How much do the Common Core tests cost?

Last week I wrote about the ongoing failure of the Washington State Legislature to fully fund schools. They’re in contempt of court and sanctions may be taken at the end of this legislative session if adequate progress hasn’t been made. And from those charts it looks to me like adequate progress would mean an extra $1500 per year right now.

Instead of fully funding schools, though, the legislature decided to implement new standards and require every school to administer brand-new computer-based tests for them. I have to ask: how much is this all costing, and what could we have done with the money instead?

In this era of privatization and underfunding, the public needs to be especially careful with the money we have.

It turns out the answers are not easy to find. Here is my rough stab at the broad categories of expenses at the state, district, and school level.

  • For the state, the cost to buy the standardized test.
  • For the district, the cost of professional development for the teachers, and the cost of substitutes to take over classrooms while teachers are doing professional development. District-wide technical support for the computer labs. Cost of new instructional materials. Cost of software to help prepare students for the tests. Internet access and headphones.
  • For the schools, the cost to upgrade the computer technology so the tests can be administered. The cost of extra computers if two or more classrooms must give the tests at the same time. The school-based setup of the computer labs. The cost of extra proctors to give the tests. The cost of disability accommodations for students.

Do you suppose the legislature had a complete picture of these costs when they decided to require all schools in the state to take the tests? I bet not. I bet they were given cost estimates by private sector organizations with a vested interest in selling the tests.

That responsibility, then, falls to us. The public. The parents.

And ESPECIALLY to the people (you know who you are) who are always saying, “Why should I put more tax dollars into education when it’s being misspent anyway?” Be the solution, folks.

where did the money go

Who makes public policy?

Lawmakers pass laws. Lobbyists influence lawmakers and therefore the laws. But who writes the laws? And most importantly, who decides on the public policy that shapes the laws? That’s the part of government that we don’t usually see. Luckily, it’s easy to find, if you know where to look.

The private sector creates public policy. This includes for-profit corporations, nonprofits, billionaire philanthropists, and think tanks. One well-known example of the private sector creating policy is the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) – read more about them here.

ALEC does their work in secret, but many organizations do the same thing out in the open. I found this out when I started learning about corporate education reform, which mostly means creating opportunities for the private sector to take public education dollars and use them to “improve” public education and control what is taught to our kids. For the public to swallow this, I learned, it took quite a bit of propaganda. Being a curious person, I researched and wrote a post on the think tanks that create the propaganda.

As it turns out, these same think tanks are holding policy discussions on topics that affect us, and our children, quite intimately. Seattle Public Schools, along with thousands of schools across the nation, is about to administer a suite of tests called the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium. These tests are meant to measure student mastery of the Common Core, a set of education standards that was designed and promoted by the private sector — specifically, the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), two nonprofits. These standards are copyrighted by the NGA and the CCSSO, meaning that any modifications to the standards are completely out of the control of the public.

Let’s go back to the think tanks for a minute. One of the think tankers I mentioned in my blog post on think tankers is named Rick Hess, or Frederick Hess. He’s a senior fellow with the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), which was founded in 1943 by a combination of thinkers, business leaders, and finance leaders. It has drawn fire over the years for spreading propaganda for the tobacco industry and for bribing scientists to disseminate information that undermined legitimate research on global warming. Not a poster child for the public good.

Hess, to my surprise, came out with criticism of the Common Core. Curious as always, I poked around a bit and found that the AEI had hosted a symposium with the topic “Common Core Meets the Reform Agenda.” It asked the question: “Going forward, will the Common Core initiative complement or conflict with the school reform agendas that states are currently pursuing?” That question was tackled by people who influence policy in one way or another (see participant bios).

The papers show a debate over various corporate reform policies such as high-stakes testing, charter schools, and the Common Core. For example, here is a policy recommendation from the article “The Common Core Standards and Teacher Quality Reforms” by Morgan Polikoff.

(A quick note: There is a note on this article claiming it is a draft and asking people not to cite it. That’s silly. Since it’s online, it is published, and citations fall under fair use guidelines.)

“Because these changes are happening simultaneously, both reforms might be more faithfully applied if there were a moratorium on making high stakes decisions about teachers (e.g., hiring, firing, tenure) until after the Common Core and its assessments are fully implemented.”

So the recommendation is to implement Common Core and assessments, and then work on legislation to use those assessments to make high-stakes decisions about teachers.

That conversation ought to have occurred in the public eye and with the involvement of the public, especially the parents, teachers, and students this recommended policy will impact.

It didn’t. That’s not how our government works.

But seeing what’s going on behind the scenes does give us the ability to stop it. Knowing about ALEC, for instance, has helped us oppose dangerous laws before they are passed.

Knowledge is power.

Knowledge is Power!

Seattle, there’s a train wreck coming

Heads-up to anybody who lives in Seattle, might want to move here, might have kids, and/or might care about taxes ten years from now: there’s a train wreck coming. And that train wreck is school buildings. We don’t have enough of ’em. Nobody in a position of leadership in the schools or in the city is incorporating new development in its capacity planning. Seattle Public Schools hasn’t got plans in motion to purchase new buildings. The city doesn’t include funding for schools in development impact fees — those are fees that most cities have in place to ensure that when new homes are built, there will be schools for the kids to go to.

How do I know all this? I’ve been attending meetings on capacity shortages for years. I’ve seen the abysmal demographic reports the school district uses. Their projections always fall far short of enrollment. I’ve seen the game of musical chairs played with school boundaries, parents fighting tooth and nail over possession of school buildings, and portables, portables, portables.

So I’ve seen the start of the train wreck, but I’m willing to bet there’s worse to come.

That’s all for now.

Do Women Destroy Science Fiction?

Spent last weekend at the wonderful and thought-provoking Potlatch convention (http://www.potlatch-sf.org/). It’s a con for readers of speculative fiction, and I’ve been going to it for years and years.

Instead of a “Guest of Honor”, Potlatch has a “Book of Honor”. This year’s book was the anthology Women Destroy Science Fiction, produced by Lightspeed Press. It’s a response to the all-too-frequent claim by men that women writers are DESTROYING science fiction! Ever since H.G. Wells wrote the first sci fi book! (Actually, though, he wasn’t the first. That honor goes to a woman, the author of Frankenstein.)

The book is great! Where else can you read stories about dystopias where everyone lives in a mall? Genetic and cybernetic modifications that turn people into mermaids and spaceships? Or watch a corpse decompose in a spaceship after the artificial gravity system disappears? Who can resist an essay titled “How to Engineer a Self-Rescuing Princess”?

It was also wonderful to be able to have conversations about the book, in the form of audience-participation panels, and outside the panels — in the halls, in the hospitality suite, in restaurants, and afterward in blogs.

The conversations, though, seemed to lack focus. We’re in the middle of change — women are respected science fiction authors in some contexts, but not in others — and I don’t know that anybody was able to come up with a clear and coherent vision about the exact nature of the problem or how to handle it. So it seemed like we were talking about all different kinds of problems.  And we were. Some people were talking about respect, some people were talking about the disproportionate publishing and reviewing of men’s work, and some people expanded the conversation to include the difficulty of publishing in general.

You can see some of the comments here:

“Notes on ‘Women Destroy Science Fiction: Not Again'” — posted on the Aqueduct Press blog

The focus that conversation lacked can be found in Nisi Shawl’s Lightspeed anthology essay “Screaming Together: Making Women’s Voices Heard” —

“Wouldn’t it be fantastic if . . . women’s genre stories and poems and genre-related nonfiction being published and read and noticed–happened every single day?”

She goes on to give a bunch of solutions, such as:

  • reading books by women
  • talking about books by women on social media
  • nominating women for awards
  • helping one of the many organizations that support women’s writing
  • for editors: repeatedly asking non-assertive women to participate in creative projects
  • for editors: issuing women writers public deadlines
  • supporting women who are writing
  • publishing women who are writing
  • for writers, using alternate publishing resources such as Book View Cafe, Indiegogo, and Kickstarter

This particular conversation, though, didn’t make it into the panel. Nor did a conversation about how far we have come, or maybe more important, what we are aiming for. We want women’s genre writing to be heard, but by whom? Is our goal equal representation in the Big Five publishing houses, and if so, why? Is it just women’s writing we want, or do we care about race, class, ability, gender, and more? Do we need a Combahee River Collective Statement  for genre writings?

Well, this explains why the conversations seemed to lack focus. They’re tackling a big topic. Why not make it just a little bigger by introducing publishing problems faced by men and women alike? Here you go:

“Notes on ‘What Dreams May Come'” — also from the Aqueduct Press blog.

That panel, which drew its inspiration on a speech Ursula Le Guin gave at the National Book Awards about authors, publishers, capitalism, and freedom. However, many of the audience members (including myself) hadn’t seen it, and the conversation dissolved into a conversation about big publishers and Amazon.

Where to next?

I left Potlatch mulling over a couple different concepts, so here they are, in their preliminary form.

1) It’s about building power. The question of who is published and reviewed, and who isn’t, has a little to do with quality and a whole lot to do with power. A group of people working together to read, edit, publish, and review each others’ works will build power.

2) Is it about competing with money, trying to get into the top publishers? I don’t think so. Money is a form of power. A noxious one. It’s a form of power best countered by striving for freedom. Whatever that means. Again, Ursula Le Guin’s speech is worth watching.

3) Is this a problem best solved by the individual, or the community?  Is it about what the individual wants to read, or write, or edit, or publish, or about what our communities need to hear and say and dream?

4) Speaking of community, Potlatch itself is a community-building con. It’s a place for readers and authors to meet each other and support each other. Over the years, it’s exposed me to a diverse range of authors, and it certainly has supported me as a woman author. Part of the solution, that.

5) Do women destroy science fiction? No. Science fiction is indestructible. Here — bring me some rockets and robots and TNT, and I’ll show you what I mean.

Image is from the Minecraft "Let it Blow" youtube video

Image is from the Minecraft “Let it Blow” youtube video

Fascinating book about our genetic heritage

For those who are curious about humanity’s common genetic origins, may I introduce the book Mapping Human History by Steve Olson. Here are three quick factoids from the book:

  • We all came from Africa. That may come as a surprise to many, but unless you want to throw science out the window and cosy up to creationism, that’s as much of a scientific fact as anything.
  • It’s impossible to accurately trace our family trees, no matter how well written records are kept. Why? According to medical research, there’s about a four percent chance of mistaken paternity. And the more generations you go back, the wronger it gets.
  • On the other hand, if you go back far enough, it is very likely that any one particular ancestor is your ancestor. Keep in mind that as you go back in time, the number of ancestors increases exponentially. After a certain number of generations, the number of ancestors you have is greater than the number of people living on Earth at the time. How is this possible? We’re related to each other through multiple lines of descent.

Don’t believe me? Read the book.

Mapping Human History by Steve Olson

The pleasures of reading, viewing, and listening

I’ve been AWOL from this blog for a little while, but I have been busy elsewhere! Check out my post on the Aqueduct Press blog, “Pleasures of Reading, Viewing, and Listening in 2014”. I talk about The Theory of Everything, Maplecroft, Doctor Who (of course), Daniel Orozco’s “Orientation,” and more!

What other secrets does the past hold?

Last time I wrote about my family history in the context of the greater US history of colonial times.  The more I learn, the more questions I have!

Take the Ohio Bethesda church of 1808.  I found a lot of information about it through my ancestor Johan Mathias Noah. I started looking at him and that branch of the family because I was wondering about all the Old Testament names. Where did they come from?

So then I came across this, one of the initial Bethesda covenants: “We do solemnly promise not to divulge the secrets of the Church to the world, and to keep the concerns of the House of God completely within itself.”

I’m so curious. What were the secrets?

So then I came across this, another account of Johan Mathias Noah and his wife, Elizabeth Schmidt. Maybe they were Quakers, or maybe Mennonites?

So then I wondered: what are Mennonites?

The Internet is so sneaky. It leads you off in all these different directions. I came across this page on connections between Mennonites and Jews. There are a lot of similarities between the two faiths, apparently.

Now I’m thinking, where did the similarities come from?

And also: I learned about Crypto-Jews from the amazing author Kathleen Alcalá. Is it possible that there were other kinds of hidden Jewish communities throughout history, yet to be discovered? Did Mennonites start out as Jews, for instance?

Oh, curiosity. Good thing I’m not a cat, or it would kill me!

Guess I’ll keep on digging.

breaking down the wall

Learning the actual history of the U.S. colonies

I’ve been interested in genealogy and family history for a while now. I like to learn more than the names and dates — I like their stories, and the “why” of where they moved, what religion they were, etc. And there is a LOT of information online. I can trace some branches of the family back to the 1600s. (One problem with that is there are “non-parental events” — that is, kids who have been assigned by history to the wrong parents, whether by adultery or adoption or who knows what all. Errors are bound to multiply as you go back in time. All the same, I feel attached to these ancestors.)

Anyway, about a month ago I got interested in some of the names in my family tree. In one set of great-great-great grandparents and their ancestors, I saw names like Zenos or Zenas, Electa, Hannibal, Sylvanus, Israel, Abraham, Sarah, Tryphena . . . there are Hebrew names, Greek names, New Testament names, names of emporers, and even full names of two U.S. Presidents. How on earth did these names get in my family tree?

I was able to trace some of those families back by their paternal lines to arrival in the early U.S. colonies. Then I looked up the history of their churches and the towns they lived in, and ultimately the history of Protestant sects from 1630 to 1840.

Found out some fascinating tidbits! I’ll list a couple of them here, with the caveat that I learned all this from surfing the Web, which is notoriously unreliable. Most of this came from Wikipedia and the rest from random places.

1. The first two Puritan colonies were very different. The Mayflower Pilgrims were separatists — they wanted to break completely with the Church of England. The Massachusetts Bay Colony wanted to reform it instead. Both established theocracies, which survived at first only because there was a civil war distracting the King of England. Power and influence of these two colonies waned as England settled its civil war and took a greater role in colony governance, more Europeans moved to the U.S. (giving people a chance to flee the Puritan colonies), and  ultimately England revoked the charter of one or the other or both.

2. Puritans had Hebrew names and modeled their theocracies after laws in the Hebrew Bible. They identified strongly with the persecution of the Jews, since they had been persecuted as well.

3. Puritans were from the beginning very invested in democracy — that is, of the male members of the church.

4. By the 1690s, the influence of the Puritans had waned, but a lot of the beliefs and traditions carried on in other religions until at least the 1840s. This is where it gets super interesting, though — there were no less than three revival movements, called “Great Awakenings,” where everything got turned on its head. They took place in approximately the 1730s, the 1790s, and the 1820s (give or take a couple of decades).

With that context in mind, here are a couple family stories.

John Mathew Noah came to the U.S. in colonial times as an indentured servant and eventually worked his way up to being fairly wealthy. He left Massachusetts for Ohio in the early 1800s, where he participated in the founding of a church called Bethesda.

Like Puritan churches, it had covenants to enforce church attendance and personal behavior. A decade or so later, the church was rocked by the Third Great Awakening and a schism developed. Some members wanted to keep the covenants, and some, including John Noah, wanted to throw them out entirely.

The notes of church meetings were kept, so I got to read an account of the schism, which was fascinating! There were a series of votes that kept getting overturned, and eventually, John Noah and ten to seventeen others were excluded from the church. He went on to help found a second church in another town. Meanwhile . . .

. . . his daughter, Margaret Haynes Noah, and her husband joined the Mormon Church, along with several other members of the Bethesda church. Her husband was . . .

. . .  Charles Hulet, a descendent of Puritans, including the Hathorne family, and a distant relation of the leader of the Salem Witch Trials and of Nathaniel Hawthorne. His father, Sylvanus Hulet, had fought in the Revolutionary War, then disappeared from historical records for seven years and emerged married to . . .

. . .  Mary Ann Lewis, whose parentage has not been traced, aside from a family story that her grandmother was a Native American named Running Deer and her grandfather was a white man referred to as Charles Sq**man (that’s a derogatory term that was used for whites who married Native Americans). This history, connected to the fact that the LDS church had a focus on converting Native Americans, adds up to something, but I can’t for the life of me tell what!

Here are the names that Charles Hulet and Margaret Ann Noah, my great-great-great-great grandparents (if I counted right!) gave their children: Anna Maria, Melvina, Catherine, Electa Fidelia, Sylvanus Cyrus, Elizabeth, Jane, Sarah, Dorcus, Tabitha, and Warren.

I see so many recurring patterns. Idealism, the desire to throw out all the old rules, restlessness, the willingness to pick up and move your entire family for the sake of religion, and interest in new forms of government. The desire for theocracy and the desire for its opposite.

That’s just one small segment of my family. This is the family of my great-great-great grandparent and beyond, and she (Catherine Hulet) is only one of thirty-two great-great-great grandparents. (If I counted right!) It contains so much drama and so many different kinds of people!

Folks, the history of the U.S. is so much stranger and more complicated than we could ever imagine.

Event recap – “We Want Something More”

On Friday night I attended an event titled “We Want Something More: Building Revolutionary Movements That Can Win.” I’m planning to give it a fuller recap, but right now, as often happens, I only have a few minutes before I need to get the kids going with breakfast. So I’ll give a few details now and more later.

It was a great success. There were more than 50 people in attendance — people who have been involved in revolutionary organizations and maybe felt there was something lacking, maybe suffered from burnout or watched others who were actively pushed away. People who want something quite different. And Jeremy, who gave the main talk, has a concrete proposal. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start. Here’s a quote from the handout:

Our Mission: Roots in the Movement is an open community of people who congregate together around our shared desire to build a transformative social justice movement. Through popular education, relationship building, and cultural activities, we aim to support and mutually inspire each other in the long and difficult struggle for a better world. We consider ourselves as just one part of a much larger liberation movement.

Consider that a teaser. There’s more information on a website that I currently can’t find.

I came to the event about a half hour late, having driven for 80 minutes straight in rush hour traffic. (Sigh.) Jeremy was speaking and showing slides about problems he’s seen with revolutionary organizations so far. He suggests that they actively push people away, and I agree. We broke into small groups and discussed it among ourselves, then came back to the larger group.

After laying out the problem, he began with some concrete proposals. I’ll get to those in another blog post, but suffice it to say that a whole lot of people came out of that energized and with new ideas.

So . . . breakfast now. More posts another day.

Is Doctor Who for kids any more?

(Removed and expanded from another post.)

Season 8 of Doctor Who has been billed as “a darker season” with “a darker Doctor” than the previous two, more flippant Doctors. Is it still appropriate for kids?

In a review of the episode “Dark Water,” columnist Sam Wollaston from The Guardian points out all the disturbing elements he enjoyed and then writes:

“I suspect my approval may mean he gets the opposite from the kids. Yeah, well, so what, it’s not your show any more. Love you, now go to bed.”

Yeah, well, fuck you Sam Wollaston, from the bottom of my motherly heart. Should my kids be deprived of this show just to make you happy? Plus, you’re dissing the future adult fan base of Doctor Who. Don’t forget that it was rebooted by adults who watched it as children.

This, by the way, is nothing to do with wanting or not wanting the show and the Doctor to be “darker,” whatever that means. Children are fully capable of dealing with “darker.” Read any Roald Dahl lately? Any Brothers Grimm fairy tales? In fact, many children’s ordinary lives are a lot scarier than any episode of Doctor Who could ever be.

Anyhow, when my spouse and I sit down to watch Doctor Who, the kids join in. My oldest loves to be scared, and my youngest leaves the room when the going gets too rough. She didn’t actually leave the room during “Dark Water” — I have a feeling it was scarier for the grownups, who think more about death. Nobody had nightmares, except me.

I think the show is good for kids in many ways. For instance, it’s a great source of metaphors and a way to understand our rapidly changing world. When a child asks, “But whyyyyyy can’t I have a cell phone? Even second-graders at my school have them!!!” I can say, “Because they will turn you into Cybermen,” and they get it.

The show is also a great way to expose children to some of the frightening truths that adults grapple with (badly) without overwhelming the kids. How many apocalypses have we had on the show? Ecological disasters? Megalomaniac rulers? But there’s almost always been a counterbalance, a ridiculous and fallible Doctor who saves us from the monsters, while tripping over his own shoes.

That’s the magic formula of the show, the one that’s kept fans coming back for more. The world is scary, but you can go out into it, explore, confront danger, because somebody’s got your back. It’s a lie, of course, but it’s a lie that children need in order to learn and grow and take risks. (As an adult who figured out that lie, and learned we have to save the frigging world ourselves, I do love the mental health break of stepping inside that blue box to watch that magic formula in action.)

This season has done a beautiful job of keeping that magic formula while still exploring all the troubling aspects of being the Doctor. But I do have a perpetual worry that Doctor Who might stray too far from the formula and stop being fun for kids. Of any age. As an extreme example, I don’t want Doctor Who to turn into “Torchwood: Children of Earth.” That episode had the kind of gut-wrenching impossible choice no hero could live with. And I don’t want the companions to get killed — especially Clara, the character my daughter adores. Finally, I don’t want the underlying optimism and humor to be lost. Fortunately, for now at least, we have a showrunner who remembers and values what it’s like to be a Doctor Who fan as a child. Don’t forget. Run, you clever show, and remember.

And hey, kids — Doctor Who is and always has been your show. Stay up late.

Have a jelly baby.

Have a jelly baby.

Have a jelly baby.