Tag Archives: Alejandra Matos

Creepy! CRPE “Study” Slams Minneapolis Public Schools, Falsely

Uncategorized, , , , ,

October 11, 2015

Forget data driven decision-making. Our real problem might be agenda driven data gathering, accompanied by press release journalism.

The latest episode of this comes from–where else–CRPE, or the Center on Reinventing Public Education. Through slick packaging, loads of cash, and the sheen of expertise, University of Washington-based CRPE has been able to pass themselves off as a neutral, “Washington-based education group,” in the words of Minneapolis StarTribune education reporter Alejandra Matos.

Matos wrote a “Class Act” blog post for the StarTribune on October 7. It carried this shock-inducing headline:

Study: Less than 50 percent of Minneapolis students graduate high school

The scare tactic “study” that garnered this headline was crafted by CRPE. CRPE has an agenda; let’s be clear about that.

In May, I wrote an article about CRPE for the Progressive magazine. called, “The Secret Group That Wants to Take Over Your School.” I’m not saying my article should be required reading or anything, but…it does provide a questioning, easily available look at the origins and motives of CRPE. (The Minneapolis Public Schools is one of CRPE’s “portfolio” school districts, as detailed in the article I wrote., and thus receives direction and policy guidance from CRPE.)

Here’s an excerpt from the article, in which I compare CRPE to its more well-known partner in anti-democratic crime, ALEC:

…CRPE operates in a manner that is strikingly similar to ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), the secretive, powerful group funded by the Koch brothers and a large roster of corporations. Here’s a look at how the two organizations work: 

  1. Member networks: Both CRPE and ALEC have a “secret club” component, through their member networks. With ALEC, the members are state legislators. With CRPE, they are school districts from across the United States (there are currently thirty-nine of them).
  2. Network meetings: Both CRPE and ALEC host member network meetings or conferences, where a common philosophy (based on a distinct right-wing ideology) is honed, articulated, and shared.
  3. Model legislation: Both CRPE and ALEC create sample, model policies (CRPE) or “cookie-cutter bills” (ALEC) for the districts or legislators who are part of their member networks.
  4. Free-market funders: Like ALEC, CRPE is funded by very wealthy, free-market-focused special interests, including the Walton Foundation.

CRPE is a right-wing influenced group that promotes a pro-market-based education reform utopia, where islands of “high-performing,” test-driven schools will compete against one another for the best resources, teachers, students, and “results.”

To create a fertile ground for this utopian (or dystopian?) fantasy, CRPE needs to constantly dish up crisis-driven press releases, to show how shockingly failure-filled our public schools are. 

Exhibit A: Matos’ StarTribune blog post repeats–unchallenged–CRPE’s claim that “only 4 percent of all Minneapolis high school students took the ACT or SAT….”

Wait, what? Only 4 percent of Minneapolis high school students took the ACT or SAT? If ever a claim seemed ripe for a fact check, that would have to be it. 

And, a fact check, or at least a glimmer of one, did come, two days later, with a new blog post and a chastened headline:

Study of Minneapolis’ high school graduation rate is questioned

Good! But, the study probably should have been questioned–by somebody at the StarTribune–before it was passed off as news. I don’t necessarily blame the reporter, Matos, for this, because covering education today is a thankless, thorny job. And I’ve certainly made my share of mistakes. But…who is responsible for fact checking these beautifully packaged, crisis laden “studies”?

And, Matos’ writing shows growth from one CRPE blog post to the next. First, she described CRPE as nothing more than an “education group.” Upon further research and reflection, she included this description of them in her second post:

Minnesota education officials are raising questions about the methodology and the data used by the Center on Reinventing Public Education, which advocates for charter schools and opposes teacher tenure rules.

Here is a brief look at the critiques leveled against CRPE’s wishful thinking data mashup, from Matos’ post:

  • “…there are some serious questions about the way the data was analyzed, and if it was accurate,” said Josh Collins, the Minnesota Department of Education spokesman. “It’s unclear to me if there are meaningful conclusions that could be drawn from it.”
  • “…the organization’s numbers for students taking college-placement tests were far lower than the state’s estimates. CRPE used self-reported data kept by the Office of Civil Rights.”

  • “In addition to the unreliable data, state officials question the organization’s decision to compare the number of students taking the exam with a school’s entire population, instead of just juniors and seniors, who are most likely to be taking college entrance tests.”

In its own defense, CRPE acknowledged this: “There is no ‘one perfect system.'”

That may be the one reliable conclusion they give us. (A second “revised results” press release from CRPE admits no wrongdoing on their part, but “regrets the confusion,” and thanks the StarTribune and the Minneapolis Public Schools for alerting CRPE to their own errors.)

Want to get a look at CRPE’s agenda? Read their study for yourself, and watch for these words:

Scorecards, benchmarks, data, choice, options, autonomy, measurements, math and reading,  proficiency, lowest-performing, failing, radical redesign

And be sure to read CRPE’s recommendations:

We urge cities to:

• Double down on bold, evidence-based solutions. Cities must be open to any promising school—district or charter—if it opens up new possibilities. City leaders must address their weaknesses head on and search widely for new solutions.

• Recognize that the hard work ahead cannot be the work of schools alone. Cities like Memphis and New Orleans that are radically redesigning their schools and school systems are seeing results, but even these efforts need continued, coordinated support from teacher preparation programs and social and health services.

They also need city and state leaders to support them when they have to make hard decisions—new leadership, turnaround, etc.—about failing schools.

This is the language of a school reform model rooted in capitalism, competition, and a race to the “top” (of…?). This is the language of outsiders who want to take over school systems, and apply social engineering, radical overhauls, and speedy, “results-oriented” pressure–but at whose expense?  And whose benefit?

Scary headlines, slick press releases, and faulty data, sloppily delivered, will not boost graduation rates in Minneapolis.

Lesson learned? Beware CRPE groups that seek to “weaponize our emotions” around education, for their own end game.

Please consider donating to keep this blog rolling! Your support is crucial and much appreciated.

[Exq_ppd_form]

Shell Game? Minneapolis Public Schools to dismantle citywide autism program

Uncategorized, , , , ,

I like waking up to a good Twitter exchange, especially when it concerns one of my favorite subjects: the Minneapolis Public Schools. 

This morning, the Tweet that started it all was a shout out to Minneapolis Star Tribune education reporter Alejandra Matos, who did a wee bit of poking into Minneapolis’s recent “family friendly” decision to stop providing its well-regarded citywide autism program:

“A little more deeply” is right, but it’s a start. 

Minneapolis has been offering a citywide autism program for years, where kids with autism get access to regular classroom experiences and the best of the best autism services, with real deal teachers trained in working with autistic kids. Here is how Matos describes it:

In the program, about four or five autistic students are assigned to a classroom with a specialized autism teacher, assistant teachers and aides. The children are also assigned to a mainstream classroom led by a teacher with experience teaching students with autism. The students often stay together from kindergarten to fifth grade.

Parents love it, apparently, with one even referring to it as a “gem” that the district “should be showing off.” And so the district is dismantling it.  For the kids’ sake, of course:

District officials say they want to free up more resources to serve students in their community schools, and federal law requires the district to serve students in the least restrictive way possible. They say the change will allow more inclusion into mainstream classrooms across all schools.

But parents say their kids have always had the option of inclusion and mainstreaming, as well as the option to send their kids–autistic or not–to their community school. Now, the difference is they won’t have the option of citywide, intensive programming staffed with autism-trained teachers and assistants.

Whatevs. Minneapolis Public Schools “Chief Academic Officer” Susanne Ziebart Griffin doesn’t really need parental or school board input anyway:

“I acknowledge parents’ concerns,” said chief academic officer Susanne Griffin. “These are their children. They want the best for them.” Griffin said that decisions to close classrooms are made all the time. “This is not uncommon.” The district does not need a board vote to make these changes because it is not a matter of policy.

Griffin had me at: “This is not uncommon.”  But not everyone is buying this blithe little brush off:     

Ow. “A shell game with services at the expense of students’ education rights.” 

That sounds like something worth digging into, a lot more deeply.