School accountability...but some are more accountable than others

Andy at the Wisconsin Soapbox needs to be your go-to blogger when it comes to these education deform reform bills that will go through the State Legislature. Here's what he has to say about AB1, which going to get a hearing at the Assembly Education Committee next Wednesday. Here's what he has to say about the Academic Review Board, which would be the people who determine proper sanctions and "remedies" for schools that are graded with a "D" or "F" for too many years (including a REQUIREMENT that public schools deemed to be failing will have to be run by a charter operator). He starts with the State Superintendent of Public Schools, and the five spots on the board that Tony Evers would be able to select. One is a representative of the UW System, and the rest include

- One person from a true public school.
- One person who stands to see their sector benefit from closing public schools.
- One person who stands to see their sector benefit from closing public schools and vouchers expanding.
- One person who may or may not understand the educational landscape of every corner of Wisconsin.

■One at-large member and one technical college representative nominated by Gov. Scott Walker.

- One person who politically has donated a ton of money to the Governor or allies. (Can't we just say Jim Bender, John Guard, Jeff Fitzgerald, Scott Jensen, et al. should just be this person?

- One person who may or may not understand the educational landscape of every corner of Wisconsin. (And honestly, he could find a conservative technical college board member and put them on the committee if he really wanted to)

Oh but wait folks, just wait until you see who the legislature is prescribed to put on this board:

■One nominee from Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester), Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau), Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) and Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling (D-La Crosse).

Vos and Fitzgerald would be able to choose whomever they want. Barca would need to choose a charter school principal and Shilling a public school teacher.
Are you flipping joking me?

So, the majority party, in this case Republicans, could put whomever they wanted on, but the minority doesn't have that [luxury] at all? They have to have it scripted for them? Oh, and again, one of those people stands to gain everything for their sector of education by being a charter school principal?

They. Don't. Care. They don't care about how things look, they don't care about the educational outcomes of kids who are hard to educate, they don't care. THEY. DON'T. CARE.

In addition to the stacking of the Academic Review Board, Andy also mentions that the schools are graded only on items such as attendance and graduation rates (as Andy points out, apparently it's his fault that more than half of his high school class skipped school this week?), as well as high-stakes reading and math tests. Socioeconomic status seems to be a minor factor at best in evaluation, and interestingly, science and social studies tests aren't part of the grades for schools either. Hmmm, I wonder why right-wingers don't want their religious voucher schools to be measured in that?

Again, read Andy's long rundown of the bill, there's a lot to digest there.

There are two passages in the bill that I want to quickly talk about (and you can read all 30+ pages of the bill if you want). The first involves the fact that different types of tests can be taken by differnt schools.

6. Within 30 days after the effective date of this subdivision .... [LRB inserts date], request from the research center a list of alternative tests determined by the research center to be acceptable for statistical comparison with examinations adopted or approved under s. 118.30 (1). The review board shall evaluate and approve 3 of the tests, and shall provide the list of approved tests to the department.

So you're not doing a straight apples-to-apples comparison since the tests could be different, and scored very differently. Such a system seems rife for the type of sketchiness and corner-cutting that we've seen in school cheating scandals around America (remember what alegedly happened in Atlanta?)

The second way this isn't set up to be a fair system comes from this part, which explains that ways the data is compiled and compared.

(a) Beginning with data collected from the 2015-16 school year for a public school other than a charter school established under s. 118.40 (2r), and with data collected from the 2016-17 school year for a private school participating in a parental choice program and a charter school established under s. 118.40 (2r), except as provided in sub. (5) (c), annually grade the performance of each school using the grading system under sub. (2) (c) and issue a review report for the school that is clear and easily understandable. Except with regard to pupil achievement and attendance and high school graduation status, the department shall base the grade issued for each school year on data derived from the preceding school year.

(b) Collect and disseminate the best practices from schools, except that the department may not collect information for this purpose from a private school participating in a parental choice program without the private school's consent.

(c) On the review report for a private school participating in a parental choice program, specify the percentage of pupils attending the private school under a parental choice program and comply with one of the following:

1. For a private school that submits achievement data only for those pupils attending the private school under the parental choice program, identify the grade derived from data about those pupils as a choice pupil grade.

2. Notwithstanding sub. (5) (b), for a private school that submits achievement data under sub. (4) (a) or (e) for those pupils attending the private school under the parental choice program and for all other pupils attending the private school, identify the grade derived from data about pupils attending the school under a parental choice program as a choice pupil grade. The department shall also identify a 2nd grade, derived from data about all pupils attending the private school including pupils attending the private school under the parental choice program, as the private school grade. The department may use only the choice pupil grade identified under this subdivision in determining when a sanction may be imposed under this section.

So explain to me why voucher schools don't have to share their secrets like public schools would, and why does the data on public schools start next year but the vouchers don't have to report anything till the following year? This seems likely to set up a situation where the public schools get sanctioned first, and the voucher schools don't have to reveal how they're doing in comparison. If this is truly about improving education through open competition, then why have two sets of rules.

So yes, no matter how this is dressed up as a "school accountability" bill, it's really designed to funnel more money and power to the voucher schools and charter operators that gave big bucks to WisGOP politicians this election cycle. Let me repeat Andy's statement from the Soapbox, and you should commit these thoughts to memory when it comes to the approach of these deformers "reformers" of Wisconsin's K-12 education system .

They. Don't. Care. They don't care about how things look, they don't care about the educational outcomes of kids who are hard to educate, they don't care. THEY. DON'T. CARE.