The 2011 video below tells much of the story about the insignificance attached to research and scholarship by the corporate foundations that are trying to buy up university teacher preparation programs. The woman on the left (in more ways than one) is respected scholar, Deborah Ball, whose scholarship and leadership as Dean of Education at University of Michigan adds the policymaker patina and research-vetted veneer to get the required respectability that the Gates Foundation is seeking to institute nationwide.
Watch the five minute clip below, and you will see Ball providing a rational, detailed overview of the work to be done on teacher improvement, and watch as she gets shut down when the Education Sector questioner steps over her to hear from the corrupt Kate Walsh, who, on cue, is there to promote the solution from the three states that were already in 2011 using value-added test scores to evaluate teachers.
You might say, Walsh was focused on the pre-determined outcome, even though Ball was pretending that the process that she was trying to initiate would somehow have an effect on that outcome.
Now four years later, Ball has completed her lengthy research, even though those same models used in Tennessee, Louisiana, and North Carolina remain the systems that CorpEd in Michigan seeks to emulate. Even so, the elaborate plan was hijacked by a state senator last summer, who had the audacity to insist that teacher evaluation remain a local issue, rather than a state or federal one.
Undeterred, however, corporate foundation money continues to pour into Dr. Ball's operation at U of M. This time, however, the focus is on revamping teacher preparation. That will be the focus of Part 2.
Watch the five minute clip below, and you will see Ball providing a rational, detailed overview of the work to be done on teacher improvement, and watch as she gets shut down when the Education Sector questioner steps over her to hear from the corrupt Kate Walsh, who, on cue, is there to promote the solution from the three states that were already in 2011 using value-added test scores to evaluate teachers.
You might say, Walsh was focused on the pre-determined outcome, even though Ball was pretending that the process that she was trying to initiate would somehow have an effect on that outcome.
Now four years later, Ball has completed her lengthy research, even though those same models used in Tennessee, Louisiana, and North Carolina remain the systems that CorpEd in Michigan seeks to emulate. Even so, the elaborate plan was hijacked by a state senator last summer, who had the audacity to insist that teacher evaluation remain a local issue, rather than a state or federal one.
Undeterred, however, corporate foundation money continues to pour into Dr. Ball's operation at U of M. This time, however, the focus is on revamping teacher preparation. That will be the focus of Part 2.
Just when you thought you’ve seen and heard
ReplyDeleteit all, comes this:
http://atthechalkface.com/2014/05/23/nctq-gets-caught-in-a-data-collecting-lie/
BACKGROUND:
NCTQ only uses artifacts—i.e. syllabi—to
render their pre-ordained and universally
negative views of traditional training programs.
No on-site observations… no interviews with…
— faculty,
— students,
— graduates currently teaching,
— principals / administrators supervising
graduates currently teaching… etc.
It’s kind of like a restaurant reviewer who
judges restaurants by reading the menus
that a restaurant posts on “Restaurant.com”.
Having caught onto this, university Ed. Dept.
programs have condemned and refuse to participate
NCTQ’s farce of an evaluation… the goal
of which is the elimination of university-based
teacher education and training, and replace
it with “Teach for America”-like private
institutions (Wendy Kopp is on NCTQ’s board)
According to NCTQ critic Jack Hassard,
NCTQ uses unethical methods to gather
info.
Undaunted, NCTQ has researchers are now
contacting faculty directly… posing as “parents” of
prospective students.. complete with fictional
aliases…
You can’t make this up.
THE STORY:
Someone claiming to be an interested parent
whose daughter wants to become teacher—
one “Emilie Baker” being the name of the
“parent” — contacted Fordham
University Associate Professor John Craven.
“Emilie Baker” asks Associate Professor Craven,
emailing the following:
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
EMILIE BAKER-to-PROFESSOR CRAVEN:
“My daughter is currently looking at different grad
programs. Being a teacher myself, I have a
question about the student teaching aspect of
the program. I was on the school website and
couldn’t find how many formal observations
are conducted by the university supervisor
during the student teaching semester.
“Could you please elaborate on this?”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
An odd email: A teacher “parent” writing on
behalf of her soon-to-graduate-high-school
“student” daughter. Both are interested in
the daughter possibly attending Fordham
University’s Dept. of Education to further
the daughter’s goal of becoming a teacher,
being careful to ascertain information as
to which institution will best serve
this end.
A bit odd, but … ya know … what-ever.
So what exactly do “Emilie” and her daughter
want to know?
In the inquiring email (excerpted ABOVE),
parent “Emilie” singles out the number of
formal observations that a Fordham Ed.
Dept. professor receives (???) as what
both parent “Emilie” and her “daughter”
view as a key criterion that both she and
her daughter need to make their decision
as to which institution they will choose
for the daughter to be educated in pedagogy??
Hmmm…. ?
Craven informed his Fordham colleagues of this
strange query. His colleagues had previously alerted
Craven to NCTQ’s origins, goals, and shady
tactics, and then restated all this to him, in the light
of this new inquiry from parent “Emilie,”
Thus informed, Craven emailed “Emilie Baker”
back, saying that … yeah, sure, he’d be happy to
send “Baker” all that she asked for.
Just give me the street address that you want
me to send it to, and I will do so happily.
“Emilie” sends the street address to Craven.
————————————-
Emilie Baker
xxxx W. xxxxxxxxx St, #3
Chicago, IL 60657
(the street NAME & NUMBER are redacted, JACK)
——————————————
Well, Craven traces the street address “Emlie” provided
and discovers — shock & horror —that it belongs
not to “Emilie Baker”, but instead to the following
person with that same street address:
(the street NAME & NUMBER are redacted, JACK)
————————————-
Andrew McCorry
xxxx W. xxxxxxxxx St, #3
Chicago, IL 60657
——————————————
No “Emilie Baker” actually exists, obviously.
Well, now. Who is Andrew McCorry in Chicago?
Craven investigated and uncovered the following
Linkedin bio:
– – – – – – – – – – – –
“Andrew McCorry
“Research Analyst at
National Council on Teacher Quality
“Greater Chicago Area
“Nonprofit Organization Management”