image3.png

image1.png

image2.png

V93 N6 kappanmagazine.org 51 Thinkstock/Digital Vision

A legislative contagion seemed to sweep across the Midwest during the early months of 2011. First, Wisconsin legislators wanted to strip public employees of the right to bargain. Then, Indiana legislators got into the act. Then, it was Ohio. In each case, Republican governors and Republican-controlled state legislatures had in-

troduced substantially similar bills that sought sweeping changes to each state’s collective bargaining statutes and various school funding provisions.

A smart ALEC threatens public education

Coordinated efforts to introduce model legislation aimed at defunding and dismantling public schools is the signature work of this conservative organization.

By Julie Underwood and Julie F. Mead

JULIE UNDERWOOD ([email protected]) is professor and dean of the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She previously served as general counsel of the National School Boards Association. JULIE F. MEAD is pro- fessor and chair of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily refl ect those of the University of Wisconsin.

Comments? Like Kappan at www. facebook.com/pdkintl

52 Kappan March 2012

agree — granting considerable power to the corpo- rate side. Elected officials then take the model bills back to their states to introduce them as their own. Only legislators who are members may access the model legislation (http://www.alec.org/wp-content/ uploads/2011_legislative_brochure.pdf). It is a very efficient mechanism for corporations to exercise po- litical power — and they have.

ALEC in Tennessee

Recent legislation in Tennessee provides a vivid example. ALEC created and provided members its model Virtual Public Schools Act. Two large for-profit corporate providers of virtual education, Connections Academy and K-12 Inc., had heavy involvement with the model bill’s creation. Mickey Revenaugh, a lob- byist for Connections Academy, was the corporate chair of ALEC’s Education Task Force and Lisa Gil- lis, with K-12 Inc., chaired its special needs education subcommittee that created the bill. Tennessee’s State Rep. Harry Brooks and State Sen. Dolores Gresham, both ALEC Education Task Force members, intro- duced the bill to their respective houses nearly ver- batim, even using the same title. For example, the following passage forms the preamble of the adopted statute. Underlined portions were taken directly from ALEC’s model.

WHEREAS, meeting the educational needs of children in our state’s schools is of the greatest importance to the future welfare of Tennessee; and

WHEREAS, closing the achievement gap be- tween high-performing students, including the gap between minority and nonminority stu- dents and between economically disadvantaged students and their more advantaged peers, is a significant and present challenge; and

WHEREAS, providing a broader range of edu- cational options to parents and utilizing exist- ing resources, along with technology, may help students in our state improve their academic achievement; and

WHEREAS, many of our school districts cur- rently lack the capacity to provide other public school choices for students whose schools are low performing; now, therefore

The purpose of this part is to provide an LEA with an alternative choice to offer additional educational resources in an effort to improve academic achievement. (Virtual Public Schools Act, 2011).

The bill passed both houses on a party-line vote

What was going on? How could elected officials in multiple states suddenly introduce essentially the same legislation?

The answer: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). Its self-described legislative ap- proach to education reads:

Across the country for the past two decades, education reform efforts have popped up in legislatures at dif- ferent times in different places. As a result, teachers’ unions have been playing something akin to “whack- a-mole” — you know the game — striking down as many education reform efforts as possible. Many times, the unions successfully “whack” the “mole,” i.e., the reform legislation. Sometimes, however, they miss. If all the moles pop up at once, there is no way the person with the mallet can get them all. Introduce comprehensive reform packages. (Ladner, LeFevre, & Lips, 2010, p. 108)

ALEC’s own “whack-a-mole” strategy also reveals the group’s ultimate goal. Every gardener who has ever had to deal with a mole knows that the animals undermine and ultimately destroy a garden. ALEC’s positions on various education issues make it clear that the organization seeks to undermine public edu- cation by systematically defunding and ultimately destroying public education as we know it.

What is ALEC?

Technically, ALEC (www.alec.org) is a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. It describes itself as a nonpartisan membership organization for those who share a common belief in “limited govern- ment, free markets, federalism, and individual lib- erty” (www.alec.org/about-alec). More than 2,000 state lawmakers pay ALEC $100 for a two-year membership. While listed as nonpartisan, ALEC’s members definitely skew to the conservative end of the political spectrum. For example, of the 114 listed members of the group’s Education Task Force, 108 are Republicans, and only six are Democrats.

Corporations, foundations, and “think tanks” can join ALEC, too. They pay up to $25,000 in yearly dues and can spend more to sponsor the council’s meetings. Corporate members can also donate to each state’s scholarship fund, which reimburses leg- islators who travel to meetings. The scholarships can exceed the amount of a legislator’s dues. Corporate members also can pay from $3,000 to $10,000 for a seat on a task force.

ALEC operates through nine task forces, each cochaired by a corporate member and a legislative member. Task forces are divided by subject and bring together conservative policy makers with corporate leaders to develop model legislation. In order for a proposal to become model legislation, both the public and private sides of the committee must

V93 N6 kappanmagazine.org 53

LeFevre, & Lips, 2010, p. 82) to be carried out through model legislation such as Alternative Certification Act, Great Teachers and Lead- ers Act, National Teacher Certification Fair- ness Act, Public School Union Release Time Act, School Collective Bargaining Agreement Sunshine Act, and Teacher Choice Compensa- tion Act. There’s also a set of proposals (Pub- lic School Financial Transparency Act; School Board Freedom to Contract Act) that encour- age school districts to outsource their auxiliary services.

Privatize education through vouchers, char- ters, and tax incentives (Ladner, LeFevre, & Lips, 2010, p. 87) to be carried out through model legislation such as Foster Child Scholarship Program Act, Great Schools Tax Credit, Mili- tary Family Scholarship Program Act, Parental Choice Scholarship Accountability Act, Paren- tal Choice Scholarship Program Act (means- tested eligibility), Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act (universal eligibility), Parental Choice Scholarship Program Act (universal eligibility, means-tested scholarship amount), Parental Choice Scholarship Tax Credit Ac- countability Act, Education Enterprise Zone Act, Smart Start Scholarship Program, Special Needs Scholarship Program Act, Family Educa- tion Savings Account Act, Parental Rights Act, Resolution Supporting Private Scholarship Tax Credits, Autism Scholarship Program Act, and Family Education Tax Credit Program Act.

Increase student testing and reporting (Lad- ner, LeFevre, & Lips, 2010, p. 93) to be carried out through model legislation such as Resolu- tion Supporting the Principles of No Child Left Behind Act, Student Right to Learn Act, Educa- tion Accountability Act, Longitudinal Student Growth Act, One to One Reading Improvement Act, and Resolution on Nonverified Science Curriculum Funding.

Reduce the influence of or eliminate local school districts and school boards (Ladner, LeFevre, & Lips, 2010, p. 96) to be carried out through model legislation such as Charter Schools Act, Innovation Schools and School Districts Act, Open Enrollment Act, Virtual Public Schools Act, and Next Generation Char- ter Schools Act.

ALEC’s special interest in privatization

While ALEC’s forays into education policy are broad, privatization of public education has been a long-standing ALEC objective. As early as 1985,

on June 16, 2011. Shortly thereafter, K-12 Inc. — one of the creators of the model legislation — won a no-bid contract from Union County School District to create the Tennessee Virtual Academy and will re- ceive about $5,300 per student from the state for the 2011-12 school year (Humphrey, 2011). Connec- tions Academy does not yet offer a virtual school in Tennessee, but its web site reports that it “is actively working with parent groups, education officials, and others to launch a school in this state.”

The Chattanooga Times Free Press (Sept. 2, 2011) reported that about 2,000 students applied for en- rollment in the Tennessee Virtual Academy for fall 2011. Recent reports raise concerns that the pro- gram’s popularity with home schoolers may “drain taxpayer funds” while enriching the corporation ac- tively and aggressively recruiting students to enroll (Locker, 2011). Locker also reports that “K-12 Inc. compensated its CEO more than $2.6 million last year, its chief financial officer more than $1.7 million, and other top executives several hundred thousand dollars each, according to its latest annual report to shareholders.”

ALEC on education

ALEC’s success in Tennessee is by no means its only incursion into state education policy. ALEC’s interest in education is ambitious and multifaceted, and includes promoting dozens of model acts to its legislative members (Ladner, LeFevre, & Lips, 2010). Proposed bills seek to influence teacher cer- tification, teacher evaluation, collective bargaining, curriculum, funding, special education, student as- sessment, and numerous other education and edu- cation-related issues. Common throughout the bills are proposals to decrease local control of schools by democratically elected school boards while increas- ing access to all facets of education by private enti- ties and corporations. ALEC’s outlined agenda is to:

Introduce market factors into schools, par- ticularly the teaching profession (Ladner,

Common throughout the bills are proposals

to decrease local control of schools by

democratically elected school boards while

increasing access to all facets of education

to private entities and corporations.

54 Kappan March 2012

1990. Although the Milwaukee voucher program had the backing of leaders from other philosophic camps, including Howard Fuller, a former superin- tendent of Milwaukee Public Schools and current board member of Black Alliance for Educational Op- tions, the legislation was modeled after the rubric ALEC provided in its 1985 Education Source Book. ALEC’s hand in this program continues. In 2011, one of the ultimately defeated amendments to the Milwaukee program proposed removing all income requirements for participating students, a proposal laid out in ALEC’s Parental Choice Scholarship Pro- gram Act (universal eligibility) and a step toward a full-scale state voucher program.

In fact, to help states advance school choice without running afoul of state constitutional lim- itations, ALEC published School Choice and State Constitutions (Komer & Neily, 2007) to provide a state-by-state analysis and promote programs tai- lored to foster privatization. Since then, a number of states have adopted the ALEC recommenda- tions. For example:

Arizona: Vouchers for foster children, special ed- ucation vouchers, and tax credits;

Indiana: Means-tested vouchers, special education vouchers, tax deductions for private school tuition and home-schooling expenses, and tax credits;

Georgia: Special education vouchers and the newer ALEC proposal — tax incentives for contributions to scholarship-granting organizations;

ALEC’s motivation for privatization was made clear (Barrett, 1985).

As schools became larger and society more mobile, teachers and superintendents grew further removed from parents and, all too frequently, from the students themselves. Policies dictated from state capitals and Washington, D.C., placed burdens on public schools to compensate for economic disadvantages in fam- ily backgrounds and overcome centuries-old preju- dices, to confer equality on youngsters with physical or mental handicaps, and to transmit our common culture while preserving each of its diverse elements. As a result, public schools were forced to meet all of the needs of all the people without pleasing anyone. (Barrett, 1985, p. 7)

In response, ALEC offered model legislation to “foster educational freedom and quality” through privatization (Barrett, 1985, p. 8). Privatization takes multiple forms: vouchers, tax incentives for sending children to private schools, and charter schools oper- ated by for-profit entities.

Today, ALEC calls this approach “choice” and renames vouchers “scholarships,” but its aim is clear: Defund and dismantle public schools. While many other right-wing organizations support this agenda, ALEC is the mechanism for implementing it through its many pieces of model legislation that propose legislative methods for defunding public schools, particularly low-income, urban schools.

The motivation for dismantling the public edu- cation system — creating a system where schools do not provide for everyone — is ideological, and it is motivated by profit. The corporate members on ALEC’s education task force include represen- tatives from the Friedman Foundation, Goldwater Institute, Evergreen Education Group, Washington Policy Center, and corporations providing education services such as Sylvan Learning and K-12, Inc. All stand to benefit from public funding sent in their direction.

The first large-scale voucher program, the Mil- waukee Parental Choice Program, was enacted in

By elevating parental choice over all other

values, the ALEC push for privatization

supports schools that can be segregated by

academic ability and disability, ethnicity,

economics, language, and culture.

“Good night, dear. Text me if you need anything.”

V93 N6 kappanmagazine.org 55

Ultimately, however, the most important ques- tion we must all ask is whether ALEC’s influence builds or undermines democracy.

Certain public institutions — courts, legislatures, fire protection, police departments, and yes, schools — must remain public to serve a democratic society. Through public education we have expressed and ex- panded our shared public values. As Benjamin Barber (1997) states, “Public schools are not merely schools for the public, but schools of publicness: institutions where we learn what it means to be a public and start down the road toward common national and civic identity” (p. 22).

What happens to our democracy when we return to an educational system where access is defined by corporate interest and divided by class, language, ability, race, and religion? In a push to free-market education, who pays in the end? K

References

Barber, B. (1997). Public schooling: Education for democracy.

In J.I. Goodlad & T.J. McMannon (Eds.), The public purpose

of education and schooling (pp. 21-32). San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Barrett, N. (1985). Education source book: The state

legislators’ guide for reform. Washington, DC: American

Legislative Exchange Council.

Humphrey, T. (2011, August 15). TN Virtual Academy builds

enrollment controversy. Humphrey on the Hill. (Web log post).

http://blogs.knoxnews.com/humphrey/2011/08/tn-virtual-

academy-builds-enro.html

Komer, R. & Neily, C. (2007). School choice and state

constitutions: A guide to designing school choice programs.

Washington, DC: Institute for Justice and American Legislative

Exchange Council.

Ladner, M., LeFevre, A., & Lips, D. (2010). Report card on

American education: Ranking state K-12 performance,

progress, and reform (16th ed.). Washington, DC: American

Legislative Exchange Council.

Locker, R. (2011, September 24). Virtual school in Tennessee

may drain taxpayer funds. The Commercial Appeal.

Virtual Public Schools Act, Tennessee House Bill No. 1030.

(2011).

Orfield, G. & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating

resegregation and the need for new integration strategies. Los

Angeles, CA: Civil Rights Project.

Rogers, J. & Dresser, L. (2011, July 12). ALEC exposed:

Business domination Inc. The Nation.

“Virtual school” hits enrollment hiccup. (2011, September 2).

The Chattanooga Times Free Press.

Louisiana: Tax deductions for private school tuition and home-schooling expenses, means- tested vouchers, special education vouchers; and

Oklahoma: Tax credits, special education vouchers, and the newer ALEC proposal — the tax incentives for contributions to scholarship- granting organizations.

By elevating parental choice over all other values, the ALEC push for privatization supports schools that can be segregated by academic ability and dis- ability, ethnicity, economics, language, and culture. They would be the natural outgrowth of parents’ un- fettered choices in a free-market system. Increased racial isolation would likely result, exacerbating cur- rent trends toward resegregation (Orfield & Lee, 2007). In addition, as seen in Tennessee, a fully re- alized ALEC agenda would undoubtedly result in more public education dollars bolstering the balance sheets of for-profit education vendors.

Identifying ALEC’s influence

Returning to the protests that rocked our state and others, it became clear that ALEC had sig- nificant influence on the contested provisions. As Rogers and Dresser (2011) document, proposals in Wisconsin and other states were drawn from sev- eral ALEC legislative models, including the “Right to Work Act [that] eliminates employee obligation to pay the costs of collective bargaining; the Public Employee Freedom Act [that] bars almost any action to induce it; the Public Employer Payroll Deduction Act [that] bars automatic dues collection; [and] the Voluntary Contribution Act [that] bars the use of dues for political activity.”

Does ALEC’s influence build or undermine democracy?

Whether you believe that ALEC has the issues right or wrong, the organization clearly wields con- siderable power and influence over state educa- tion policy. But perhaps by boldly sending so many “moles” to legislative surfaces all at once, ALEC has permitted those concerned with the influence of cor- porate interests on public education to awaken to its strategy. From now on, champions of public educa- tion have a new set of questions to ask whenever legislation is introduced:

• Is the sponsor a member of ALEC? • Does the bill borrow from ALEC model

legislation? • What corporations had a hand in drafting the

legislation? • What interests would benefit or even profit

from its passage?

8 Kappan March 2012

LINDA DARLING-HAMMOND ([email protected]) is the Charles Ducommun professor of teaching and teacher education, Stan- ford University, Stanford, Calif. AUDREY AMREIN-BEARDSLEY is an associate professor of education, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Ariz. EDWARD HAERTEL is the Jacks Family professor of education, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif. JESSE ROTH- STEIN is an associate professor of economics and public policy, University of California, Berkeley.

P ractitioners, researchers, and policy makers agree that most current teacher evaluation sys- tems do little to help teachers improve or to support personnel decision making. There’s also a growing consensus that evidence of teacher contributions to student learning should be part of teacher evaluation systems, along with evidence about the quality of teacher practices. “Value-added models” (VAMs), designed to evaluate student test score gains from one year to

the next, are often promoted as tools to accomplish this goal. Value-added models enable researchers to use statistical methods to measure changes in student scores

over time while considering student characteristics and other factors often found to influence achievement. In large-scale studies, these methods have proved valuable for looking at factors affecting achievement and measuring the effects of programs or interventions.

Using VAMs for individual teacher evaluation is based on the belief that measured achievement gains for a specific teacher’s students reflect that teacher’s “effectiveness.” This attribution, however, assumes that student learning is measured well by a given test, is influenced by the teacher alone, and is independent from the growth of classmates and other aspects of the classroom context. None of these assumptions is well supported by current evidence.

Most importantly, research reveals that gains in student achievement are influenced by much more than any individual teacher. Others factors include:

• School factors such as class sizes, curriculum materials, instructional time, availability of specialists and tutors, and resources for learning (books, computers, science labs, and more);

• Home and community supports or challenges; • Individual student needs and abilities, health, and attendance; • Peer culture and achievement; • Prior teachers and schooling, as well as other current teachers; • Differential summer learning loss, which especially affects low-income children; and • The specific tests used, which emphasize some kinds of learning and not others and which rarely

measure achievement that is well above or below grade level.

However, value-added models don’t actually measure most of these factors. VAMs rely on statistical controls for past achievement to parse out the small portion of student gains that is due to other factors,

Evaluating teacher evaluation Popular modes of evaluating teachers are fraught with inaccuracies and inconsistencies, but the field has identified better approaches.

By Linda Darling-Hammond, Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Edward Haertel, and Jesse Rothstein

V93 N6 kappanmagazine.org 9 Thinkstock/iStockphoto

Comments? Like Kappan at www. facebook.com/pdkintl

of which the teacher is only one. As a consequence, researchers have documented a number of problems with VAM models as accurate measures of teachers’ effectiveness.

1. Value-added models of teacher effectiveness are inconsistent.

Researchers have found that teacher effectiveness ratings differ substantially from class to class and from year to year, as well as from one statistical model to the next, as Table 1 shows.

A study examining data from fi ve school districts found, for example, that of teachers who scored in the bottom 20% of rankings in one year, only 20% to 30% had similar ratings the next year, while 25% to 45% of these teachers moved to the top part of the distribution, scoring well above average. (See Figure 1.) The same was true for those who scored at the top of the distribution in one year: A small minority stayed in the same rating band the follow- ing year, while most scores moved to other parts of the distribution.

Teacher effectiveness also varies signifi cantly when different statistical methods are used (Briggs & Domingue, 2011; Newton et al., 2010; Rothstein, 2007). For example, when researchers used a differ- ent model to recalculate the value-added scores for teachers published in the Los Angeles Times in 2011, they found that from 40% to 55% of them would get noticeably different scores (Briggs & Domingue, 2011).

Teachers’ value-added scores also differ signifi – cantly when different tests are used, even when these are within the same content area (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2010; Lockwood et al., 2007). This raises concerns both about measurement er-

Our website has a team of professional writers who can help you write any of your homework. They will write your papers from scratch. We also have a team of editors just to make sure all papers are of HIGH QUALITY & PLAGIARISM FREE. To make an Order you only need to click Ask A Question and we will direct you to our Order Page at WriteDemy. Then fill Our Order Form with all your assignment instructions. Select your deadline and pay for your paper. You will get it few hours before your set deadline.