No Consultant Left Behind

[proud2BlibKansan]

Over the past decade, since the adoption of No Child Left Behind and the introduction of Race to the Top, I have noticed an interesting phenomenon: a proliferation of businesses that “consult” with schools, school districts, and states.

It started slowly, and then it mushroomed. I remember when NCLB started, and overnight there were hundreds of tutoring firms created to offer supplementary services. Some of these firms had never tutored anyone before, but they got clients by offering prizes and cash inducements to principals to send them students. Some of them submitted inflated bills. Some of them should never have been approved in the first place. See here and here and here and here and here.

Every time a new federal program was launched, a new bunch of private-sector consultants popped up to get a piece of the pie.

Race to the Top and the School Improvement Grants were a new jackpot or honeypot for consultants. In Denver, consultants raked in 35 percent of the federal dollars in School Improvement Grants targeted for the district. Think of it: 35 percent allocated by Congress to help schools improve–and it went to consultants. Did it do any good? Do Denver school officials lack the capacity to know what to do?

more . . . http://dianeravitch.net/2012/07/27/no-consultant-left-behind/

[Starry Messenger]

1. Somedays it just seems like a neverending parade of assholes with their lunch-hooks out.

A friend of ours who teaches college history out in Indiana was out visiting this summer and was ranting about this too. "They all can't wait to get their hands on all that nice taxpayer money, just sitting there!"

[LWolf]

2. I noticed it right away.

I taught in CA before NCLB; we had the state version, the API. Then we had both API and NCLB.

One of the mandated things a school did when they didn't "meet" API/AYP was the so-called "improvement plan."

I never figured out if calling in outside consultants was a required part of that plan, or if it was just "encouraged," or if it was just more likely for the plan to be approved if it was included.

When one school in my very large K-8 district (about 28,000 students, about 28 schools) didn't make AYP and had to produce a plan, consultants were called in: "Data Works." Every school had to send representatives to be "developed" and to report back to their home sites; all staff at the "failing" school had to attend.

My school always met AYP and API; as a matter of fact, we routinely outscored the entire district. When our "representatives" came back to report to us, with admin AND district admin in attendance and watching for compliance, they were subdued, to say the least. They reported flatly, without enthusiasm or endorsement. As a matter of fact, the teacher that had to report this part had tears in her eyes:

"They told us that we aren't supposed to look at students as people, but as numbers. If the numbers aren't right, the goal is to fix the overall AYP, so instructional focus is on those close enough to the 'bubble' to make a statistical difference for the school. Don't waste the extra time and resources on those who won't make a statistical difference."

The district was paying $$$ for these "consultants" who came in to tell us how to raise test scores. Money that could have been directed to resources that actually helped struggling students.

That was around 2000. I've always suspected that the "improvement plan" requirement was specifically written to divert public education funds to private sector, non-educator, for-profit "consultants."