The Delaware Department of Education released the 2019 September 30th Unit Count report earlier this month. Special education numbers are rising each year. This is now the 6th year I’ve written about this report. This covers everything: special education, demographics of each district and charter school, and enrollment trends in Delaware’s public education. One of the demographics in Delaware public schools is actually decreasing which came off as shocking to myself. Continue reading
It has been a little over 24 hours since I had to deal with the Delaware DOE calling the police on me yesterday as I sat in the lobby of a public building. I do want to give a shout-out to the Capitol Police for their fast response. I know a lot of them from Legislative Hall. They are great guys! I don’t blame them for the incident yesterday. They were just doing their job.
I’ve received many responses, publicly and privately in regards to the situation and my blog post about it yesterday. Rob Petree with Delaware 105.9 put up an article about it on their website this morning.
This is what the people of Delaware had to say: Continue reading
Wow! Delaware Governor Carney came out with a press release regarding the recent decision to kill Regulation 225. In his statement, he actually praises Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Susan Bunting for her hard work during this public process. But her hard work in letting Patrick Miller steal money and insult parents in her own district is okay to ignore judging by Carney’s non-responsiveness on the issue. Warning- the following contains wording that is NOT SAFE FOR WORK! Continue reading
The Delaware Department of Education has not released the state law required annual bullying report for the 2016-2017 school year. As per Title 14 of Delaware State Code:
(4) The Department of Education shall prepare an annual report, which must include a summary of all reported and all substantiated incidences of bullying, a summary of the information gathered under paragraph (b)(2)f. of this section, and the results of audits conducted under paragraph (d)(4) of this section. The Department shall post the report required by this subsection on its website.
I reached out to the Delaware DOE about this a month ago and received a response from the Public Information Officer, Alison May, that it “should be” released at the end of the month. Here we are, a month later, and no report. Which would have put this after the choice window closed in the beginning of January. How can parents make accurate and informed school choice decisions for their children without information like this? Bullying is a very big concern for many parents and it helps to know the numbers for these in Delaware schools. That is, assuming they are reported with fidelity. I recently heard a tale of a high school principal who took a stack of discipline referrals and put them in a shredder without acting on them.
I took a look at earlier years to see when those reports were released:
So why hasn’t the Delaware Dept. of Education released this report yet? Is there some type of issue? The year with a report issued at the latest date in the next school year was the 2015-2016 report. Here we are two and a half months after that date, in Mid-February, and no report.
I checked into other required reports that haven’t come out from the DOE yet. We have yet to see the annual report on Teen Dating Violence. I have to wonder what is going at the DOE under Secretary Bunting’s command. I know they are going through a “reorganization” but they are still required to comply with Delaware law. Annual reports need to be released in a timely fashion. I shouldn’t have to be some citizen watchdog writing about this stuff. I expect to be able to go to the DOE website and find what I’m looking for. I don’t mind doing that but I would rather they just do the right thing to begin with. I would prefer to write about a report instead of a lack of finding one. So what is the repercussion for the DOE not following state code on this? There is none. There is absolutely no accountability except for maybe the Governor calling Bunting and saying “Why am I reading about this on Kevin’s blog? Get the damn report out!” and Bunting saying “Yes sir”. There is no mechanism in Delaware to oversee these kind of things and alert the state agency about not following state law. When it comes to education, I guess that’s me. And people wonder why I seem upset sometimes and claim I never do some due diligence before I post stuff.
The Delaware Department of Education made more changes recently with their leadership. No formal announcement came out for these, but I did some super-sleuthing on their website to figure it out. Continue reading
Napoleon once said, “History is a set of lies agreed upon.” In Delaware, the state has been sharing personal student data in the form of a benign computer program designed on the surface to help students. This is a program that is so layered in varying shades of legality and loophole in state and federal law no person could ever realistically figure it all out. Luckily, I am not one of those people. So what is the Trojan horse inserted into every single school district and charter school in the state? Hint: it’s NOT the Smarter Balanced Assessment! Continue reading
On October 7th, the Delaware Pathways Steering Committee held their first meeting with no public notice or an agenda put up 7 days prior to the meeting as required by Delaware state code. In August, Delaware Governor Jack Markell issued an Executive Order creating this public body. The only reason I found out about it was due to tweets from the Rodel Foundation and Mark Brainard of Delaware Tech. I promptly filed a FOIA complaint on October 11th. Seventeen days later, the Delaware Attorney General’s office has already responded to the FOIA complaint. To put this in perspective, I filed a FOIA complaint last March which just had the Attorney General opinion issued last week. BI submitted another FOIA complaint around that same time period and there has been no official opinion released from the Attorney General’s office. But Alison May from the Delaware DOE did respond in record time with their side of the complaint, but she has before. So why was this FOIA complaint rushed?
Below is my original request, the acknowledgment from the Attorney General’s office, the Delaware DOE’s response to the complaint, and the opinion on the FOIA complaint issued today. As well, I am including an email that was still in draft form disputing the facts provided by Alison May in the Delaware DOE’s response. I truly believed I had more time given the turnaround time on FOIA complaints coming out of the AG’s office but this one had a lightning fast response. Given the below findings and other inconsistencies with their opinion, I believe this was a very rushed job they wanted to put to bed fast. But that opens up a whole other can of worms…
Original FOIA Complaint, issued 10/11/16
From: Kevin Ohlandt [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2016 9:23 AM
To: OpenGovernment (DOJ) <OpenGovernment@state.de.us>
Subject: FOIA Complaint
I am submitting a FOIA complaint in regards to the newly created Pathways Steering Committee. This body came out of Executive Order #61, issued by Governor Markell on Thursday, August 11th, 2016. While there was nothing anywhere indicating they were holding a meeting, tweets appeared on October 7th suggesting the body met as a group. This is a state group, created by an elected official. Yet there was no posting of the meeting or an agenda. Attached are screen shots of the tweets posted by Mark Brainard and the Rodel Foundation of Delaware.
I take this violation very seriously. For a group that is supposed to be all about students, I find it ironic they would operate in secrecy with no ability for the public to attend. This does not translate into anything close to an open government.
9 Crosley Court
Dover, DE 19904
On October 12th, the Delaware Attorney General acknowledged receipt of my FOIA Complaint
October 11, 2016 Correspondence Regarding the Pathways to Prosperity Steering Committee
Mr. Kevin Ohlandt
9 Crosley Ct.
Dover, DE 19904
RE: October 11, 2016 Correspondence Regarding the Pathways to Prosperity Steering Committee
Dear Mr. Ohlandt:
This will acknowledge receipt of your correspondence regarding the Pathways to Prosperity Steering Committee (the “Committee”), received on October 11, 2016, alleging certain violations of the open meetings provisions of Delaware’s Freedom of Information Act, 29 Del. C. §§ 10001-10007 (“FOIA”). We treat your correspondence as a petition for determination pursuant to 29 Del. C. § 10005. We are forwarding your correspondence to the Committee’s counsel, asking that they respond to your allegations by October 19, 2016. When we have received the Committee’s response, we will determine whether additional information from either party is required and decide what further action, if any, is appropriate.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Kim Siegel
cc: Danielle Gibbs, Chief Deputy Attorney General (via email)
Michelle E. Whalen, Deputy Attorney General (via email)
Meredith S. Tweedie, Esq. (via email)
The Delaware Department of Education’s Response to the FOIA Complaint, 10/19/16
Issued today was the official opinion from the Delaware Attorney General’s office:
16-IB23 10/28/2016 FOIA Opinion Letter to Mr. Kevin Ohlandt re: FOIA Complaint Concerning the Pathways to Prosperity Steering Committee
This is the draft I was working on to send to the Attorney General’s office that I believed I had more time to formulate:
October 26th, 2016
Good afternoon Ms. Siegel,
In reviewing Alison May from the Dept. of Education’s response to my FOIA complaint from October 11th, in the letter provided from her on October 19th, she states the following:
…and the draft minutes of the October 7th meeting (attached hereto, along with the other documents discussed at the meeting) will be posted online by the end of this week.
The DOE provided no explanation as to why the notices and agendas were posted less than seven days in advance of the meetings, and it concedes that the postings did not comply with FOIA. The DOE also explained that no action was taken by the AFWG at either meeting. The DOE apologized and said it would “endeavor to determine the agenda of any future AFWG meetings as of the time of any required public notice of them, and include the agenda in any such required notice.
By letters dated July 31 and August 1, 2012, the Governor extended invitations to a number of individuals to participate in the Working Group as representatives of several public bodies, including the General Assembly, the Department of Education and the State Board of Education, and various private stakeholder groups (the “Invitations”).
On June 10, 2013, you filed this appeal seeking access to the Working Group’s meeting minutes. We received a response on July 11, 2013. The response indicates that the Working Group did not consider itself to be a “public body” within the meaning of section 10002(h), due primarily to the informal nature of the Working Group.
FOIA, with certain exceptions not relevant here, establishes a public right to inspect all “public records” and requires that all meetings of public bodies be open to the public.4 FOIA’s “open meeting” provisions call for advance notice to the public of all public meetings and require public bodies to prepare and make available to the public agendas for and minutes of their public meetings.5
Section 10002(h) provides substantial guidance as to the types of entities and bodies encompassed within the phrase “body of the State.” That concept, as used in FOIA, includes, among other things, any “group . . . appointed by any . . . public official of the State” that was “impliedly or specifically charged” with making recommendations.9 The Working Group was a “body of the State” within the meaning of section 10002(h).
But the key part from this opinion rests on the following and is key to my own FOIA complaint:
First, this Office consistently has rejected arguments that FOIA’s applicability hinges on adherence to formalities in the creation of a public body, lest FOIA’s goals of openness and government accountability be subverted.14
This was where my draft ended which I fully intended on doing further research on in the next week.
Now here are my issues with the Attorney General’s response to the FOIA complaint. First off, in Alison May’s response from the Delaware DOE, she said it was under the Delaware Dept. of Education’s control to issue the agenda. However, in the link on the FOIA complaint, we see an Agenda created on 10/17/16, ten days after the meeting, and it was issued from Governor Markell’s office, not the Delaware DOE. Furthermore, if this was indeed a public body, why was there no agenda item for public comment? As well, the minutes submitted by Alison May in the DOE’s response to the FOIA complaint are actually different than those that appear on the Googledrive website.
In the original minutes, submitted with Alison May in the Delaware DOE response to my FOIA complaint, it states the following:
Dr. Brainard charged Mr. Rhine to conduct outreach to Steering Committee members to review the draft strategic plan and collect additional input;
Dr. Brainard charged Mr. Rhine to develop a transition report for partnering state agencies to be used as a transitional tool in planning for the next executive administration;
Mr. Rhine will conduct outreach to Steering Committee members to review the draft strategic plan and collect additional input;Mr. Rhine will develop a transition report for partnering state agencies to be used as a transitional tool in planning for the next executive administration;
Moreover, as you note in your Petition, certain members of the Committee published photographs of its meeting on social media either, contemporaneously or immediately following the meeting. We find this to be inconsistent with an intentional failure to adhere to FOIA’s open meetings provisions. We see no evidence of an intent – by the Governor or any other Committee member – to circumvent FOIA. Nor do we see an ongoing pattern of FOIA non-compliance which might warrant extreme remedy.
Here is a newsflash for the Attorney General’s office: having a non-profit foundation and a member of the committee post tweets about a non-transparent meeting of a public body issued by a Governor’s Executive Order, does not point either way towards an intentional failure to adhere to FOIA’s open meetings provisions. What it shows is someone tweeting. So to give this extra bearing in a legal opinion about something that was already established to be under the Delaware Dept. of Education’s responsibility is misleading at best.
An email from Delaware State Rep. Earl Jaques and State Senator David Sokola sheds new light on the district-charter funding debacle that has taken over Delaware education talk in the past week. Meanwhile, the News Journal came out with another article on the issue that is sure to confuse everyone.
In the below email sent from Jaques to the House Education Committee, he gives a timeline of the events from the point in time he got involved in the issue and clarifies when Secretary of Education Dr. Stephen Godowsky found out about this. He also put in a reply Sokola sent to a constituent regarding the issue which has some very accusatory statements toward Christina School District.
From: Jaques, Jr, Earl (LegHall) Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2016 2:41 PM To: Bentz, David (LegHall); Bolden, StephanieT (LegHall); Dukes, Timothy (LegHall); Heffernan, Debra (LegHall); Hensley, Kevin S (LegHall); Williams, Kimberly (LegHall); Kenton, Harvey (LegHall); Lynn, Sean M (LegHall); Matthews, Sean (LegHall); Miro, Joseph (LegHall); Osienski, Edward (LegHall); Potter, Jr, Charles (LegHall); Ramone, Michael (LegHall) Cc: Schwartzkopf, Peter (LegHall); Sokola, David (LegHall)
Subject: School Funding Formula
House Education Committee Members, Late last week I received notice about a formula change between Charter Schools and our traditional Public Schools. I immediately called and talked with Secretary Godowsky to see if what I heard was correct and if so why was this change being made. I was told by him that yes a change was proposed and he wasn’t aware of this change until just the day before. On a side note, I wasn’t very happy to hear about this – since I and Dr. Godowsky just had breakfast only a couple of days before this news broke and no mention of this was discussed by him to me! I was told by Dr. Godowsky that he has put a hold on any possible changes to the funding formula until there are complete discussionswith all stakeholders. I then called Governor Markell to voice both my concern and outrage at how this proposed change was brought forward with no regards to public input, transparency or discussion with either myself or Senator Sokola. I then called Superintendent Burrows, this year’s head of the chiefs, and was assured by him that no discussions between the “chiefs” and DOE regarding this change had occurred. Their only acknowledgement came when they starting receiving bills from the charter schools and subsequently called DOE to find out what was going on. On the very next day I was at a public event with Governor Markell. He reinstated to me that no actions regarding the funding formula will occur this year and any discussions on this subject will be transparent and inclusive. Again, I followed up with Secretary Godowsky, requesting that any changes to the formula would require an open, transparent and inclusive process involving all stakeholders and plenty of public input. Today, there was a story in the News Journal that you might want to read to gain more insight.
In addition, I have attached below part of an email that Senator Sokola sent to one of his constituents which gives very good details and background on the formula mechanism. Although, his email talks about the Christina School District, I want to remind you that this formula applies to all public schools across our state.
“It turns out that the funding formula has not changed, and the Secretary does not have the authority to change the formula that is in the code. There have been times over the years when there have been disputes about how the formula works, and apparently we have one now. The dispute relates to the part of the code that allows for certain exemptions from the money that “follows the child” to a Choice or Charter alternative. The code allows for 4 specific areas and then has some general language that allows a district to petition the Secretary of Education to allow for additional exemptions of local operating funds, and to sign off on those itemized expenses. The Christina District increased that line from under $700 thousand to about $9.2 million since 2011, and has not asked the Secretary for approval of the increased exemptions. No other district in NCC has had anything but nominal changes in that time frame. The money in question also has nothing to do with the Autism Program or the Program for the Hearing Impaired that are managed by Christina. It is my understanding that any action from the Secretary at this time is on hold, however Christina still has a legal obligation to specify those expenses beyond the 4 that are in the code that should be exempt, and to have a formal sign off by the Secretary. I have supported for quite some time a weighted student funding policy, and would hope that we could make more progress on such a funding system. The money needs to specifically follow a student to a school, which is not done well in Delaware including in Christina. Dispute resolution should be done by some mutually agreed upon mechanism, or one established in the code. If there still is not agreement, we have constitutionally protected separation of powers, and the legal system would be the mechanism of last resort. That is generally not a win-win result for the parties who are in disagreement.
The specific funding issues you mentioned can certainly be submitted to the Secretary and the district needs to be open, transparent and detailed with the financial records to make their case. The Secretary will be willing to consider the specific lines of exemption that CSD has the legal obligation to propose. He would be negligent if he did not follow his statutory authority to review any specific exemptions proposed by CSD, and CSD would be negligent by not specifically submitting line items of proposed exemptions to the formula that is in the code. If CSD does not make specific proposals, the district is at risk of legal action that the legislature and the Secretary are constitutionally barred from intervening in. My hope and advice to the Secretary has been to give broad discretion to the specifics identified by Christina, and that we could have that open, transparent and inclusive process involving all stakeholders to clarify the financial obligations of a sending district to the various choice options made by students and families.”
As I receive additional information regarding this subject I will keep you informed…
Chair, House Education Committee
So how is that Sokola tells a constituent that Christina performed this horrible deed but the News Journal doesn’t mention it once? Sokola is saying Christina purposely withheld submitting their exclusions from the Delaware DOE. Jaques states Appoquinimink Superintendent Matt Burrows didn’t know about this situation unfolding since last April until recently. So how is it that the DOE asked the districts for this information in April as suggested by Saranac Spencer, the author of the News Journal article? Actually, it was in May based on the below timeline.
In order to try to unify the system, the department began considering adjustments to the formula in April, when it asked districts across the state for an inventory of the exclusions they claim.
The actual timeline of events is as follows:
March 11th: Newark Charter School Head of School Greg Meece meets with Acting Christina Superintendent Bob Andrzjewski to discuss the upcoming Christina referendum and payments from Christina to NCS. (source: Newark Charter School March 2016 Board Minutes)
Early April 2016: NCS representatives Greg Meece, Joanne Schlossberg, and Stephen Dressel meet with Associate Deputy Secretary of Education David Blowman to discuss exclusions in the funds Christina sends to NCS. The DOE indicates all exclusions will require approval from the Secretary of Education. (Source NCS April and May Board minutes)
April 8th: DOE holds District Business Manager’s meeting where the subject of district exclusions is brought up with District Chief Financial Officers.
May 2016: DOE sends out notices to District CFOs to send lists of their exclusion items in their local school budgets.
Mid-May: Kathleen Davies put on leave as Auditor of Accounts at Delaware State Auditor’s office.
August 8th: DOE sends out letters to District CFOs stating what exclusions are allowable and which aren’t.
Week of August 16th: Districts start receiving bills from charter schools for projected students choicing to charters from their districts.
August 19th: Secretary Godowsky finds out about situation going on with charter school payments from districts.
Week of Augusts 23rd: Word on situation slowly trickles out to school administration and some boards.
August 27th: Exceptional Delaware breaks news of a coming change in the way districts pay charters based on an approval from Secretary Godowsky, blogger was given information from various sources about changes regarding restricted funds being moved to non-restricted funds, no information given to blogger about specific exclusions.
August 28th: Legislators pound Godowsky who informs them there will be no change in the funding structure this year.
August 31st: News Journal covers story and states districts may have to adhere to the exemption list from the August 8th letter.
September 1st: NCS Board President Stephen Dressel writes letter to NCS parents alleging wrongdoing from Christina and a “few other districts”, states this isn’t a change in the formula for local cost per student but a correction, commenter on Facebook alleges parents from Las Americas ASPIRA also received a similar letter.
September 1st: Another News Journal article quotes DOE Spokeswoman Alison May as stating they may not be able to change this because bills already went out from charters to districts.
September 1st: Email from Earl Jaques to House Education Committee references a change in the formula, not a correction, email also has Sokola accusing Christina of not sending approval for exclusions to Secretary since 2011 for what was a $700,000 amount then which is now $9.2 million.
Here is the question no one seems to be addressing though. What is the amount in that discretionary budget was approved once and didn’t have to be again? When a district goes out for a referendum, it asks taxpayers to help the district pay for certain things. What if Christina had a referendum at one point in time, designated a specific amount for what would become an exclusion in their local budget, and the DOE approved it. Say that was 10 cents for every $100 of assessed property value. As Sokola alleges, Christina kept shoving money into this fund causing it to rise over $8 million dollars. But that 10 cents from a referendum, which becomes a part of the district’s local funds would certainly grow over time. In 2010, Christina narrowly won a referendum. But it stands to reason some of those designated funds could go into this “discretionary” bucket in their budget. Which would certainly build up over time. If the DOE approved this in July 2010, which would have been Secretary of Education Lillian Lowery, then that exclusion would not have to be approved every year. That portion of the tax payments sent in from residents would just keep building in that bucket. So Sokola’s allegation that Christina was willfully withholding payments from the charters by shoving money in this hidden bucket is blatantly false.
Now the big question is what started this runaway train. Yes, charters have lobbied for more money from districts for years. No one is arguing that. But they were not going after these discretionary amounts approved by the Secretary of Education. They wanted a share of the food services revenue the districts received, which is explicitly exempt from being a part of the payments made to charter schools since they have their own food programs which they get funds from at a federal, state, and local level. So how would Greg Meece know to look for this one specific thing and start a chain of events that led up to now? I’m working on that answer as we speak and I expect I will know the answer to that one in the next couple of weeks.
What leads me to believe Christina wasn’t “stuffing” money away into this secret account is also the reaction of one man to all of this. If the DOE sent out these notices about the exclusion items last May, Christina CFO Bob Silber would have been freaking out back then about it. If he knew the direction this was heading, he would have planned for it in their FY2017 budget, which he clearly did not. From many people I’ve talked to in the district, Silber didn’t start freaking out until the district received the DOE letter stating what the new exclusions were and when the charter bills started rolling in. Which leads me to think he wouldn’t have had to keep getting approval for the exclusions he put in this bucket based on a referendum allocation, approved by then Secretary Lowery, which would, over the years, increase this bucket.
In the meantime, I have to wonder why Sokola would specifically mention the year 2011 to this constituent he replied to. That is crucial to all of this under my theory. It makes Christina look really guilty. Why would Sokola make Christina appear to be guilty? I think we all know the answer to that one. Which confirms my suspicion about his involvement in all of this. His incessant talk in this email about legal action if Christina doesn’t comply and who can do what and when and where shows he is been looking into this for much longer than anyone else has. Sokola is not an attorney. He worked at DuPont for many years. Is he smart though? Yes. Devious? Hell yes. Would he be able to paint a picture showing Christina as a district that was denying money to charter schools, especially Newark Charter School, who was “denied” one million dollars this year if this “finding” doesn’t work out in their favor? He did in his email to the constituent.
I would go so far as to say there is an integrity issue with Sokola at this point. The ethics involved with this whole mess certainly lend a certain weight to Sokola and Meece being the brains behind all of this. Jaques wasn’t involved in this based on what he wrote in his email. But he made it a point to include what Sokola wrote as part of his email which lended considerable weight to perception of this issue. For that, I have to wonder what Jaques knew and when he knew it.
Is this the end of this? Probably not. Someone will come on here and say I have it backwards and I’m theorizing all of this. That’s certainly an option. But at the very least, this opens the door to careful inspection about what the Secretary of Education approves and if it is for exclusions in the local restricted budgets for districts based on referendum amounts, does that item need continuous approval from the Secretary. I don’t believe it does.
The News Journal just put up an article on the charter school funding scam and their bias towards charters is painfully clear.
Saranac Spencer has just proven herself as one of the worst education reporters in the history of Delaware. First off, I know you reached out to more people than Alison May, Bob Silber, Greg Meece, Kendall Massett, and two legislators for this article. Second of all, you didn’t research the facts behind this story at all. If the charter supporters were so shocked by the reversal of the Delaware DOE’s decision because they planned for it in their budgets, didn’t that throw up a major red flag for you? The districts didn’t know about this at all until last week. Charters planned their budgets months ago. Doesn’t that point you in a direction of collusion Ms. Spencer? Do you even know how to investigate an issue? I know you read my blog post. You completely ignored the fact this was done in closed-door meetings at the DOE by a rogue Associate Secretary of Education and Secretary Godowsky didn’t even know about this until last week. That was the true story here. But you used the word transparency once in the article.
Furthermore, the DOE didn’t “begin looking into this in April”. It was brought to them by Greg Meece and his merry band of firestarters over at Newark Charter School. Or, as you put it, the beneficiary of $1 million dollars in this debacle. The fact that the DOE is in negotiations on this matter after Secretary Godowsky told legislators this would NOT happen this year shows them to be proven liars, yet again.
May said Wednesday night that the department was in discussions with district and charter leaders that would determine which formula would ultimately be used this year.
And what you didn’t even touch on is the fact that the DOE (or is it?) is eliminating the match tax allocations from a restricted status. Yeah, you forgot that VERY big part.
For the 2016 fiscal year, the district had excluded $9.3 million. Under the adjusted formula for the 2017 fiscal year, it would only be able to exclude about $650,000.
Actually publishing this elusive formula would help. Did you even bother to look at Christina’s budget to see what that means? What programs and district services would have to be cut for Christina students? Take away from poor students so the more affluent students at Newark Charter can get more “cafetoriums” and Title I awards when they aren’t even a Title I school? And before some NCS parent or teacher says “that is federal money”, you’re missing my point. No. Not one mention of that. It’s all about what the poor charters aren’t getting. Poor Greg Meece. Boo-Hoo. Poor Kendall Massett. Boo-friggin-Hoo. Ms. Spencer didn’t even bother to see what those cuts are and what they will mean. She took the side of the charter advocates and didn’t even ask the districts what their opinion was. That is bad journalism and in very poor taste on a controversial issue. I got lambasted by those “charter school supporters” because my article wasn’t “true journalism”. Guess what, your article was not true journalism. Not even close. I have a good excuse. This is a blog. But you, you represent the largest newspaper in the state. And your taking sides is not a good work ethic or even close to journalistic integrity. How about the News Journal starts to really investigate what goes on in this state instead of being a public relations vessel for the DOE and the Delaware Charter Schools Network. It is getting really old.
But the worst bit of sloppiness in the article is the fact that THE NUMBERS DON’T ADD UP! If you look at Christina’s preliminary FY2017 budget, there is something very wrong with her figures. To anyone who decides to look up their budget, it shows over $49 million in Christina’s local restricted budget. Now I can figure out where she got her $9.3 million figure from very clearly. But to the readers of the News Journal who don’t happen to venture over here or bother to look up their budget, it paints a picture that Christina is skewing their numbers by 94%. That is just bad journalism. When the true story, based on what the charters are claiming to be true, is a very different percentage. That comes out to 17.8% if you take the TOTAL restricted funds they have of $48,389,296 by the very disputable $8.6 million the charters are claiming to be shortchanged from. See what they did there? Painting a picture like that on an already controversial issue is very deceptive. It makes me wonder who in editorial is doing the fact-checking and let’s this hack work through to the printing press.
If you subtract $650,000 from $9.3 million, you get $8,650,000. Which number in this scenario shows $9,306,899? That would be salary and wages. But what the News Journal seems to forget is the fact that this district had a referendum last year. And certain funds were earmarked out of the referendum revenue they will get to support the promises from that referendum. Like restoring positions they cut when they lost their referendum attempts last year. Which they have to do. But the News Journal Lois Lane wannabe doesn’t bother to look into that important detail.
State Rep. Paul Baumbach plays the wishy-washy side here.
“The main concern is not that we are looking at the formula,” said state Rep. Paul Baumbach, D-Newark. “The main concern is that too few eyes were looking at the formula.”
So whose responsibility is that? What Rep. Baumbach fails to mention here is who has determined the formula for many years. It is not the Delaware Department of Education. It is the Office of Management and Budget, which comes out of the Governor’s office. I pointed out in an article last night there was something very wrong with Christina jumping from $2.4 million to $7.3 million in payments to Newark Charter School over a three-year time span. Especially when Newark Charter’s students that choiced from Christina only went from 1200 to 2000 in the same timeframe. For a formula that hasn’t changed in well over a decade, except for minor inflation costs, that sure is one hell of a leap. What has the Office of Management and Budget been doing with this formula? Was this the same Office of Management and Budget that forced the Delaware Auditor of Accounts Office that forced Kathleen Davies to be put on leave? The Auditor of Accounts for Delaware who was investigating charter schools in various inspections at the time? One of which just so happened to be Newark Charter School? I know that is a fact because I gave them the tip! It looks to me like Newark Charter School has benefitted from this elusive formula for years! Betcha didn’t know that very important fact Ms. Spencer!
The News Journal only mentions Baumbach and State Rep. Kim Williams as the legislators who reached out to Godowsky last Sunday. There were many more.
But the topping on this farce of an article was the quote from Kendall Massett, of the lobbyist Delaware Charter Schools Network.
“This should not be a district-charter fight,” Massett said. “It’s about equity.”
Equity? Coming from a paid lobbyist? This woman has the unmitigated gall to bring up equity? When she knows exactly what Newark Charter School does? My God Kendall, please, just stop. Equity and equality are too very different things. Equity in this conversation would be closing down Newark Charter School based on their 21st Century racism, discrimination, and social engineering. It is RACISM folks. They can say they are coming around to it now, but the way their school is structured now with their demographics, it would take years for them to turn this discrimination factory around. It is the affluent keeping out the unwanted. It is segregation. The very same school that will get more money and wants to cry poor? When they just spent over $1.4 million dollars on a STEM lab and a performing arts center (or cafetorium as some may want to call it), when they refused to let a disabled six year old girl apply for their precious lottery until we beat them up over that? Or when they get Federal money designed for Title I schools and they aren’t EVEN A TITLE I SCHOOL? And our Delaware DOE was the one that submitted them for the award? And they only qualified because the surrounding district was Title I? The fact that this school applied for grant money, DOE performance funds, and a minor modification for a “performing arts center” that is actually a cafeteria and an auditorium already shows their inability to tell the truth. And people just keep handing them dollar after dollar, and they want more. Wake up! Don’t you see what is going on here?
If this goes through tomorrow, Secretary Godowsky will have gone back on his word to the General Assembly legislators. When he knew about this is immaterial at this point. He knows about it now. And if he does go through with it, we all know it isn’t even him making this decision. It is Governor Jack Markell. If this doesn’t go through, and things stay on course with our largest media outlet in the state heavily slanted on the charter side of the equation, it will happen eventually. For a state that wants to do soooo much to help our kids in poverty and who are considered at-risk, we sure have a funny way of showing it.
Over the past year or so, I’ve written a lot of emails that never got a response. I save all of them, and since I am so often accused of not reaching out, I thought I would publish those sent emails. There are many more going back to the Mark Murphy days, but I will get around to those another time. In the meantime, see what questions or requests I had that no one ever answered. On some of these, they did respond, but when I responded back the sound of crickets was all I heard. There are those who always respond to me, and I do truly appreciate those people. And some I disagree with on policy all the time. But for those who choose to ignore me, please see how I will be dealing with this practice at the end of the article going forward.
This email was sent during the infamous “school report card opt out & participation rate” saga from last fall.
For the Parent Strike on 9/17/15, I sent a letter to the editor to all the major media in Delaware. The News Journal actually edited parts of it which changed the whole context of what I wrote in parts.
The PTO at Las Americas Aspiras was telling parents the school would lose ALL funding if too many parents opted out. I reached out to their Head of School.
To be completely fair, Delaware Secretary of Education Dr. Steven Godowsky did reply to the original email, but after that… complete silence when I called him out on a few things.
Last fall I reached out to Matthew Korobkin who was assigned to the Secretary’s area at the Delaware DOE to work on a special education strategic plan. I had heard of him, but I did reach out to him in good faith to talk about special education.
This was a second request to Governor Markell’s education policy advisor, Lindsay O’Mara, to clarify some questions about expenses when the Governor speaks for private education companies. No response…
About a year after I posted an in-depth article on Rodel and their CEO Paul Herdman emailed me about not reaching out to them first, I thought it was time to attempt to reach out to him after he completely ignore my response to him the year before. Once again… nothing…
I did get a few responses to this one, done in the spirit of the holidays, but nothing from Jack Frost…
This was a second request to Governor Markell asking him to contribute to a New Years Day article. I asked folks to list three things they wanted to see in Delaware education in 2016. I guess Jack didn’t have any…
While there is no guarantee that a letter to the editor will be published or even considered, a little bit of acknowledgment, which the News Journal did in the past, would have been nice…
Last January, Delaware State Rep. Earl Jaques asked for my opinion on getting opt out for students with disabilities. I was vehemently against the idea as I believed it is any parent’s right to make that choice and shouldn’t be “allowed” for one group over another. It angered me that he would think I would support that kind of idea, so I wrote this. US Secretary of Education John King did respond to this, but not with anything truly addressing the issues I wrote about…
For anyone following the former Delaware Treasurer Chip Flowers FOIA situation with Governor Markell’s office, I had a little bit to add to that situation. Funny how precedent is set on issues when it is in the Governor’s favor…
I did finally get a response to this FOIA request concerning National PTA President Laura Bay (no records found), but this wasn’t the first time I addressed FOIA issues with the Delaware DOE which they are acutely aware of. To be fair, Alison May did respond to these emails, but from Godowsky… nothing!
I submitted a request through the Delaware DOE’s request for data forms for actual data. Especially information concerning their data. Sometimes I think they like to mess with me… The first pictures are screen shots I took of the actual request as I was doing it since the DOE doesn’t send an automatic reply showing what you requested.
After I read a special education due process decision for Cape Henlopen School District, I saw an inherent flaw in Delaware code in regards to this decision. I reached out to legislators who I know tend to advocate for special needs students. Granted, it was the second to last day of the legislative session, but I have yet to receive a response from any of the legislators with one exception. I did discuss it with Kim Williams in person, but for the others, nothing.
I sent this one last week to Christina School District CFO Bob Silber. No response. But I have since found out these VERY high non-state employee travel costs were paid with federal funds which makes me even more curious…
For the past few weeks, Jack Wells has been hammering Delaware State Auditor Thomas Wagner to more effectively (and in some cases actually) audit school funding. Wells tends to include a lot of folks on these emails, including myself. I jumped on the bandwagon. Either Wagner doesn’t read his emails or feels everyday citizens of the state that elected him into office aren’t worthy of a response. I asked him to look into the Appoquinimink tuition funds situation. To date, nothing from Wagner….
Here I am basically telling people in response to a Jack Wells email that all too often, folks in Delaware who have the power to change things ignore the pleas for help and transparency coming from Delaware citizens. I did get responses from Rick Jensen and Colin Bonini (who wasn’t even on the original email). And some of the usual citizens on this email chain. But for the power brokers…zip…nada…zilch…
As well, I also emailed Capital School District to find out why they lump special education funding into one big bucket on their expenditure codes instead of giving breakdowns…
While this was just sent two days ago, I think history proves that Delaware Governor Jack Markell doesn’t respond to anything I have to say. He did once, and that was when I sent something to his personal email address which was made public through a FOIA another citizen obtained. And that was basically saying “we both want what’s best for students and we won’t always agree”… For a Governor who believes transparency and accountability are SO important, he can’t even get through the gate with those two things…ob
I have many more examples of this non-response environment in Delaware which I will put up in the future. From here on out, if I send a request to someone who is a Delaware state employee and they fail to respond in a week, or within a week after an out-of-office reply shows a return date, I’m just going to publish the original email I sent… no matter what it says. This is my idea of transparency. If you think this is arrogant or presumptuous on my part, then keep ignoring me. I think it is arrogant to ignore people as if we are just little tiny bugs you can swat away…
Yesterday, I broke the news that the Delaware Department of Education was going to be submitting another ESEA waiver. Even though the Every Student Succeeds Act forbids these waiver schemes. I reached out to the Delaware DOE for more information on this latest waiver, and received the following information from Alison May, the Public Information Officer at the DOE. Below is what Alison sent me, including the letter Ann Whalen sent to all the states, along with the letter states would need to sign to get the waiver. Note the part I bolded which extends ESEA waivers well after ESSA will be implemented. There are serious games afoot here. Is John King already abusing his authority? Will Congressman John Kline (MN) intervene and stop this dead in its tracks?
Meanwhile, like with all previous ESEA flexibility waivers, state education agencies are required to get public comment on the waivers. With three weeks time, how can this happen? Some district boards don’t meet again until after the April 15th deadline. Don’t they also have to submit any ESEA waivers to the Delaware Education Support System (DESS) advisory council? How could that happen, as required by Delaware law, if the meeting scheduled for this week is canceled and no meetings are scheduled between now and April 22nd?
We are already losing a week due to Easter/Spring break. As well, the Delaware General Assembly will be off for two weeks after this week. How is the Delaware DOE going to make sure everyone sees this? Or is just merely putting a notice up, hidden away on their website, or sending out a tweet, sufficient? Thank God I find these things when I do! This is the same kind of non-transparent information they put out there like the Accountability Framework Working Group last year. They count on folks not looking for or even knowing where to find this information. Too bad they didn’t count on me!
If the Delaware DOE’s deadline is April 15th, and this information is due to US DOE on April 22nd, does this mean the State Board of Education will put it up as an action item at their April 21st meeting? Will they allow public comment on an action item which they typically don’t due to their archaic rules?
FW: FW: Letter from Senior Advisor Whalen re: Speaking and Listening Waiver People
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 9:17 AM
Subject: Letter from Senior Advisor Whalen re: Speaking and Listening Waiver
March 2, 2016
Dear Chief State School Officer:
This letter is following up on information I provided in fall 2015 regarding the peer review of State assessment systems. In a letter on September 25, 2015, I indicated that the U.S. Department of Education (ED) would provide additional information regarding how a State could request a limited waiver of the requirement that its assessment system cover the full range of its academic content standards for speaking and listening, if the State has adopted those as part of its reading/language arts standards.
Over the past several years, States have been working hard to establish and implement challenging, State-developed academic content standards and creating an assessment system that supports student learning and is aligned to those standards as part of a broader strategy to ensure that all students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers. ED is aware that many States have adopted speaking and listening content standards as part of their reading/language arts standards. However, we realize that measuring speaking and listening skills in a large-scale summative assessment may not be practicable at this time. Therefore, pursuant to section 8401(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), if a State’s reading/language arts content standards include speaking and listening standards, ED invites the State to submit a request for a limited waiver of section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), so that the State’s assessment system need not measure the State’s speaking and listening standards at this time. ED is only inviting this waiver with respect to aligning assessments with speaking and listening standards.
If your State is interested in applying for this waiver, ED is providing the attached template to aid your request. A State may request a speaking and listening waiver through the 2016-2017 school year. ED will continue to work with States to develop best practices with respect to assessing speaking and listening on large-scale assessments and may allow States to request an extension of the waiver for subsequent years based on their demonstrated progress towards implementing an assessment that measures speaking and listening standards. Please note that receipt of this waiver does not alleviate the other requirements regarding the State’s assessment system as identified in the assessment peer review guidance, including the requirement to provide appropriate accommodations to all students, including students with disabilities and English learners.
In order to meet the requirements for a waiver under ESSA, a State must provide the public and any interested local educational agency (LEA) in the State with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment and provide input on the request to the State. In addition, the State must provide notice and a reasonable time to comment to the public and LEAs in the manner in which the State customarily provides similar notice and opportunity to comment to the public. In order for this information to inform the peer review of your State’s assessment system this spring, we request interested States to submit their requests no later than April 22, 2016. This will enable ED to make timely decisions and allow your State to meet its deadline for submitting the remainder of its assessment documentation for peer review.
Please contact Patrick Rooney (Patrick.Rooney@ed.gov) or your OSS State contact (OSS.[State]@ed.gov) if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your continued commitment to our nation’s students.
Senior Advisor to the Secretary Delegated the Duties of Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
cc: State Title I Directors
State Assessment Directors
Council of Chief State School Officers
EXAMPLE OF REQUEST TO WAIVE THE SPEAKING AND LISTENING REQUIREMENT UNDER THE EVERY STUDENT SUCCEEDS ACT (ESSA)
Senior Advisor to the Secretary
Delegated the Duties of Assistant
Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20202
Dear Ms. Whalen:
I am writing to request a waiver, pursuant to section 8401(b) of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), of section 1111(b)(3)(C)(ii) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), that [State]’s assessment system measure the full range of the State’s academic content standards. [State] requests this waiver only with respect to measuring the State’s speaking and listening content standards, which are part of the State’s reading/language arts academic content standards. [State] requests this waiver because it is not practicable at this time for [State] to administer a large-scale summative assessment that includes speaking and listening standards. This waiver will advance student achievement by permitting [State] to have a valid and reliable assessment system that measures the full range of the rest of the State’s academic content standards while providing time to complete the work necessary to have a valid and reliable measure of speaking and listening content standards.
[State] requests this waiver to allow for continued State and local receipt of Title I, Part A funding in good standing while [State] completes additional work to develop accurate, valid, reliable, and instructionally useful assessments related to speaking and listening. This waiver is requested for the 2015-2016 school year [(if requesting) through the 2016-2017 school year]. [State] assures that, if it is granted the requested waiver —
- It will continue to meet all other requirements of section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, and implementing regulations with respect to all State-determined academic content standards and assessments, including reporting student achievement and school performance, disaggregated by subgroups, to parents and the public.
- It will continue to work toward assessing speaking and listening consistent with the State’s academic content standards.
Prior to submitting this waiver request, [State] provided all LEAs in the State with notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment on this request. [State] provided such notice by [insert description of notice, e.g., sending a letter to each LEA on [date] or sending an email to each LEA on [date]] (see copy of notice attached). Copies of all comments that [State] received from LEAs in response to this notice are attached hereto. [State] also provided notice and a reasonable opportunity to comment regarding this waiver request to the public in the manner in which [State] customarily provides such notice and opportunity to comment to the public [e.g., by publishing a notice of the waiver request in the following newspapers; by posting information regarding the waiver request on its website] (see attached copy of public notice).
Please feel free to contact me by phone or email at [contact information] if you have any questions regarding this request. Thank you for your consideration.
Governor Markell and the Delaware Department of Education came out with a press release today which indicates 73% of Delaware educators fully embrace the Common Core State Standards. The report from the Center for Education Research Policy at Harvard University used five states in their findings: Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada and New Mexico. Each state had “ten clusters” of schools to answer surveys. The report does not show what the ten schools in Delaware were, but I did just email Chris Ruszkowski and Alison May at the Delaware DOE to find out. I just received a response from May including the Communications Director for CEPR at Harvard, so hopefully answers will be forthcoming. Ruszkowski is the head of the Teacher/Leader Effectiveness Unit at the Department.
Any report like this can be read in many different ways. We don’t know which schools and how many teachers in each school responded to the survey. We don’t know if this survey was given before, during, or after the first round of Smarter Balanced testing in 2015. If anyone has any information on these surveys from last Spring or which schools had these surveys, please let me know. As well, were ALL teachers in grades 4th-8th given these surveys or just certain ones?
Educators: Common Core going well here
A significant majority of educators are supportive of the Common Core State Standards and believe their colleagues are effectively implementing them, according to a new study of educators in Delaware and four other states by the Center for Education Policy Research at Harvard University.
The report – “Teaching Higher: Educators’ Perspective on Common Core Implementation” — collected perspectives from a sample of teachers and principals in Delaware and four additional states last spring, focusing on math and English language arts (ELA) teachers and principals in grades 4 through 8. All were asked to provide their views of the Common Core training and supports they received prior to the administration of their state’s assessments.
The survey found 73 percent of teachers feel their colleagues have embraced the standards. The study also spotlights how teachers are making substantial changes in their instructional practices and materials and are collaborating frequently with their peers.
The Common Core State Standards, developed by states and adopted by Delaware and most other states, set consistent learning goals for each grade across state lines. For most states, including Delaware, the standards also raised expectations for what students should know and be able to do at each grade level to have the skills and knowledge needed to thrive in the 21st century.
The study found 69 percent principals believe these new standards will have a positive effect on students. Just 9 percent of principals reported resistance to the new standards from parents in their schools.
“This study gives a voice to what I hear from so many educators in schools across our state: Common Core is better preparing our students,” said Gov. Jack Markell, who co-chaired the National Governors Association’s bipartisan Common Core Standards Initiative.
“While the shift to higher standards is an undisputable requirement to best prepare our students for the new economy, we know it will only succeed with effective implementation. I’m encouraged by the feedback we have received from educators so far and by the tremendous work happening in our classrooms. Teachers have embraced professional learning opportunities to deepen their understanding of the new standards and collaborated to adjust their instruction to meet student needs. We must continue to listen to them and ensure we fully support their hard work,” he said.
The study found 76 percent of teachers said they have changed a significant portion of their instruction as a result of Common Core, and 82 percent said they had changed a significant portion of their math instructional materials; 72 percent said they had done so for ELA materials.
That work is paying off for Delaware students. Last spring, Delaware’s third graders had the second-highest mathematics and second-highest English language arts scores in the nation on the Common Core-aligned Smarter Balanced Assessment. Of all the students tested, third-graders had the greatest proportion of their academic careers under the Common Core.
“Students who had the benefit of instruction aligned to the new standards appear to be better prepared for these more challenging expectations,” Secretary of Education Steven Godowsky said.
While Delaware may have had these great third grade scores on the Smarter Balanced Assessment, that isn’t exactly something to write home about considering the overall proficiency rate for third graders in English/Language Arts was 54% and for Math it was 53%. Aside from white, Asian-American, and American Indian sub-groups, every other sub-group did worse than the state average in both ELA and math. It’s very easy to praise success without talking about the factors that surround the supposed success, something we see from the DOE and Governor Markell every single chance they get.
There are 11,000 teachers in Delaware. The CEPR report wished to thank “hundreds of teachers” in their report. I’ve found when reports like this come out, if it is over 500, they will say “over five hundred” or give a number like 800 to show a bigger number. This report came from five states, so for the sake of argument, they surveyed 500 teachers. That breaks down to 100 in each state. Over ten schools, that is about ten teachers per school. Can we say for certainty there was no bias in who was picked to take this survey? I will wait to hear back from the Communications Director at CEPR to see if she is even able to say which schools had a part in this report. There are certain schools in Delaware that are very loyal to Common Core and the DOE. Most of us know which ones those are…
To read the full report, go here: http://cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr/files/teaching-higher-report.pdf
That didn’t take long. The former New York City superintendent of schools, who is now the Acting US Secretary of Education is coming to Wilmington on Friday. Have any Secretaries of Education ever bothered to check out our schools outside Wilmington? Anyways, John King is coming to Kuumba Academy this Friday, and afterwards he is having a chat with civil rights leaders. Probably about opt-out and how we can fix the low-income, poverty-stricken schools with more corporate education reform, personalized learning, less assessments that actually help, and more Smarter Balanced type tests to keep the hedge funders nice and rich. Throw in some competency-based education for good measure… I’m sure the Governor will be in attendance as well.
And once again, only “credentialed” journalists are allowed. For God’s sake, keep the damn bloggers away!
John King is Acting Secretary because the US Senate will never confirm the guy. Talk to New Yorkers who are against education reform and they will tell you stories all night long! Of course he is going to Kuumba Academy in the Community Education Building. Maybe he would have gone to Delaware Met had they not shut down three days early. That would have been an eye-opener!
Here is the official press release from Alison May down at the DOE:
ACTING U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION KING TO VISIT DELAWARE FRIDAY
Acting U.S. Secretary of Education John King will visit Wilmington Friday as part of his Opportunity Across America tour to discuss the state’s efforts to improve and reduce testing.
King will visit a classroom at Kuumba Academy Charter School prior to joining two roundtable discussions at the Community Education Building in Wilmington. The roundtables will include an assessment discussion with district and state leaders and legislators as well as a second meeting with civil rights advocates.
Credentialed journalists are invited to join King for the following:
9:20 a.m. Classroom visit (Kuumba Academy)
9:30 a.m. Hour-long roundtable discussion about better assessments
10:40 a.m. Press availability
10:55 a.m. Hour-long roundtable discussion with civil rights advocates
Members of the media who would like to join the visit should RSVP to Alison.May@doe.k12.de.us by noon on Thursday, Jan. 21.
Alison May with the Delaware Department of Education release the following press announcement about the historic mid-year closure vote for Delaware Met.
For immediate release
Contact Alison May at (302) 735-4000
DELAWARE MET CHARTER REVOKED
DOE announces path forward for students and families with school closing on January 22
In response to the Delaware Department of Education and State Board of Education’s action today revoking the charter for the Delaware MET charter school in Wilmington at the end of the second marking period, the state announced that its staff will meet with MET students and families in the coming weeks to help them determine their best educational options for the second semester of the school year.
The school will close on January 22, 2016. The state will assist the school’s 206 students and their families in moving to other schools for the rest of the academic year. The children may return to the district schools in their home feeder patterns or choice into another district or charter school that is accepting students. The receiving schools would receive prorated funding for the returning students.
As they look toward next year, families also may fill out the state’s School Choice application for another district or charter school for 2016-17. The application deadline is January 13, 2016.
Families with questions should email Kamilah.Laws@doe.k12.de.us or call 302- 257-3635.
All documents related to the formal review, including committee reports and school responses, are available here.
Last week, I wrote about the Race To The Top report the US DOE came out with. I saw Delaware’s ridiculously high graduation rates compared to all the other original Race To The Top states and I just laughed. Turns out the Delaware Department of Education was all set to boast of this and did it in record time! I have to redline this joke of a press release. It is begging me to do it. They do this all the time, and I have to wonder if anyone really cares or listens anymore about what they say. It’s so full of their flawed methodology it’s sickening…
Delaware leads RTTT states in college enrollment gains
Delaware’s work to increase its college enrollment rates was highlighted in a U.S. Department of Education report released today looking at the progress made by states under the federal Race to the Top grant.
Say, didn’t Avi over at Newsworks dispute your drop-out claims which you openly admitted? It stands to reason your graduation rates would be affected by that as well! And didn’t you use to not let kids graduate if they did bad on the DSTP? The pre-Smarter Balanced test that everyone hated?
Delaware was cited as having made the greatest gains (10.7 percent) in college enrollment. Tennessee was second at 3.3 percent.
Well la de da! And what does that mean exactly? Does it mean more students are taking all those remedial classes in college you like to talk about so much? But hey, let’s have our colleges and universities make major decisions based on Smarter Balanced! Cause that’s going to work out so well!
Race to the Top also provided Delaware students with more opportunities for Advanced Placement and pre-AP courses. The report highlights how Delaware has supported educators through more direct AP training and given districts/charters increased access to virtual courses. This has resulted in student enrollment in AP courses increasing by 9.2 percent in Delaware since 2011. In the same period, the number of AP exam scores of 3 or higher (on a 5-point scale) has increased 22.2 percent.
Too bad a score of 3 isn’t accepted by Delaware’s colleges. Too bad the bulk of students score a three. That is $90 per course out the window. Be proud DOE, be proud…
In other areas of the report, First State educators were called out for their collaboration during professional learning communities as well as their school team approach to professional learning as part of the state’s Common Ground for the Common Core.
Is there still a teacher’s lounge in every school where teachers sit during lunch, relax, and talk to each other? That is true collaboration! Teachers complain about all the time they don’t have in school. And you actually said the words Common Core instead of the “standards”. You haven’t been watching other states. Those words have become toxic…
“Delaware teachers in every school met weekly for 90 minutes in professional learning communities to analyze student work and reflect on ways to modify instruction to bridge gaps identified in student learning,” the report said.
I’ll bet that was so much fun for all these teachers. You make it sound like it was a party. You forced teachers to do this and most of them can’t stand you for it.
The report also praised the state for listening to educators and adjusting supports to meet their needs: “Delaware and Tennessee had initially planned to conduct large-scale training sessions to help teachers transition to new standards. However, after soliciting feedback from teachers, they changed their plans and brought school teams together for action planning and used the talents of their own excellent teachers, rather than outside consultants, to provide training.”
So why did the Vision Coalition get paid so much Race To The Top money? What essential need did they provide teachers that teachers could have done themselves? Rodel IS an outside consultant DOE, get it through your thick head!
Delaware also was commended for relying on groups of teachers and leaders to provide ongoing input on new approaches or strategies to improve evaluation practices. For example, the state engaged 600 teachers to develop more than 200 assessment “tool kits” that provided rigorous and comparable measures of growth in student learning for non-tested grades and subjects.
More of the teacher cabal over at Rodel/Vision. And don’t our Delaware teachers just love DPAS-II? Please…you disgrace every teacher in this state with this nonsense…
And the U.S. Department of Education lauded Delaware for using RTTT to provide educators with an improved and more comprehensive data system as well as for using this customized data system to help support and manage program implementation at the district level. The digital systems that Delaware developed also made it easier to report and summarize student outcomes.
I’ll bet it did! And where is all that data going DOE? I know, I know, “we can’t send out personal data”. Unless it is for the furthering of education and the fix-its we all know companies love to tell us we need but they never actually fix anything. As State Rep. Sean Matthews brilliantly said, it is “cash in the trash”.
Matthew Albright with the News Journal wrote about the betrayal and backstabbing by Secretary Godowsky and the Delaware Department of Education yesterday. I have to wonder if that story would have come out two weeks from now had I not broken the news last night…
The whole article is chock full of lies as the REAL story is coming out. I’ll get to the REAL story shortly, but some points I want to make from the News Journal article.
That’s a harsher penalty for schools with low participation rates than a panel of administrators and teacher and parent advocates recommended.
Let’s take a good look at this. Because in the eyes of the DOE and the State Board of Education, the only voices that mattered in this charade were Donna Johnson, Penny Schwinn and Ryan Reyna. Johnson is the Executive Director of the State Board of Education, and she has been calling the shots in the House of Jack for far too long. She advises the State Board what to vote for, and she sits on these committees and work groups all the time. I won’t get too much into the machinations Johnson has been up to as some are still under investigation. But it is past time Donna Johnson was removed from power in the Townshend Building. As for Schwinn, she smiles a lot and talks the big talk, but I have no doubt she formed this work group for the sole purpose of making it look like the DOE gave a crap about stakeholder input. Reyna is the wild card, the guy who answers to Schwinn and does whatever she wants. All three of them- Johnson, Schwinn, and Reyna- have been giving false advice to not only the AFWG, but also to the State Board and Secretary of Godowsky.
State officials say the penalty is a fair way to make sure every student’s academic progress is considered when sizing up a school.
I’m calling bullshit on this one. The penalty is so the DOE can punish schools for a parent’s decision. And it is the DOE sizing up the schools and casting their judgments on them. And this is the infamous “Accountability 2.0” I wrote about earlier this year which came from an email at the DOE from 2013. The DOE has been planning this Delaware School Success Framework for years. The legislation they had to plan in April of 2015? That is Regulation 103. It got pushed back about six months, but make no mistake, it was all for this school report card crap. And implementation of the school report card? That takes place in the 2016-2017 school year.
The federal government requires states have an accountability system, and it requires that test results make up a significant part of the score. It also requires “consequences” for schools that fall below 95 percent participation on the state test.
Do some fact checking on this one Matt Albright! Did the Delaware DOE tell you that, or did you actually contact the US DOE for that information? In the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), it does state schools must have a report card. The ESEA was passed by Congress in 1965. It has been amended several times, but since President Obama came aboard, the Feds have played a heavy hand in education with non-regulatory guidance. Which is NOT Congressionally approved. The US DOE knows damn well what kind of game they are playing here.
The group recommended schools that fall below 95 percent should be required to submit a report explaining why that happened and how to improve participation – and should be ineligible to receive certain honors from the state.
Here is where the DOE’s argument falls apart. The day the Accountability Framework Working Group (AFWG) approved this unanimously, Penny Schwinn explained to the group that Governor Markell gave certain options as penalties for the participation rate. This was one of the options she proposed by the Governor. The very next day, at the DESS Advisory Group, Schwinn explained that she talked to Governor Markell the night before, after the last AFWG meeting, and he was okay with the group’s recommendation. So what changed in a month? Meanwhile, the trio of Schwinn, Reyna and Johnson have been telling folks schools will lose Federal funding if the participation rate goes below 95%. Which is an absolute lie.
And then the DOE’s Public Information Officer chimed in (who used to write for the News Journal):
“The state feels this is a fair proposal that takes into consideration participation, crediting schools that that work to ensure every child’s learning growth is considered,” May wrote.
Yes, the “that that” was in the article. When May says “the state”, who is she talking about? Donna Johnson? Ryan Reyna? Penny Schwinn? Jack Markell? Secretary Godowsky? The DOE and Governor Markell are not “the state”. “The state” is also made up of educators, parents, legislators and citizens. I’m sure if a vote was taken right now, the entirety of “the state” would not agree with this. First and foremost, it is bad policy, and second of all, it has Jack Markell’s stink all over it. This is his way of leaving his legacy of hate for any who would stand against him.
She also points out that parents would still be able to see the school’s unadjusted performance when they get their “report cards” in the mail or online, but the overall component that measures academic performance would be lowered.
This is the DOE’s way of saying “Hey, you parents who opted your kid out, look what you did. This is what it would have been had you not opted your kid out, but because you did this is causing your kid’s school to look bad”. It is a slap in the face of parents and their rights, and a kick in the back to the schools who aren’t allowed to encourage opt-out.
The Delaware State Education Association had a representative on the working group, and its president, Frederika Jenner, said the education union stood by its recommendation.
Really Frederika? You might want to talk to your director and your AFWG rep, cause I’m hearing talk coming out of the DOE that they both support this opt-out penalty. More on that one later.
State officials, however, maintain that the penalty isn’t related to opt out.
This is the biggest joke of them all. Participation rate IS based on opt-out. If it isn’t about opt-out, what the hell is it about? You are lying through your lying little teeth DOE. You lie when you don’t even have to. You are a Department of compulsive liars. Shame on you for abusing authority like this and lying to parents, students, educators and the citizens of Delaware. Shame on you! You all hate opt-out because you know it is the only mechanism left that can and will put a stop to all or your crafty plans.
As for Secretary Godowsky… if you honestly believe everything that has come out of the mouths of Johnson, Schwinn and Reyna, you are unfit to be the Delaware Secretary of Education. I know of many conversations you had today with things that are not even in this article in an effort to put a lid on this quickly. Where is the whole part about the Smarter Balanced Assessment going away for juniors because of the SAT which is being realigned to become SBAC Jr.? How about the part where the participation rate for the SAT is 100% because Delaware used Race To The Top funds to pay for that and paid for every high school junior to take it? But now those funds are gone? Buries that argument real quick! Or the part where certain people at DSEA and all the Superintendents of all the districts are behind this because of the very faulty SAT argument which only accounts for high school juniors? I’m also hearing those state superintendents were not happy at all about this total ignorance of the AFWG’s recommendations. So which is the real story Secretary Godowsky? The fabrication of lies in the News Journal, or what you are telling other folks? It sounds to me like you are lining up all the stakeholders and playing them against each other. Shifting blame and collaboration to appease the complaints you got today. Sorry Secretary Godowsky, I know you have your defenders, but all your effort and lip service to making the DOE better fell apart in a week once your were confirmed by the Delaware Senate.
And Jack. Jack Jack Jack… Don’t think you are just sliding out of this one. No way! Your dirty fingerprints are all over this one. We all know these underlings of yours don’t breathe sideways unless you give them your dictatorial stamp of approval. Once again, like you did when you came up with your rebuttals against opt-out and vetoed House Bill 50, you are disrespecting parents and their rights. You are allowing YOUR Department, your education governance system to LIE to the very people you are sworn to represent. You are not an honorable man. You are duplicitous and slimy. I have no doubt you will continue to destroy public education and Pompeii the whole thing before you leave office. This is your payback now. Your small, petty and vengeful payback against those who would dare to stand against the almighty Jack Markell. But you will lose on this one Jack. Make no mistake. This will be rectified and course corrected, and soon, you and your little regulation raiders will be gone and your legacy of shame will go down in the history of Delaware as one of the worst governorships the First State has ever seen.
The Delaware Department of Education is preparing to launch a survey unlike any other in the coming months. The survey is a product of UChicago Impact, a non-profit company owned by the University of Chicago. The survey, which is part of the Delaware School Success Framework (school report card), will have questions for students, teachers and parents to answer. To say some of the questions are intrusive would be an understatement. The part that offends me the most is this:
*Questions from the parent survey do not affect a school’s performance on the 5Essentials
Not to let the cat out of the bag so fast, but last week the DOE had a section for this on their website, but you couldn’t access any of the links. I contacted their public information officer, Alison May, and advised her of this. She emailed back and said it was supposed to be on their intranet for teachers. But today, all the links were available. So you can read the questions ahead of time and let me know what you think.
5Essentials 2016 Survey Questions
5Essentials Communication Kit for Delaware
5Essentials Phase 1 Training/Orientation for Delaware
When I emailed Alison May at the DOE about this last week, this was her response:
“The Delaware School Success Framework (DSSF) will include information to highlight performance across multiple domains. Based upon significant stakeholder feedback, information about school climate and culture will be provided through student, teacher and parent surveys. The Department recently selected the UChicago Impact, a nonprofit organization focused on K-12 education at the University of Chicago, as the state’s vendor to administer the surveys. UChicago Impact’s “5Essentials” (5E) is an evidence-based system designed to drive improvement in schools nationwide. Currently school administrators are signing up for a related training. So likely that is the restricted access. They likely can see that page when they sign into the site. I’ll alert the web folks that the tab should be on the intranet as well if it is confusing.”
A year ago, the United States Department of Education really pushed 5Essentials for survey use. It looks like Delaware took the bait. Oddly enough, I can find no contract for this company anywhere on the State Contract website, nor could I find any payments going to 5Essentials, Urban Education Institute, UChicago Impact or the University of Chicago. So who is paying for this and who holds the contract? In doing an exhaustive search, the contract number for this was DOE_2015-15SuccessSurvey_RFP, but it shows no awarded bidder under the Awarded Vendors or Awarded Contracts. But we do know what was in the Request for Proposal (RFP) and who put in bids for it:
Delaware DOE School Success Survey RFP
Solicited Bids for Delaware DOE School Success Survey
So once again DOE, why is there no contract with this company for the public to see? We have seen this before with contracts with American Institutes for Research in regards to DCAS and the Smarter Balanced Assessment. When information like this is missing, it always makes me suspicious. Sounds like Dr. Godowsky may want to look into why the DOE cherry-picks which contracts the public should see. Interesting that the State of Delaware links to the bid website page in a section called “transparency”…
Holy smokes! I guess if you respond to a DOE email and include tons of people on the response, you might just get a response. I got real live actual information regarding Smarter Balanced without making four mortgage payments! State Rep. John Kowalko was included on this as well. Below is the email from Alison May at the Delaware Department of Education with answers to all my questions (just for this request, they know I still have TONS of other questions). I did take the liberty of doing some minor edits by adding a colon after each of my questions instead of the comma Alison May used. As well, her answers had red, so I will do that which got lost in the copy. I just wanted to make it prettier, but if anyone wants to see the REAL email, let me know.
From: May Alison <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: “‘email@example.com'” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Kowalko John <email@example.com>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 4:22 PM
Subject: FOIA response
Mr. Ohlandt and Rep. Kowalko,
I do know or have heard of some of these teachers and general public participants in this. Yvonne Johnson is THE Yvonne Johnson. There can only be one! At least on the Delaware PTA. I know Yvonne was involved in many facets of the Smarter Balanced Assessment in Delaware as it was being developed, but don’t signal this as Yvonne has gone DOE on us. She does not like this test AT ALL! Don’t forget she was one of the major voices for opt-out and House Bill 50.
THIS WAS NOT A FOIA REQUEST! IT WAS ONLY A QUESTION! BUT THANKS FOR ANSWERING!
Below is an email chain I had with the DOE today. This was all based on a reblog from another blogger’s post about the achievement level settings for the Smarter Balanced Assessment. A commenter was questioning this and actually emailed the DOE, who provided answers to her without objection. But when I emailed them for further clarification on the issues, that’s when things took their usual turn for the worse…
From: Kevin Ohlandt [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 12:06 PM
To: Schwinn Penny; Reyna Ryan; Godowsky Steven; Haberstroh Susan Keene; Blowman David
Cc: Kevin Ohlandt; May Alison
Subject: Smarter Balanced Achievement Level Setting
From: May Alison <email@example.com>
To: Kevin Ohlandt <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Schwinn Penny <Penny.Schwinn@doe.k12.de.us>; Reyna Ryan <Ryan.Reyna@doe.k12.de.us>; Godowsky Steven <Steven.Godowsky@doe.k12.de.us>; Haberstroh Susan Keene <email@example.com>; Blowman David <david.blowman@DOE.K12.DE.US>
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 1:37 PM
Subject: RE: Smarter Balanced Achievement Level Setting
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 5:21 PM
To: May, Alison (K12); Schwinn, Penny (K12); Reyna, Ryan (K12); Godowsky, Steven (K12); Haberstroh, Susan (K12); Blowman, David (K12)
Cc: Markell, Jack (Governor); Denn, Matthew (DOJ); Williams, Kimberly (LegHall); Kowalko, John (LegHall); Matthews, Sean (LegHall); firstname.lastname@example.org; Pettyjohn, Brian (LegHall); Matthew Albright; Baumbach, Paul (LegHall); Townsend, Bryan (LegHall); Terri Hodges; Avi Wolfman-Arent; Rick Jensen; Kilroy’s Delaware; Kavips World Press Blog; John Young; Lindell, Matt (K12); Nancy Willing; Eve Buckley; Pandora DeLib; Schwartzkopf, Peter (LegHall); Blevins, Patricia (LegHall); Lawson, Dave (LegHall); Furlong Tim (NBCUniversal); David Paulk; email@example.com; Jaques, Jr, Earl (LegHall); Sokola, David (LegHall); Paradee, Trey (LegHall); O’Mara, Lindsay (Governor); Gray, Teri (K12)
Subject: Re: Smarter Balanced Achievement Level Setting
From: “Kowalko, John (LegHall)” <John.Kowalko@state.de.us>
To: Kevin Ohlandt <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “May, Alison (K12)” <email@example.com>; “Schwinn, Penny (K12)” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “Reyna, Ryan (K12)” <email@example.com>; “Godowsky, Steven (K12)” <firstname.lastname@example.org>; “Haberstroh, Susan (K12)” <email@example.com>; “Blowman, David (K12)” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Ms. May,
I am formally requesting this same information as a sitting State Representative and I expect a reply to be forthcoming from you and your office without delay. FOIA is not to be used as an obstacle course to government transparency and such an attitude will only ensure disappointment for the public and fuel the ire of the duly elected officials. I anticipate a response and the information sought within the next business day or I will be forced to demand it as is my right and the right of all taxpayers,
Representative John Kowalko (25th District)
And the cycle goes over on…
For the past couple days I have been emailing the Delaware Department of Education for simple answers to simple questions:
Why does Delaware Online Checkbook show no payments going out to the scoring vendor for the Smarter Balanced Assessment? Is it under a different name than Data Recognition Corporation? If you do not pay them, who does?
I received no responses until I included more names on the email of folks who do not work at the DOE.
From: Kevin Ohlandt <email@example.com>
To: Blowman David (K12) <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Murphy Mark <email@example.com>; “firstname.lastname@example.org” <email@example.com>
Cc: Haberstroh Susan Keene <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Schwinn Penny <email@example.com>; May Alison <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 10:38 AM
Subject: Data Recognition Corporation
Good morning all,
I’m not sure who would be able to answer this question, so if none of you are able to could you please forward this to the appropriate party at Delaware DOE to answer this question.
I have looked on Delaware Online Checkbook for any payments sent to the scoring vendor for the Smarter Balanced Assessment, Data Recognition Corporation, and I have seen no payments sent to them which is very unusual. Are payments sent to them under a different vendor name or does American Institutes for Research send them their payments?
From: Kevin Ohlandt [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 10:12 AM
To: Blowman David; Murphy Mark; firstname.lastname@example.org
Cc: Haberstroh Susan Keene; Schwinn Penny; May Alison
Subject: Re: Data Recognition Corporation
I am not sure why anybody is responding to this email. I have found, consistently, when the Delaware DOE does not respond to very specific questions like this, there is something to hide. I can find the answers other ways, but it will not make the Delaware DOE look good. Is there another organization paying for Data Recognition Corp’s services? If so, why?
I’m sure you do not see it this way, but I am actually trying to work with you folks, but when I get no response or vague comments without facts, it speaks volumes.
From: May Alison <email@example.com>
To: Kevin Ohlandt <firstname.lastname@example.org>; Blowman David <david.blowman@DOE.K12.DE.US>; Murphy Mark <Mark.Murphy@DOE.K12.DE.US>; “email@example.com” <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Cc: Haberstroh Susan Keene <email@example.com>; Schwinn Penny <Penny.Schwinn@doe.k12.de.us>
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 12:33 PM
Subject: RE: Data Recognition Corporation
Thank you for your inquiry. To confirm, we received your public information request on Sept. 21. Under the FOIA statute (http://www.doe.k12.de.us/domain/196), the department’s response is due by Oct. 12.
In this case, we have no records in response to your request. The Delaware Department of Education does not have a contract with nor has it made any payments to Data Recognition Corporation.
So there we have it, the Delaware Department of Education has no contract with Data Recognition Corporation. So who does? While in the area I went to the DOE office in the Townsend Building and spoke with Alison May. I reiterated the information she conveyed to me in her email, and she advised me AIR has a sub-contract with Data Recognition Corporation. For those of you who may not be aware, AIR is American Institutes for Research, the actual testing vendor for the Smarter Balanced Assessment in Delaware, along with many other states. AIR pays Data Recognition Corporation to score the very same test they created. Nobody knows how much.
To add insult to injury, Data Recognition Corporation was part of my FOIA request to the Delaware DOE last March. The one where they overcharged nearly $7000.00 based on a legal opinion generated by the Delaware Attorney General’s office when I filed a complaint. At no time during the constant email exchanges between the DOE and myself, and to my knowledge, since it is mentioned nowhere in the response to my FOIA complaint, did they convey this to the Attorney General’s office as well. Six months later we are just now finding out this information.
Stay tuned, because I have a lot more to say about this and the many connections with Data Recognition Corporation and American Institutes for Research. In the meantime, just put American Institutes for Research in the search box on this blog, and tell if you think it is right that this company which has made $38,000,000.00, just in Delaware alone, hires the scorer for their own assessment. The plot thickens…
Interesting FYI: When I went to speak with Alison May, in the Cabinet Room next door there was a meeting. It was the Accountability Framework Working Group. To be a fly in the wall during that meeting…