chinks in the armor. I’m going to keep trying to widen those chinks. I encourage others to also do their due diligence, don’t just take my word for it,  and really look at the research that’s beginning to amass. If enough people really engage, maybe at some point we will turn away from these educational tourists and start really talking about how to put an excellent teacher in every classroom and how to afford the profession of teaching the level of respect it deserves.

(published originally on March 3, 2014 at Norinrad10. Click HERE to visit that website)

1) This bill, as written, does not apply to charter schools; therefore, county commissions will not have the authority to control lobbying expenditures by charter schools. This seems extremely unfair because charter schools use public money just like zoned schools. This is just another example of how charter schools are treated differently than traditional, zoned schools in our state. 

2) There are actually 59 registered lobbyists (not 31 as we originally reported) that are pushing privatization and/or testing agendas that, in our opinion, are undermining public schools in Tennessee.  

Here is an UPDATED list of all of these groups and the number of lobbyists they employ:
1. Tennessee Federation of Children (charters, vouchers): 5 lobbyists
2. Tennessee Charter Center: 8 lobbyists
3. Stand for Children (charters, vouchers): 2 lobbyists
4. Beacon Center of TN (vouchers): 2 lobbyists
5. Pearson, Inc. (high-stakes testing): 1 lobbyist
6. K-12, Inc. (for-profit virtual charter schools): 5 lobbyists
7. Aspire Charter Schools: 1 lobbyist (They've had as many as 3.) 
8. National Heritage Academies (for-profit charter company): 3 lobbyists
9. Charter Schools USA (for-profit charter company): 3 lobbyists
10. Education 2020 (K-12, Inc. competitor): 2 lobbyists
11. Connections Education (for-profit virtual charter school): 1 lobbyist
12. SCORE (charters): 2 lobbyists 
13. Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce (They support this bill and lobby for charters.): 5 lobbyists
14. Rennaissance Learning (testing): 4 lobbyists
15. Parent Power Fund (parent-trigger bill): 1 lobbyists 
16. Public Consulting Group: 1 lobbyist 
17. Americans for Prosperity (They support vouchers, charters, and HB 2293): 2 lobbyists
18. Catholic Public Policy Commission of TN (vouchers): 3 lobbyists 

     And last, but definitely not least, 

19. StudentsFirst (charters, vouchers, and Michelle Rhee!): 8 lobbyists

Final Score:
PRO-PUBLIC EDUCATION = 6 lobbyists
PRIVATIZATION/TESTING = 59 lobbyists

3) We have heard from some Tennesseans in a particular county that they asked the current sponsor, Rep. Jeremy Durham, to introduce the bill because they are upset with a particular lobbyist their school district is using to lobby for them. We agree on many issues with them, so we hope to not offend them, but we also hope that they understand that this bill, which is a reaction to something that is happening at a local level has serious repercussions for the rest of our state. And the fact that a group such as StudentsFirst supports this bill should set off alarm bells because this organization has made no effort to hide their belief that elected school boards should be bypassed and handed over to other elected officials, including mayors and governors. 

How this bill could be devastating for other districts across Tennessee:

This bill could really hurt the newly formed municipal public school districts in Shelby County and Memphis.  Over the past 2 years, the Shelby County Commission sued the municipal districts.  There is no doubt that the animosity that the Commission has towards these districts will result in them cutting lobbying out of their budgets. (Please note that the bill is not clear in how it relates to municipal districts and commissions, but based on the overriding theme of the bill, it appears that the Shelby County Commission would likely have the authority to veto municipal-district lobbying monies.) 

In Metro Nashville the Mayor is very much in favor of charters and vouchers and there is little doubt that he will attempt to pressure the City Council to cut lobbying out of the school board budget as well. (It should be noted that the lobbyists that represent Metro Nashville Public Schools lobby against vouchers, for-profit charters, and the state charter authorizer.) 

Some claim that, in the state of Tennessee, county commissions currently have line item veto power over every other county department except for school districts and this would just allow commissions to exercise that same authority over them. But, and this is a very big BUT, the departments over which they exert this authority are appointed by the commissions--they are not elected by voters. School boards, which oversee the development of budgets, are elected by their constituents for the sole purpose of overseeing the function of their schools. County commissions were not elected for this purpose and, thereby, should not have the authority to override the will of the voters who selected, by virtue of their votes, the members of  a  school board.

Some Knox County residents and teachers have been very unhappy with the actions of their school board and school superintendent. But instead of pushing for legislation that could override the will of every elected school board in the state, they are clearly expressing their disapproval for the school board's actions and will this year elect school board candidates who will support their agenda. It seems that this approach would be effective for the county in question because it will help resolve their concerns and it will continue to give elected school boards the right to determine if they need to pay for lobbyists. And it will protect the county if, in the future, a pro-privatization commission is elected and denies money for lobbying, which will leave the county district with little defense against a variety of destructive bills such as for-profit charters, a state-level charter authorizer, and vouchers that will interject Common Core into private schools. And, believe us, the costs of these lobbyists is far cheaper than the costs taxpayers will incur if the lobbyists for "privatizers" have free reign at Legislative Plaza! 

With all due respect for some of the supporters of this bill, this seems to be the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to kill a fly when a simple fly swatter would do. We respectfully urge you to attempt to work out your concerns with your locally elected school board rather than pushing this bill onto the entire state. This will have very serious repercussions for many counties and, ironically, could very well end up backfiring and creating problems for those in the very county who support it. 

We urge those of you reading this to contact Rep. Jeremy Durham and ask him to pull HB 2293. If you are in Williamson County and/or are one of his constituents, it is vitally important that you contact him and let him know that you feel it is a very dangerous bill that sets a terrible precedent. His phone number is 615-741-1864 and his email is rep.jeremy.durham@capitol.tn.gov. You can also contact the members of the Local Government Committee that is meeting on Tuesday and ask them to vote against the bill:

Good grief... with all those lobbyists, legislators must be worn out!  As one parent said, "it must be like a swarm of mosquitoes at the Capitol, all hungry for our children's education dollars." 

It is no wonder our legislators think our public schools are failing and that the only way to fix it is with the magic charter school or voucher recipes they've been sold by well-paid, professional lobbyists with PR staff who are masters at manipulating data and creating glossy pamphlets.

Legislators, our schools are NOT what you've been told.  Believe US, the parents.  We're in these public schools daily.  We talk to teachers.  Trust us, we know.  We are public school parents from across the Tennessee.  (note from this TNParent author: My kids proudly attend Title 1 schools)

• Yes, our children are bombarded with too many tests.
• Yes, our children's hard-working teachers are beaten down from the testing mandates and unfair evaluation systems.
• Yes, Common Core is making it all much, much worse.
• Yes, our schools need more funding because they've been doing miracles with the meager dollars they've had to work with.

But, NO... we do not need charter schools, not vouchers, not Common Core, not more standardized tests or testing products, and certainly not more oversight or micromanaging by the TN DOE.  Let teachers teach.  

Please, listen to parents.  We are telling the truth.  We are not paid one penny for writing these emails.  Honestly, we have no clue what we are doing, no lobbying experience among any of us, but it seems that our voices ARE being heard by some of you.  We greatly appreciate your responses and questions.  We will continue to share our voices because our children are worth it.
   

GOVERNOR GREETED WITH PROTESTS OVER EDUCATION STANDARDS IN SMITHVILLE, TENNESSEE 
February 27, 2014
by: Dwayne Page

A group of local educators, students, and others opposed to Tennessee Common Core standards greeted Governor Bill Haslam with protest signs and chants as he arrived in Smithville Thursday evening to speak at the local Republican Party's Reagan Day Dinner. The event was held at the county complex auditorium.

The Governor did not acknowledge the protestors as he emerged from his automobile and entered the building where friends and supporters were waiting to welcome him.

Many educators say they are fed up with the pressures put upon them in the classroom and they want the Governor, a supporter of Common Core, to hear their voices. "We're sick and tired of being sick and tired with the way teachers and kids are being treated in education," said Bill Conger, President of the DeKalb County Education Association. "We're over testing and putting too much on the kids. The Common Core and the standards they're trying to set for us are too high, too fast and they're putting pressure on teachers making it difficult for them to do their job every day," said Conger.

"It's difficult for the teachers to live up to all the mandates," said Bryan Jones, an eighth grade science teacher. "We just can't teach school because of all the paperwork. We have so many things going on we have to do to comply with the state. It's also very difficult for the kids. Common Core is something we need to reject as a county and state," added Jones.

Lisa Mabe, a third grade teacher at Northside Elementary, said the evaluations and merit pay system are most unfair to teachers. "We teach our hearts out every day. We want our students to do well but we are judged on an evaluation system that isn't fair. We're scored one through five and we're rarely given five's because we're not perfect. Yet we do everything that is expected of us. We love our kids and we want them to learn. We only ask that they treat us fairly. The merit pay isn't fair. They want to give us raises based on our job performance and our test scores but our classes aren't divided equally. If you want us to have merit pay, you've got to base all our classrooms equally and give all teachers a chance to achieve those standards but it's not set up that way. It never has been. I've been teaching for nineteen years and I've had more evaluations this year than I had my first year of teaching. You are welcome in our classroom anytime. I want to be accountable. I am accountable, but do it fairly," said Mabe.

The Rutherford County Board of Education is not dumb.  They know that the Governor and his appointed leaders are stealing control from local school districts and giving them to entrepreneurs to profit from.  They also know that lobbyists funded by out-of-state interests are hounding legislators to pass laws to dismantle our public schools and benefit their wallets.   

Tennessee Parents give a standing ovation to Rutherford County Board of Education for this excellent Resolution:

The American education is system is not in crisis, it is not broken nor is it in need of overhaul. In fact, it is quite the opposite. In the past 40 years, the following facts are true in the United States:
 
 *   Our national drop-out rate has been dramatically reduced (10%).
 *   Our national graduation rate has improved significantly (90%).
 *   Our failure rate (D’s and F’s) has significantly declined.
 *   Our college attendance rate is higher than ever before.
 *   Our ACT/SAT scores are at their highest point ever.
 *   Our students read higher than ever before (as measured by the NAEP test).
 *   Our students understand math better than ever before (as measured by the NAEP test)
 *   Our students are mastering more rigorous and diverse curricula than ever before.
 *   When comparing similar groups, our students score near or at the top of the world.
 
We have done all of this with:
Bigger classes and smaller funds.
Fewer teachers and more students.
More poverty, drugs, divorce and learning disabilities.
 
Does this sound like a failed system to you?
Does this sound like a system in need of intervention?
Does this sound like a crisis to you?
 
Are there students who are struggling? Yes.
Are there schools that are not meeting the needs of their students? Yes.
Can we do more? YES!
 
But before we seek to do more, can we at least acknowledge that the rhetoric we hear is not in fact the reality we see? Can we take a breath to say, “Job well done!” And “How can we help?”
 
We are so busy listening to everyone tell us what we do wrong that somewhere along the way we forgot to remind them what we do right.  It’s not our system that is failed and broken, it just how we make our teachers and school communities feel.
 
Keep in mind, that in addition to the aforementioned successes, we transport, feed, clothe, exercise, and counsel our nation’s youth. We teach math, history and science. We address the moral questions of drugs and alcohol with the same adeptness we do Maya Angelou and Mozart. We are encouraged to create a community while challenging the individual.  We provide clubs, activities, athletics and arts.  We will listen with a compassionate ear and administer justice with fairness. And, we do it for less than you pay to participate in club soccer.  We expect and want schools to be everything on a budget of next to nothing.
 
To all the “reformers” who believe that we are failing, might I suggest the following:

• Legislating higher standards does not necessarily translate to greater learning, just as more laws does not translate to less crime.

• Higher standards will result in greater failure. With increased rigor, comes increased failure. It is educational Darwinism.

• Schools are a microcosm of their communities, both in success and in failure. You can not “fix” a school without simultaneously fixing the surrounding communities. Any attempts to do so will result in short-term, and limited success.

• Money does not solve all problems, but limited funds mean limited options. Big problems require a big financial commitment.

• Private/charter schools are not the “magical” solution. They present options and choice, which are good, but they also present obstacles that limit opportunities for students who we know to be under-performing academically.

• Teacher incentives on student achievement are as ineffective as it is insulting. It encourages our best and brightest teachers to only work with the best and brightest students, which is counter-intuitive to what we know to be effective.

• At the very core of this process is a teacher and a student. False or inflammatory rhetoric that detracts or degrades either of these groups is counter-productive.

• Growth and achievement are not the same thing. Not all children will achieve all things in all curricula, but every child can grow in all things and in all curricula.

 
It is easy to wax poetic about the better days gone by, but when it comes to education, it is simply not true. Our best days are right now. Our best teachers are you. And, America’s brightest future is still ahead.
 
That is what I believe, and I stand behind it.


 - reprinted with permission from Scott Lang's newsletter.  Scott Lang is an inspirational speaker and an award winning band director.  You can read more about him at his website: www.scottlang.net