Attached is a copy of the 2016 Washington State Health and Physical Education. On page 29 it shows the requirement to address gender beginning in 2017.
It is being interpreted by readers that this means that various expressions of gender including but not limited to transgender will be discussed and addressed (the word “taught” has been used).
What is the intent of the Battle Ground School District regarding this requirement from the State of Washington. Exactly what is planned and how can people get the materials that will be used.
Will there be an ability for parents to opt-out their child and if so what is the process and timing?
What is currently being used or will be used starting in 2017 at each of the grades K through 12 regarding this subject of “self-identity”?
To be clear I will ask these (and perhaps several other) questions at the school board meeting on the 13th during the public comment period. I am notifying you so no one is caught off guard.
Dick Rylander
Transgendersim being taught in Kindergarten in Washington State in 2017? https://swweducation.org?p=2751
John Deeder – Evergreen Superintendent – Freedom of Information Request Documents
We filed a FoIR that apparently went into the “junk” folder of the Evergreen School District person responsible for such requests. We followed up and were able to obtain the materials after being told that our requests were protected under privacy laws. When we pressed the issue their view changed. Following is an email interaction along with specific files for your review:
Email correspondence:
Attached are the district’s additional responses to your public records request dated March 1, 2016.
- I have provided you with a copy of the superintendent’s contract. It fully spells out the compensation for the superintendent. I have also attached Mr. Deeder’s request for vacation buyback per his contract for your review.
- My initial response to you regarding Mr. Deeder’s performance evaluations was both correct and incorrect. As a general rule, performance evaluations of employees are not subject to public records request as it has been deemed that the privacy interest of the employee outweighs the public interest in reviewing the performance appraisal unless it is evidence of misconduct. See Dawson v. Daly (1993); Brown v. Seattle Public Schools (1993). That said, when the performance appraisal involves the chief executive officer of an organization it has been ruled to not be exempt. See Spokane Research & Defense Fund v. City of Spokane (2003). As a result of this research and clarification, I have disclosed the superintendent’s performance appraisals for the last three years.
- There have been no complaints unfounded or otherwise against the superintendent.
- I have provided you with a copy of the superintendent’s contract in my previous disclosure.
- Though the district still believes that Mr. Deeder’s resume is protected for privacy reasons, I am providing you with a copy of Mr. Deeder’s resume. I have redacted out his personal address and phone number for privacy reasons.
In regards to my response to your records request, I did provide you with a response within the five days permitted under the public records act from my date of discovery of your request. I am adding your email address to my “safe” list to make sure your requests come through in the future. If you have any additional questions, please let me know.
Scott Deutsch, ARM-P, Esq.
Manager, Risk Management & Safety
Evergreen Public Schools
P.O. Box 8910
Vancouver, WA 98668
Now…the files themselves:
Deeder_2012-2013_Performance_Review
Deeder_2014_2015_Performance_Review
Deeder_2014-2015_Performance_Review Deeder_CV
Deeder_VacationDays_Payment_Request_May_2015
Deeder Contract 2015-2016 updated with new Salary 9-24-2015
Do school board directors have any idea what the “high stakes tests” like the SBAC are really like?
On April 2nd 2016 we emailed EVERY school director in SWW this document: SWW_School_Board_SBAC_Policy
In this document we challenge them to take the 8th grade practice testing for SBAC and share their scores with us so we can share them with the public. The old adage “If it’s good for the goose it’s good for the gander” is true. How can the people in charge of demanding students take an exam that has no validity, no proof of value, has no benchmarks, can’t be compared to any past test, takes precious time away from teaching, adds costs and creates stress….for no value…how can those “leaders” make the demand?
If you agree with us then please reach out to your local school board directors and “DEMAND” that they walk the talk…when you do let us know your thoughts and the response.
Hockingson Superintendent Information
Following is information about the Superintendent of the Hockinson School District. This information was obtained by filing a Public Information Request with the school district. They took approximately thirty (30) says to research and provide it. We hope you find this informative:
Superintendent is Sandra Yager
Sandra Yager’s Contract: Yager 15-16 Contract
Sandra Yager’s Compensation: Yager 15-16 Compensation_001
Sandra Yager’s Resume: Yager Resume_001
Sandra Yager’s Performance Reviews for the past three (3) years: Yager 12-13 Eval_001 Yager 13-14 Eval_001 Yager 14-15 Eval_001
Washougal Superintendent – Mike Stromme
Following is information relating the contract, compensation and resume on Mike Stromme. He took over as Superintendent in the 2015/2016 school year and as such has no performance review on file. Previously he was in the Vancouver SD.
Public Information Request – Complete response – Washougal_SD_Super
Mike Stromme – Contract – Mike_Stromme_Washougal_Contract_2016
Mike Stromme – Compensation – Mike_Stromme_Washougal_Compensation
Mike Stromme – Resume – Mike_Stromme_Washougal_Resume
Mike Stromme – Performance review – None. 1st year
Mike Stromme – Disciplinary actions – None. 1st year
March 15, 2016
Getting the Common Core (and Federal) Facts Right
We’ve been fighting over the Common Core national curriculum standards for years now, and at this point the people who “fact check” ought to know the facts. Also, at this point, I should be doing many other things than laying out basic truths about the Core. Yet here I am, about to fact-check fact-checking by The Seventy Four, an education news and analysis site set up by former television journalist Campbell Brown. Thankfully, I am not alone in having to repeat this Sisyphean chore; AEI’s Rick Hess did the same thing addressing Washington Post fact-checkers yesterday.
Because I have done this so many times before – what follows are relatively quick, clarifications beneath the “facts” the “fact check” missed.
FACT: It was the states — more specifically the Council of Chief State School Officers and National Governors Association — that developed the standards. During the Obama administration, the Education Department has played no specific role in the implementation of those standards, and the classroom curriculum used to meet the broad goals set out in Common Core is created by districts and states, as it always has been. Further, states have made tweaks to the Common Core standards since their initial adoption and, in some cases, have decided to drop the standards entirely.
- The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and National Governors Association (NGA) are not states. They are, essentially, professional associations of governors and state superintendents. And they are definitely not legislatures, which much more than governors represent “the people” of their states. So no, it was not “states” that developed the standards.
- The CCSSO and NGA explicitly called for federal influence to move states onto common, internationally benchmarked standards – what the Core is supposed to be – writing in the 2008 report Benchmarking for Success that the role of the federal government is to offer “incentives” to get states to use common standards, including offering funding and regulatory relief. See page 7 of the report, and note that the same information was once on the Common Core website but has since been removed.
- The Common Core was dropped into a federally dictated system under the No Child Left Behind Act that required accountability based on state standards and tests, so Washington did have a role in overseeing “implementation” of the standards. And since what is tested for accountability purposes is what is supposed to get taught, it is very deceptive to say, simply, curriculum “is created by districts and states.” The curricula states create is supposed to be heavily influenced by Core, and especially the math section pushes specific content. Indeed, the Core calls specifically for instructional “shifts.” Oh, and the federal government selected and funded two consortia of states to create national tests – the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and the Smarter-Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) – which the Department of Education, to at least some extent, oversaw.
FACT: States competing for Race to the Top funds in 2009 got more points on their application for the adoption of “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace.” Adopting those standards won a state 40 points out of 500 possible, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.Congress has not funded Race to the Top grants in the annual appropriations process for several years, and several states – notably Oklahoma and Indiana – have dropped the Common Core.
- The $4.35 billion Race to the Top was the primary lever to coerce states into Core adoption, and it did far more than give 40 out of 500 points for adopting any ol’ “internationally benchmarked standards and assessments.” It came as close to saying Common Core as possible without actually saying Common Core, which, by the way, reporting by the Washington Post’s Lyndsey Layton suggested the Obama administration wanted to do, but was asked not to because the optics would be bad. So instead the regulations said that to get maximum points states would have to adopt standards common to a “majority” of states – a definition only met by the Core – and went to pains to make sure the adoption timelines suited the Core. Read all about it here, with special attention to page 59689. And note that maximum points were 50 for adopting standards and aligned tests, and 70 for doing that and supporting transition to the new standards and tests.
- It is true that the Race to the Top pushing Core implementation only happened once – though in multiple phases – but the Obama administration later cemented it by only giving two choices of standards to get waivers out of the most dreaded parts of the No Child Left behind Act: either have standards common to a “significant number of states,” or a public university system certify a state’s own standards as “college- and career-ready.” And all of this happened after states had promised to use the Core in Race to the Top; it would have been tough for state officials to suddenly say they would not use the Core because, well, they only promised to do so for the federal money.
FACT: Federal law already prohibits the government from forcing states to adopt Common Core.
The Every Student Succeeds Act, which Obama signed into law in December, includes 13 references to the Common Core – all limitations on federal power to meddle in curriculum.
Specifically from the law: “No officer or employee of the federal government shall, through grants, contracts, or other cooperative agreements, mandate, direct, or control a state, local education agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic standards and assessments, curricula, or other program of instruction…including any requirement, direction, or mandate to adopt the Common Core State Standards.”
To the contrary, ESSA specifically protects states’ rights to “enter into a voluntary partnership with another state to develop and implement” challenging academic standards.
- This “fact” was invoked to counter promises by Republican presidential candidates to end Common Core if elected. And it is correct that the ESSA singles out the Core as something that cannot be specifically coerced. But, of course, that has already essentially happened, and it is worth noting that federal law has had paper prohibitions against federal influence over curriculum for decades. Precious good they did, not that forcing states to dump the Core would be any more constitutional than the original coercion.
FACT: The federal government already has a limited role in K-12 education. Particularly in the wake of the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act, the primary federal roles are providing supplemental funds for the education of children in poverty (the Title I program), setting standards for the education of children with disabilities and helping fund those services (the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), and ensuring children don’t go hungry (the school lunch program, which is run through the Agriculture Department.)
The monetary role is small, too. According to federal data, between 1980 and 2011, between 7 and 13 percent of total annual education funding came from federal sources. And only about half of that funding in 2011 came from the Education Department. Another quarter of that funding came from the Department of Agriculture for the school lunch program. The Defense Department (junior reserve officers’ training program and their own school system for students of military members), Health and Human Services (Head Start pre-school) and about a half-dozen other departments for smaller programs made up the rest.
- The federal government has taken on a largely unlimited role in education – everything from funding to coercing curriculum standards – which is why we saw anger on both the left and right spur passage of the ESSA. But it is not clear that the ESSA reduces the federal role to simply providing supplemental funds, standards for children with disabilities, and stopping hunger. The new law requires that states send standard, testing, and accountability plans to Washington for approval; requires uniform statewide testing; and demands interventions in the worst performing schools, among other things. And this is before the regulations – which some groups are pushing to be very prescriptive – have been written.
- Oh, the school lunch program? It is also about pushing what Washington deems to be proper nutrition and balanced diets on schools, not just “ensuring children don’t go hungry.”
- It is true that the monetary role as a percentage of total spending is kind of small, but roughly ten percent of funding isn’t nothing, and federal funding was in much demand during the nadir of the Great Recession, when Race to the Top was in effect. And it is very hard to be a politician in any state and say, “I’m going to turn down this $100 million, or that $1 billion, because it’s not that big a percentage of our funding.” This is something of which federal politicians are well aware, and spending roughly $80 billion on K-12 is not chump change, even by federal standards.
FACT: Abolishing the federal Education Department would also wipe out the Office of Innovation and Improvement, which oversees the very initiatives Cruz wants to promote: federal efforts to spur more charter schools and magnet schools; the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, the only federal school voucher program; and the Office of Non-Public Education.
- Ironically, after downplaying federal influence in education, The Seventy Four tweaks Presidential candidate Ted Cruz for saying he wants to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education and expand school choice. So while suggesting overall federal spending is kind of puny at 7 to 13 percent of the total, apparently Department of Education spending on charter school grants is too big to kill. But it is only $333 million dollars, or about $147 per charter student. That is a princely 1 percent of what the U.S. spends, on average, per K-12 student. Meanwhile, the DC voucher program is constantly under threat of destruction. And none of these justify keeping the Department which does way, WAY more than these few things.
So there it is, as fast as I could get it out. No doubt I missed some things. But hopefully this is enough for the fact checkers to get things closer to accurate next time. And now, on to other things…
Camas Superintendent Contract/Compensation/Performance Reviews
This can also be found on the Camas Page:
Camas Superintendent – Mike Nerland
We filed a public information request with the Camas School District requesting information on the current Superintendent. Following is the information we received:
Contract: Camas_Super_Mike_Nerland_Contract_Jul_2013_to_Aug_2016
Compensation breakdown: They did not provide as requested. We will follow up. In the meantime look at the contract document.
Performance reviews: Mr. Nerland has been Superintendent for ~20 years. We requested the last three (3) years. They provided 2012; 2014 and 2015. Apparently they have no performance review on hand for 2013 (they confirmed): Camas_Super_Mike_Nerland_2012_Perf_Review 2013: Missing 2014: Camas_Super_Mike_Nerland_2014_Perf_Review 2015: Camas_Super_Mike_Nerland_Perf_Rvw_2015
Ever wonder what the Superintendent for Green Mountain earns? What their contract looks like? What their qualifications are?
We filed a public information request for details. The file below contains the documents provided by the School District. Please note that there was a change in the Superintendent position in the Summer of 2015 when the Superintendent (Mr. Jones resigned and took a position with the Centerville SD). It is worth noting that there are no records of the Green Mountain School board conducting annual performance reviews of the previous Superintendent. We will be reaching out to the ex-Superintendent to see if he has copies of any reviews and if so whether he will supply them. In the meantime, here is the information we could get.
In the meantime you may be interested in reading the current Superintendent’s contact.
GreenMtn_Superintendent_Info_Mar_4_2016
Expose’ – LaCenter School Districts Superintendent Information (this can also be seen on the LaCenter page)
In March 2016 we filed a public information request with the LaCenter School District requesting information about the Superintendent (Mark Mansell). Following are the document we received:
Dr. Mansell’s Contract: LaCenter_Mark Mansell_Superintendent_Contract_2015-2018
Dr. Mansell’s Compensation Breakdown: LaCenter_Super_Mansell_Comp_Breakdown $149,350 base plus other incentives. Other districts provide a spreadsheet which breaks down the details and then rolls it all up to a grand total. By not doing the same LaCenter makes it more difficult for members of the public to easily determine the total compensation package.
Dr. Mansell’s Resume: Resume – Mansell
Dr. Mansell’s Performance Reviews for the last three (3) years: 2016: Mark_Mansell_LaCenter_Super_Jan_2016_Eval 2015: Mansell_Superindentent Evaluation 2015 2014: Mark_Mansell_LaCenter_Supt Eval 2014
Performance Review Comments: These reviews are high level, very basic lacking detail. As a comparison teachers and principals are required to use a State mandated process that is so rigorous it borders on abusive. However, the Superintendent apparently isn’t required to undergo that same rigor. If the T.P.E.P. is appropriate and “the right thing to do” for teachers and principals then why isn’t the same program (or something similar) required for Superintendents?
Expose’ – Vancouver School Districts Superintendent (this may also be found on the Vancouver SD page)
This is a series of files obtained from the Vancouver School District based on an information requests originally filed in late December 2015 and received in late February 2016. We hope you find the information interesting and useful:
How much does Mr. Webb make per year? VanSD_Superintendent_Comp In 2016 he earned $301,696.36
Has he ever had any complaints filed about him? VanSD_Superintendent_Complaint
What does his Resume/C.V. look like? VanSD_Superintendent_Pro_CV
What do his last three (3) performance reviews look like? VanSD_Superintendent_Perfr_Rvws
Regarding the performance reviews and the process. The performance review process is terrible. It’s an embarrassment. School teachers MUST use a rigorous program called T.P.E.P. which is involved, detailed and borders being painful. If that process is right for teachers and principals then why doesn’t the same rigor apply to the Superintendent? The way Mr. Webb’s reviews are written, the lack of detail, the lack of data makes it look like a love fest. In the private sector this would NOT be tolerated. It must be dealt with. If you agree reach out to the VanSD School Board Directors and tell them so.
Superintendent of the Year – Mr. Webb was named the Washington State Superintendent of the Year in 2015 and his name was submitted for national consideration. We got the documents and share them here in case you want to read them. Based on his performance review we don’t see any way he could have been considered…unless…every other Superintendent gets the same free pass on their Performance Reviews.
VanSD_Superintendent_SuperYr_Nomination
VanSD_Superintendent_SuperYr_Committee_Ltr
VanSD_Superintendent_SuperYr_Nom_Ltr_Inslee
VanSD_Superintendent_SuperYr_Nom_Support_Ltrs
National PTA Forces Delaware PTA To Back Down From Honoring Parent’s Right To Opt-Out, Time To End That Relationship!!!!
Immediately cease advocacy efforts in support of the Delaware PTA Position Statement on Parent Opt Out HB50 including but not limited to website promotion, action alerts, e-newsletters, media interview and information flyers.
Per National PTA SOA Policy, if you are unable to comply with the SOA requirements by April 26, 2016 (60 days from this notification), a support team will be assigned to Delaware PTA to help create and implement a plan to move your PTA back into compliance.
To read the rest of the article and to read the letters between the Delaware PTA and the National PTA click this link ……….. Exceptional Delaware
From an article at Save Maine Schools …………………….
iNACOL’s Trojan Horse
Ms. Patrick is CEO of iNACOL – a powerful reform group that receives most of its funding from the Gates Foundation, the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, and the Carnegie Corporation. Ms. Patrick, who was never a teacher and has no education background, previously served as director of the Office of Technology at the U.S. Department of Education.
Yesterday morning, I watched a video posted on Facebook from iNACOL’s website, in which Ms. Patrick said something startlingly frank:
When I went to take a second look that evening, the video had been taken down. Fortunately, a tech-savvy and prescient friend had captured the video before it was removed.
After admitting that they are serving up a giant Trojan horse, Ms. Patrick reveals the organization’s true intention:
“Competency-based models are key to the redesign and transformation of education,” she says.
And then she doubles herself.
Competency-based education is the hyper-efficient, uber-profitable fantasy model of education favored by corporate leaders who are convinced that our schools exist to serve their bottom line.
Here is how iNACOL helps.
Under the guise of bringing alternate, online learning “pathways” to students, iNACOL leaders meet with politicians and corporate leaders to come up with policies that they embed in documents like the Elementary and Secondary Reauthorization Act.
Here is what Susan Patrick thinks is a great policy idea:
And here is what Governor Wise’s “Digital Learning Now!” Council thinks:
After they develop their policy blueprints, they pass their ideas on to the corporate bill mill known as the American Legislative Exchange Council.
ALEC then works with member politicians in your state to submit benign-sounding, cryptically worded bills based on the agenda above. Here’s a graphic showing how it works:
Finally, your state legislature votes on these policies, which sound like they are simply meant to give kids access to multiple learning “pathways”, but are, in fact, designed to completely restructure our educational system to favor the wealthy few.
Soon, teachers find themselves sitting through professional development sessions that make no sense and are run by organizations funded by the very groups that set the whole thing in motion. Districts find themselves spending huge portions of their budget on experimental technology plans and consulting groups. Class sizes grow, buildings crumble, children are experimented upon, and teachers flee the profession.
Meanwhile, the corporate world profits.
Can you believe how easy it is?
*****************************************************************
******************************************************************
Take a look at our Common Core Math post. We share all sorts of examples. Seems that if you are more than 20 years old the way you were taught math wasn’t the best. This new way is considered, by supporters of Common Core to be much better…
https://swweducation.org?p=1725
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
Stand for Children – Washington from their blog post Jan 29, 2016
Nine Reasons Why Assessments Matter
In this blog post the group lays out nine (9) reason why high stakes testing is needed, important and of value. We choose to disagree with their reasons and share our thoughts.
Stand-for_Children_9_Reasons_Assessments_Matter_Comments_SWWEd_Jan_31_2016
****************************************************************
****************************************************************
Healthy Youth Survey Reported: January 26, 2016
Are you aware that every other year (starting in 2002) Washington State, working through the Washington State Department of Health, provides a survey to children to complete through public schools? It’s described as being on paper, anonymous (no names) and intended to help government to obtain and track information looking for change in patterns. This supposes that the questions will be answered truthfully and honestly. There is nothing noting whether parents are notified or not. There is no indication whether parents can Opt-Out their children. Note: 2016 will see this process repeated.
From the website:
The Healthy Youth Survey (HYS) is a collaborative effort of the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, the Department of Health, the Department of Social and Health Service’s Division of Behavioral Health and Recovery, and the Liquor and Cannabis Board.
The survey provides important information about youth in Washington. County prevention coordinators, community mobilization coalitions, community public health and safety networks, and others use this information to guide policy and programs that serve youth. The information from the Healthy Youth Survey can be used to identify trends in the patterns of behavior over time. In October 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014, students in grades 6, 8, 10, and 12 answered questions about safety and violence, physical activity and diet, alcohol, tobacco and other drug use, and related risk and protective factors.
If you click this link: http://www.askhys.net/ you will be taken to a page that answers some questions. 2016 is a year for the survey. Following is information from this site:
- Registration for the 2016 HYS begins January 25th. Superintendents and Principals will receive a letter with a link to the Registration Form.
- Press Release June 23rd – Student depression, suicide increase
- Corrections were made to the 2014 HYS results on April 14th, 2015. Please see Errata for details and access your updated results.
- Materials from the HYS 2014 Healthy Youth Survey Regional Workshops are available now.
- State, ESD and county results are available to the public. School district and school building results are available to those with permission from their district Superintendent. See the ‘Getting Access’ page for more information.
- If you need technical assistance, please contact Susan Richardson at Looking Glass Analytics, susan.richardson@lgan.com.
There were five (5) versions of the survey listed for 2014. Looking at the forms they are listed as A; B and C. Each contains 96 questions. If you look at one I think it will be either identical with the others. You may want to read the questions and make a determination as to whether you think they are appropriate or not. You can reach out to your local school district or school board and ask for details. Here are links to the five (5) questionnaire’s:
Surveys
- HYS 2012 Analytic Report (PDF)
- 2014 Form A (PDF)
- 2014 Form AE (PDF)
- 2014 Form B (PDF)
- 2014 Form BE (PDF)
- 2014 Form C (PDF)
Finally, here are links to the various topics addressed from the website:
******************************************************************
******************************************************************
Visiting Southwest Washington School District websites – Is Your Privacy at Risk?
Ever wonder if you are being tracked when you visit a school district web site? What information are they gathering about you? How do they use it? Is there any reason to worry? Are all school districts tracking the same information? How do you even know what they are tracking?
We set out to learn the answers to these and other questions. On January 9, 2016, we sent an email to every school district in Southwest Washington and asked the following:
__________________________________________________
Relative to the District web site we would appreciate answers to the following questions:
1) Can you please explain (specifics) what cookies and tracking tools are used on the school districts web site to monitor users and their activities (including clicks)?
2) What information is tracked and reported?
3) How often are reports created?
4) How is the information from tracking used in the district?
5) Who receives the report(s)
6) Are the reports available to the public?
a) If not why not?
b) How could they be obtained by a member of the public?
7) Is there a listing of the tracking efforts on the web site and if so where?
8) Are users informed as to the tracking that occurs?
We are seeking to understand, given concerns about privacy, what visitors to your districts web site are asked to reveal or share with or without their knowledge or approval. To that end if there is additional information which is relevant to our inquiry that we have not specifically requested we would appreciate your providing it.
__________________________________________________
Then, we sat back to wait for responses. Several districts partially answered in a couple of days but we continue to wait for the others. As of January 28th we have 4 partial responses and have asked for more details that they failed to respond to in the original request. That leaves 6 districts that have no yet responded.
In the meantime we undertook our own survey of each school district website using several tools available to the public. The first tool is free and is called NoScript. This is an addon to your browser and, once installed, shows you all “scripts” running on a web page. Then YOU get to decide which scripts you allow to run and in so doing have some control over what information they are able to gather about you. For identifying cookies we used the addon: Track Cookies
Note: Many of these scripts need to run for the website to function. Try adding NoScript and then allow each of the scripts to see what then works. By using these scripts the web sites force you to allow tracking for them to work. Regarding cookies – unless you don’t allow any – you are tagged without being asked (like scripts).
When we look at “scripts” being run we see the following by web site. This data comes from going to each school districts home page and inspecting the “scripts” running:
Battle Ground SD: Ajax.googleapis.com; Googleusercontent.com; Google-analytics.com; Gstatic.com; Ytimg.com; Doubleclick.net; Youtube.com
Evergreen SD: Calendarwiz.com; Vimeocdn.com; Googleapis.com; Gstatic.com
Vancouver SD: Netdna-cdn.com
Ridgefield SD: Googleusercontent.com; Ajax.googleapis.com; Google-analytics.com; Gstatic.com; Ytimg.com; Doubleclick.net; Youtube.com
LaCenter SD: Maps.googleapis.com; Gstatic.com; Google.com
Camas SD: Addthis.com; Gstatic.com
Green Mountain SD: – None
Hockinson SD: Code.jquery.com; Sharpschool.com
Washougal SD: Maps.googleapis.com
So what do each of these scripts do and what information is gathered?
First, Google offers different tools to gather, track and report information for users. Here is a link to one of the pages Google provides that describes the tools and information: https://developers.google.com/analytics/resources/concepts/gaConceptsTrackingOverview?hl=en
Now, let’s look at each of the scripts running:
Ajax.googleapis.com – This is googles way of dealing with Java on a web page.
Googleusercontent.com – This a domain owned and used by Google to load content from different sites around the world in an attempt to load websites faster.
Google-analytics.com – https://flippingbook.com/help/publisher-2/faq/what-can-i-track-using-google-analytics As you can see from this site there is ALL sorts of info gathered and reported. It’s up to you to decide if you are ok with allowing them to gather and report.
Ytimg.com – It’s owned by Youtube and is used to run content
Doubleclick.net – It’s owned by Google and is used, among other things, to track: ad serving and ad delivery. Read this report for more detail: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/apr/23/doubleclick-tracking-trackers-cookies-web-monitoring Note: Google makes 96% of it’s income from ads and tracking.
Calendarwiz.com – This allows the site to add a calendar to their site to show events as well as create email lists.
Vimeocdn.com – This is a site that plays video’s. By having it in a script the website is preparing to be able to play some sort of streaming content.
Gstatic.com – Google has off-loaded static content (JavaScript code, images and CSS) to a different domain name in an effort to reduce bandwidth usage and increase network performance for the end user.
Netdna-cdn.com – This company works with websites to provide content of all types and tracks access and usage and reports to the user.
Maps.googleapis.com – This is a google service that allows sites to show maps or allow users to get map information.
Addthis.com – AddThis can be used to share just about anything, including: * Websites * Blogs (Blogger, WordPress, TypePad, Tumblr, MovableType) * Email newsletters * Drupal and Joomla implementations * MySpace profiles * Flash websites and widgets * Other embedded content
Code.jquery.com – jQuery is not a language, but it is a well written JavaScript code. As quoted on official jQuery website, “it is a fast and concise JavaScript Library that simplifies HTML document traversing, event handling, animating, and Ajax interactions for rapid web development.”
Sharpschool.com – They bill themselves as helping with communications. Here is a link to their page which purports to explain: http://www.schoolmessenger.com/school-websites/
Cookies
What are cookies on websites? Cookies are usually small text files, given ID tags that are stored on your computer’s browser directory or program data subfolders. Cookies are created when you use your browser to visit a website that uses cookies to keep track of your movements within the site, help you resume where you left off, remember your registered login, theme selection, preferences, and other customization functions.The website stores a corresponding file (with same ID tag) to the one they set in your browser and in this file they can track and keep information on your movements within the site and any information you may have voluntarily given while visiting the website, such as email address.
What “cookies” does each SWW school district tag your computer browser with? They can change. The information below is what we found checking on Saturday January 16, 2016, between 10 and 11am.
Battle Ground SD
Camas SD
Evergreen SD
Green Mountain SD
Hockinson SD
LaCenter SD
Ridgefield SD
Vancouver SD
Washougal SD
Cookie Comments:
1) Some use no cookies and some use up to seven (7)
2) The more cookies used the greater the potential for tracking you actions and activity
3) Unless you remove them cookies stay in place and help the website get to “know” you
4) None…none of the cookies are secure
5) Without knowing what each cookie is doing there is no way to know if privacy and security are at risk
Overall Conclusions?
1) The school websites are tracking who visits a web site (they can get your IP address); what pages you visit; how long you stay on each page and similar information
2) School Districts vary as to what information they gather.
3) To understand what reports they can get you need to do a “Public Information Request” for each district. They have access to reports that they can run. They don’t show those on their websites nor do they tell you what they are tracking unless you file an information request.
Should you be concerned? That’s something you need to decide for yourself. If you think school districts should be more transparent and tell users what they are tracking, specify information they are gathering and how they are using the information then you need to speak up. Otherwise things will continue the way they are.
We’ll update the report as we get more information from school districts who respond (if they respond).
Update: January 22, 2016 – Battle Ground
We met with the head of communications for the BGSD for ~45 minutes. He showed the information that is available using Google Analytics. They review basic information on a quarterly basis. The general information they may see includes: Operating System used; Browser used; Page hits; average time spent per page; Language used and Country of origin (and city in some cases). Most of the use of their site appears to be internal (employees). The main site is not mobile friendly.
******************************************************************
******************************************************************
Are School Boards Accountable and if so how and to whom?
Have you ever wondered if your local school board is accountable if they fail to follow policies or mislead or lie to the public? If they are accountable who watches over them and what types of discipline can occur?
Almost 3 years ago the Battle Ground School Board decided to get terminate the contract of the Superintendent in place at the time. There was no public awareness. They never asked for public input. There were no complaints filed. The Board didn’t even do annual performance reviews as required by their own policies. As the negotiations were going on in the background with the Superintendent word leaked out. The School Board publicly stated that there was nothing going on and that even if there was that there would NOT be any sort of payment for the remaining time in the contract. This was documented in newspapers.
The Battle Ground School Board announced, near the end of June of 2013, that they had terminated the contract of the Superintendent and had agreed to pay ~$400,000 as an inducement to leave. They apologized for lying to the public. The Board refused to share the details of the discussions because they were held under “Executive Session”. So, the Board lied and failed to follow their own written policies. Why have policies (which are like laws) if you don’t choose to.
So, we started to dig to find out who watches over school boards. Most boards belong to a state wide group called Washington State School Directors Association (WSSDA). How much does it cost a Board to belong to the WSSDA? It’s hard to get an answer. We’ve been told it’s $18,000 per year. The WSSDA bring representatives of boards together at least once a year and helps coordinate legislative efforts on behalf of the boards. So, this group must have an oversight role to make sure Boards comply with policy, are truthful, etc…..right? WRONG!. The WSSDA does nothing regarding oversight.
We exchanged messages with the WSSDA and asked what punitive actions might be taken against a Board or a Director if they failed to meet policy or lie to the public. The answer: Recall the person or persons. There appear to be some very small fines that could be leveled but there is no clarity that we’ve been able to find as to who would do that and collect.
Next, we talked with a school board member and asked how the public would know if the Board violated a policy(s). The answer: They wouldn’t unless someone told them.
There are no audits to determine whether school boards are honest and truthful. There is no oversight. There is no system of checks and balances. There is virtually no way to get rid of a board member if the only process is recall (who’s going to organize, fund, collect signatures, inform, etc.)?
Do we need reform? Do we need some sort of check and balance to assure the tax payers and public that school boards are complying with policies? Do we need a way to take action when action needs to be taken? Or…do we continue to let the fox guard the hen house?
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
Bill Gates keeps pushing Common Core, with big money (and a bid to get Charles Koch to like it)
Through his exceedingly wealthy foundation, Gates has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to create and promote the Common Core State Standards over the years. When the initiative ran into opposition from critics across the political spectrum, Gates remained steadfast. Not only did he continue to pour money into Core implementation and promotion, but, according to a new article in Fortune, he dined with conservative billionaire Charles Koch in February 2014 to try to persuade him to stop funding tea party groups that were fighting the Core. Koch didn’t budge, but Gates has kept up his support, and in 2015, he donated more than $42 million to several dozen organizations to support the Core.
[How Bill Gates pulled off the Common Core revolution]
In October 2015, Gates made a speech in which he said he was pushing on with his controversial education initiatives, on which he has spent several billions of dollars since 1999. He has funded a number of efforts, including a small-schools initiative in New York City that he abandoned after deciding it wasn’t working, controversial teacher-evaluation systems that use student standardized test scores to determine the “effectiveness” of educators, and the Core. As the world’s biggest philanthropist, Gates has been at the center of a national debate about whether democracy is well served when private individuals fund pet projects with so much cash that public policy is affected — without real public input.
[Principal: Why I once liked Common Core but changed my mind]
The Core standards were initially approved in full by 45 states, but a handful of states have dropped out and adopted new standards, some of them similar to the Core.
Below are the 37 grants that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has given in 2015 to efforts involving the implementation and promotion of Common Core, totaling just over $42 million. The range of recipients is wide, including nonprofit organizations, universities and journalists.
For example, the nonprofit publisher of Education Week — Editorial Projects in Education — received a $750,000 grant “to support reporting on issues related to the implementation of the Common Core, next-generation assessments, personalized learning, and college and career readiness in Education Week.” (Gates has supported Ed Week for a long time.)
The National Congress of Parents and Teachers won $999,276 in October to “support the training and engagement of parent volunteers around Common Core assessments and forthcoming assessment results.” So the PTA got nearly $1 million to help with Common Core tests.
The largest grant, $10.8 million, went to the New Venture Fund “to support Common Core implementation.” Among the fund’s projects is the “Collaborative for Student Success,” which the website describes as “a multi-donor fund that seeks to invest in national, regional, and state communications and messaging efforts that build support among parents, teachers, administrators, and policymakers for implementing Common Core state education standards.”
What kind of efforts? The website says: “The collaborative will invest in grants to education groups that support messaging and polling activities, the development of communications toolkits, and convenings to advance the implementation of the Common Core standards.”
Many of the pro-Core organizations are interconnected. For example, the New Venture Fund is a supporter of the nonprofit Center for American Progress, a think tank based in Washington that is also supported by Gates and many other groups. CAP has consistently supported the Core, as evidenced in a recent poll it just released in conjunction with High Achievement New York. Peter Greene, a Pennsylvania teacher who writes the always interesting Curmudgucation blog, eviscerated the poll in this post, which says in part:
In an era in which even Jeb Bush has stopped saying the name out loud, no group has cheered harder for the Common Core than the Center for American Progress (theoretically left-leaning holding pen for interregnum Clinton staffers). No argument is too dumb, no data set too ridiculous. If that dog won’t hunt, CAP ties a rope around its neck and drags it.
So it’s no surprise that CAP is back with yet another Pubic Policy Polling poll announced with the breathless headline “NEW POLL: WHEN NEW YORKERS SEE SPECIFIC COMMON CORE STANDARDS, THEY SUPPORT THE COMMON CORE.” Partnering up on this raft of ridiculousness is High Achievement New York, a coalition of business groups like the Business Council of New York State and reformster groups like StudentsFirstNY.
The poll, found here in its entirety, is as fine an example of scrambled thinking used to fuel PR as you’ll find anywhere. In the world of polling, there are two types of polls: a poll that seeks to find out what people are really thinking, and a poll that tries to make it look like people are thinking what I want them to think. This would be the second type of poll.
There are 2 questions that cover basically three areas.
Math and ELA Standards
This is the basis for the headline, and it would make an excellent exercise in critical thinking for sixth-graders. Here’s the format. The pollster says, “I’m going to read you a list of possible language arts standards for 4th grade students, and then ask if you support or oppose students learning that standards.” Then five specific goals are read, such as “Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English capitalization, punctuation and spelling when writing.” The math portion follows the same technique.
And it turns out that people support these particular standards! Huzzah! So they really DO support the Core! They like it. They really like it!
This is artful use of a forest-tree fallacy. If you like this standard, you must love Common Core. If you like this tree in your yard, you must want to live in the forest. If you like tigers, you must love zoos. If you love cheese, you must like anchovy and pineapple pizza. If you like bears, you must want a bearskin rug. If you like blond hair on men, you must want to marry Donald Trump.
Here are the Gates grants related to Common Core released in 2015 as described on the foundation’s website:
Metis Associates Inc.
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To support critical education reform initiatives in New York City and throughout the United States, including Common Core State Standards and robust teacher evaluation and reporting systems.
Amount: $150,000
Term: 24
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: New York, N.Y.
Grantee Website: www.metisassoc.com/contact/contact_us.html
Preva Group LLC
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To deliver increased data quality and response rates for data collection from educators resulting in lower administrative cost and time burden, automated measurement of alignment to Common Core for classroom teachers resulting in better implementation of Common Core lessons, and automated measurement of indicators of sustainability for education reform initiatives resulting in shorter surveys and rapid measurement.
Amount: $715,415
Term: 9
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Bainbridge Island, Wash.
Grantee Website: www.prevagroup.com
Aspire Public Schools
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To support Common Core implementation, professional development or personalized learning.
Amount: $50,000
Term: 5
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Oakland, Calif.
Grantee Website: www.aspirepublicschools.org
Uplift Education
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To support Common Core implementation, professional development or personalized learning.
Amount: $50,000
Term: 6
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Dallas, Tex.
Grantee Website: www.uplifteducation.org
Unbounded Learning Inc.
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To promote capacity-building focused on Common Core supports for teachers, schools and districts.
Amount: $926,667
Term: 8
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Brooklyn, N.Y.
Editorial Projects in Education Inc.
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To support reporting on issues related to the implementation of the Common Core, next-generation assessments, personalized learning, and college and career readiness in Education Week.
Amount: $750,000
Term: 12
Topic: Communications, Strategic Partnerships
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: Communications
Grantee Location: Bethesda, Md.
Grantee Website: www.edweek.org
The Match Foundation Inc.
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To support Common Core implementation, professional development or personalized learning.
Amount: $50,000
Term: 6
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Jamaica Plain, Mass.
Grantee Website: www.matcheducation.org
Green Dot Public Schools California
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To support Common Core implementation, professional development or personalized learning.
Amount: $50,000
Term: 6
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Grantee Website: www.greendot.org
Success Academy Charter Schools Inc.
Date: November 2015
Purpose: To support Common Core implementation, professional development or personalized learning
Amount: $50,000
Term: 6
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: New York, N.Y.
Grantee Website: successacademies.org
New Paradigm for Education Inc.
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To support Common Core implementation, professional development or personalized learning
Amount: $50,000
Term: 6
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Detroit, Mich.
Grantee Website: http://npfenow.org
Learning First Alliance
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To broaden the existing showcase of innovations that can improve U.S. K-12 public education through continued support for effective implementation of Common Cores State Standards. Through a robust, collaborative communications plan, successful implementation strategies — and the educators who lead them — will be shared more broadly.
Amount: $686,682
Term: 13
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Alexandria, Va.
Grantee Website: www.learningfirst.org
United Way of New York City
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To build United Way of New York City’s capacity as an advocate, school-based technical assistance provider and community-based organization trainer in support of Common Core in New York City and New York state.
Amount: $1,200,000
Term: 17
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: New York, N.Y.
Grantee Website: www.unitedwaynyc.org
Partnerships to Uplift Communities Lakeview Terrace
Date: October 2015
Purpose: to support common core implementation, professional development or personalized learning
Amount: $50,000
Term: 7
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Burbank, Calif.
Grantee Website: www.pucschools.org
Summit Public Schools
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To support common core implementation, professional development or personalized learning
Amount: $50,000
Term: 7
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Redwood City, Calif.
Grantee Website: www.summitps.org
Stand for Children Leadership Center
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To support capacity building and increased public will around Common Core standards and aligned assessments in four states, as well as positive teacher effectiveness policy changes.
Amount: $3,580,000
Term: 25
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Portland, Ore.
Grantee Website: http://standleadershipcenter.org
Idea Public Schools
Date: October 2015
Purpose: to support common core implementation, professional development or personalized learning
Amount: $49,840
Term: 7
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Weslaco, Tex.
Grantee Website: www.ideapublicschools.org
Council for a Strong America
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To educate and engage stakeholders around the Common Core and high quality preschool.
Amount: $4,250,000
Term: 35
Topic: Pacific Northwest: Early Learning
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Washington, D.C.
Grantee Website: www.councilforastrongamerica.org/
Military Child Education Coalition
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To develop and support an advocacy campaign in support of the implementation of Common Core and on behalf of the interest of military-connected students by leveraging the voices and actions of its military-connected network.
Amount: $498,027
Term: 25
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Harker Heights, Tex.
Grantee Website: www.militarychild.org
The Boston Foundation Inc.
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To support a strategic planning and restructuring effort by the Massachusetts Department of Education that will lead to sustained Common Core and Educator Effectiveness implementation and impact post-Race to the Top.
Amount: $150,000
Term: 2
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Boston, Mass.
National Congress of Parents and Teachers
Date: October 2015
Purpose: To support the training and engagement of parent volunteers around Common Core assessments and forthcoming assessment results.
Amount: $999,276
Term: 26
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Alexandria, Va.
Grantee Website: www.pta.org
GreatSchools Inc.
Date: September 2015
Purpose: To support Great Schools’ development of online tools that help parents understand their children’s scores on Common Core-aligned assessments and engage further with their children’s education.
Amount: $800,439
Term: 22
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Oakland, Calif.
Grantee Website: www.greatschools.net.
Parent Institute for Quality Education Inc.
Date: September 2015
Purpose: To promote parent engagement and increased knowledge of educational shifts in areas such as the Common Core, local funding, and teacher quality through trainings, seminars and coaching.
Amount: $307,048
Term: 13
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: National City, Calif.
Grantee Website: www.piqe.org
MassChallenge Inc.
Date: September 2015
Purpose: To support initial launch activities for a Massachusetts-based teacher practice network dedicated to Common Core aligned professional development.
Amount: $50,000
Term: 2
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Boston, Mass.
Grantee Website: www.masschallenge.org
Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors Inc.
Date: September 2015
Purpose: To support states in their efforts to implement high quality, college and career-ready assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards
Amount: $1,250,000
Term: 12
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL | NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: New York, N.Y.
Grantee Website: www.rockpa.org
National Louis University
Date: September 2015
Purpose: to support a one-day symposium during which leading higher education and Common Core practitioners and thinkers discuss and generate shared knowledge on linkages and opportunities between P-12 and postsecondary education
Amount: $49,502
Term: 2
Topic: Postsecondary Success
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Chicago, Ill.
Grantee Website: http://www.nl.edu/
New Leaders Inc.
Date: August 2015
Purpose: to support this internal program redesign – and to provide support to the broader field around how principals enable teachers and students to excel in the Common Core era – New Leaders will conduct an intensive research study of principals whose schools are demonstrating success in implementing the Common Core standards and aligned instruction. New Leaders will examine the practices of school leaders that are increasing student success in meeting rising academic expectations established under the Common Core. Based on that research, New Leaders will develop two key resources that will be publicly available to the field: 1. A white paper that identifies what great principals are doing right to bolster teacher effectiveness and better prepare students for college, careers and citizenship; and 2. A set of case studies that can be used in training principals to achieve similar success when implementing new standards in their own schools
Amount: $315,000
Term: 23
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: New York, N.Y.
Grantee Website: http://www.nlns.org
National Writing Project
Date: August 2015
Purpose: to support teacher network organizations to: build effective Common-Core aligned tools, resources, and professional development opportunities; connect teachers to one another to share and refine best practices; develop teacher leaders to scale and spread tools and training; measure the spread and impact of the work
Amount: $1,599,980
Term: 32
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Berkeley, Calif.
Grantee Website: http://www.nwp.org
New Venture Fund
Date: August 2015
Purpose: to support Common Core implementation
Amount: $10,800,000
Term: 10
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Washington, D.C.
Grantee Website: http://www.newventurefund.org
American Institutes for Research in the Behavioral Sciences
Date: July 2015
Purpose: to support Common Core
Amount: $267,749
Term: 14
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Washington, D.C.
Grantee Website: http://www.air.org
CSU Fullerton Auxiliary Services Corporation
Date: May 2015
Purpose: to convene large numbers of teachers on a single day in regions across the state of California to generate momentum around the singular impact of teachers on college and career readiness and directly impact teacher exposure to materials, resources and strategies for Common Core implementation
Amount: $1,257,526
Term: 10
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Fullerton, Calif.
Grantee Website: http://www.csufasc.org/
New Teacher Center
Date: May 2015
Purpose: To convene large numbers of teachers on a single day in regions across the state of California to generate momentum around the singular impact of teachers on college and career readiness and directly impact teacher exposure to materials, resources and strategies for Common Core implementation
Amount: $1,066,403
Term: 4
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Santa Cruz, Calif.
Grantee Website: http://www.newteachercenter.org
Loyola Marymount University
Date: May 2015
Purpose: To convene large numbers of teachers on a single day in regions across the state of California to generate momentum around the singular impact of teachers on college and career readiness and directly impact teacher exposure to materials, resources and strategies for Common Core implementation
Amount: $1,195,581
Term: 10
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Los Angeles, Calif.
Grantee Website: http://www.lmu.edu
West Ed
Date: April 2015
Purpose: RFP for teacher networks, designed to deepen the implementation of the Common Core by leveraging effective tools and strategies; teacher leaders capable of scaling them to teachers in national and local networks; and network/system partnerships
Amount: $3,510,000
Term: 21
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: San Francisco, Calif.
Grantee Website: http://www.WestEd.org
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards Inc.
Date: March 2015
Purpose: to provide support for the Common Core Teaching and Learning conference
Amount: $100,000
Term: 3
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Arlington, Va.
Grantee Website: http://www.nbpts.org/
Children Now
Date: March 2015
Purpose: to provide support to parents in California to understand the transition to new Common Core aligned assessments
Amount: $150,000
Term: 6
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Oakland, Calif.
Grantee Website: http://www.childrennow.org
[Children Now also received a grant in March 2015 for $700,000 for general operating support. It has received more than $2 million from the foundation since 2011.]
LearnZillion Inc.
Date: March 2015
Purpose: to support conferences to deepen teacher understanding of the Common Core standards
Amount: $500,000
Term: 4
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Washington, D.C.
Grantee Website: http://learnzillion.com
U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation
Date: March 2015
Purpose: to support Common Core implementation
Amount: $3,701,180
Term: 24
Topic: College-Ready
Regions Served: GLOBAL|NORTH AMERICA
Program: United States
Grantee Location: Washington, D.C.
Grantee Website: http://education.uschamber.com