FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Angela Engel, 303.908.1954

Charter Schools Are Anti-Parent Choice
(April 28, 2011 – Denver, Colo.)  When Nina Bishop asked her son’s charter school not to subject him to the Colorado Student Assessment Program (CSAP) exams, she had no idea that as a result they would kick him out. Both of her children Levi (fifth grade) and Aubrey (eighth grade) had been attending Rocky Mountain Charter Academy, RMCA, in Colorado Springs for the past two years.

Not only had both children been honor roll students, the Bishop family had always been enthusiastic supporters of the school. Mrs. Bishop also had volunteered at RMCA, organizing a Nuggets fundraiser and made donations to the school including: athletic equipment, science tools, office supplies and books. These donations, worth $2,000, were given by the Bishop family in addition to the $100 “fee” charged to every student as designated in the student handbook.

Last year as the class began to prepare for the CSAPs, her son, Levi, began to show symptoms of excessive stress and anxiety. After taking him to see a psychologist, he was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and attention deficit disorder (ADD). Levi had to be medicated, continued to see a counselor, and was placed on a Individualized Education Plan for students with disabilities (IEP). All year long the family worked with a RMCA teacher to reduce his stress and eventually he was taken off the medication. To prevent a recurrence of the situation, Mr. and Mrs. Bishop made the decision to withhold Levi from all standardized testing including the CSAPs. “The pressure put on these kids to perform on those tests is absurd!” exclaimed Mrs. Bishop.  ”My daughter, Aubrey, vomited in the back of my car before taking the CSAP, ” she added. “However, we learned that that there are parental rights with regard to testing such as a Supreme Court ruling protecting the rights of parents to guide their child’s education. (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35); (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402.); (Prince V. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158),” she concluded.

After consulting an attorney, Ms. Bishop asserted her right that Levi be exempted from the CSAP exams on the RMCA “Parental Commitment Agreement.” Unfortunately, last week the family was notified by the RMCA school Administrator (the equivalent to the Principal at a non-charter school) that Levi would not be admitted for the upcoming year based on the family’s decision to abstain from CSAP. Subsequent appeals made by the Bishop family have also been denied by RMCA and its board.

The Bishop family is not alone. Kelley Coffman-Lee has three children that attend Littleton Academy which is also a charter school. While attending a great grandfather’s funeral out of state at the same time the CSAP test was being administered they received notification that their three children were being considered “withdrawn” from Littleton Academy for “missing too many days of school.”  Not so coincidentally, Ms. Coffman-Lee has been a vocal critic of CSAP testing. “We have always opted out of the tests. In public schools CSAPs weren’t an issue, but at Littleton Academy the high CSAP scores are used as a tool to entice prospective families, despite the fact that many experts agree that high scores are propelled by the inherent gender, racial, and socioeconomic biases of the exam.  So, sadly, our experience with charter schools has been that children are only valued for their test scores.”  The family has made the decision not to return to Littleton Academy. “We’re still looking for a school where education is about teaching, not testing.”

Angela Engel, Co-director of Uniting4Kids, a national non-profit that supports education improvement through leadership development of teachers, parents, and students, stated, “These two incidents illustrate two things: 1) Excessively high stakes testing is really driving education and not the other way around; and, 2) charter schools, although the recipients of the same public dollars as traditional K-12 schools, aren’t really “public” particularly without equitable due-process protections for parents and students. It comes down to this. . .if these schools are excluding various students based on their ability or decision to take the inherently flawed CSAP exams, then they shouldn’t be getting public dollars!”

“We enrolled in a charter school because we thought there would be more choice,” said Mrs. Bishop. “We have found that it is the opposite. There is a double standard when it comes to charter schools; they want our tax dollars but they want to pick who goes to their schools.”

“We enrolled in a charter school because we thought there would be more choice,” said Mrs. Bishop. “We have found that it is the opposite. There is a double standard when it comes to charter schools; they want our tax dollars but they want to pick who goes to their schools.”

Contact: Lisa Alonge Morgan, LALONGE@comcast.net, 720.339.8766.
In 2010 there were 324 parental refusals, 519 tests that were not completed, 157 students withdrew before completion, 20 were listed as not completed due to extreme frustration.   http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/csap/csap_summary.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, September 23rd

CONTACT: Angela Engel, 303.908.1954

Uniting4Kids opposes performance pay because evidence shows it is ineffective, costly, and perpetuates inequalities

September 23, 2011 – Denver, Colo.)  Today as President Obama explained to the nation that waivers for NCLB would only be granted to those states that complied with Performance Pay, Uniting4Kids offered the following challenges to the wasteful spending and futile attempts to quantify and standardize Colorado’s educators.

1) Research demonstrates that performance cannot be predicted and that financial incentives have an insignificant impact on student test scores. In a climate of “evidenced based outcomes,” policy makers need to follow the evidence?

http://news.vanderbilt.edu/2010/09/teacher-performance-pay/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/18/education/18rand.html

http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/handle/10415/1286

2)  The estimated cost of SB191 and to implement performance pay in Colorado is $49 million dollars annually. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation only contributed $9 million, leaving Colorado $40 million dollars short. This level of expenditure cannot be justified given that in the past year alone student per pupil funding has decreased by 5.1 percent. Over the past three years $600 million dollars has been cut to K-12.

The statewide average per pupil funding is estimated at $6,468 in FY 2011-12, compared with $6,813
in the prior year.

Read the full summary of the school finance bill SB11-230 and the impacts of these cuts to each district: http://www.angelaengel.com/blog/?p=184

3) In all research studies, the highest correlating factor to student test performance is socio-economic status. Basing teacher’s pay on test scores unfairly punishes educators who teach children in high poverty communities and who are most at risk. Even longitudinal growth calculations are inadequate because studies demonstrate that growth rates are lower for low-income children and decline even faster as students get older.

4)  A decade of CSAP, the Colorado Student Assessment Program, consistently illustrates flat scores. National SAT scores have further declined. Based on a ten year history of flat scores it is predictable that educators would have no increase in salary. Higher stakes won’t change the test variables in which educators have no control.

5) In August of 2009, The New Teacher Project, TNTP contracted with CDE to “institutionalize state-level policies, structures, and practices.” The Rose Foundation contributed $70,000 and a matching $70,000 was provided by outside national interests. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, TNTP proposed recommendations in the following areas: “developing teacher effectiveness vision and strategy; diagnosing the impact of current state law and policy on teacher effectiveness; and identifying legislative and policy reforms to support the state’s application for federal funding.” TNTP is a profit generating model affiliated with Teach for America, TFA, which supplies inexpensive and inexperienced labor to school districts. These interns rotate on a two-year basis keeping labor costs at a minimum and appeal to budget strapped districts. TFA interns are further exempted from the teacher effectiveness mandates because evaluations are based on longitudinal growth over a two-year period, after which the majority of interns have already cycled out. Senate bill 10-191 increases market opportunities for TNTP and its sister organization, TFA. This appears to represents a conflict of interest and illustrates another instance of how policy making has been tied to profit making. The Reading First Scandal similarly promoted a policy model that was not evidenced based and directed public revenues to private interests. Several indictments resulted from that investigation. The Colorado Legislature should further investigate the agreement between TNTP and the Colorado Department of Education.

The full memorandum can be read here: http://www.angelaengel.com/blog/?p=190

6) Administrators, educators, students, parents and policy makers all define teacher quality differently. The new standards are subjective criteria. Evaluation will always be subjective and conditional and it should be. Attempts to quantify effectiveness, particularly in a field of service, are costly and serve to undermine the professional judgment and effectiveness of our paid administrators.

7) If improving teacher quality were really the goal, teachers would be encouraged to instruct from their position of strength. If children were really valued, then they would be given the resources and supports to succeed. SB10-191 is a “Gotcha” policy that promotes a culture of fear and division and works counter to the kinds of personalized and innovative education approaches we seek. Higher stakes have a proven negative effect on teacher morale, collaborative work and team-building in our schools.

Policies that attempt to standardize children or educators reinforce mediocrity and limit the vast potential and unlimited capabilities of diverse and unique individuals? Common expectations and prescribed outcomes kill initiative and diminish individual spirit in children and adults. We should build and create from the strength of our differences.

9) Standardized measurement tools such as state tests are invalid measures and inadequate indicators of student achievement, school quality or teacher effectiveness.

10) Performance pay and teacher effectiveness models do nothing to address the real problems that Colorado’s children are facing:

Ø  34,948 at risk 4 yr olds were identified in 2010

Ø  9,803 preschool children are unable to attend preschool as a result of insufficient funding and limited access[i]

Ø  48% of 1-8 graders in Colorado are on free and reduced lunch[ii]

Ø  Poverty in the United States has increased by 9% between 2000 and 2006. Today  one out of every six children fall below the poverty line. In Colorado, the number of children living in poverty grew by 72%, the highest rate increase in the nation.[iii]

Ø  Every hour and a half a child is born to a teen mother

Ø  According to the Colorado Department of Education the drop-out rate has increased from 2.4 in 2002 to 3.6 in 2009.[iv]

Ø  The size of Colorado’s prison population has increased four-fold in the past 20 years and is expected to grow to over 27,000 people by 2013 [v]

Districts have experienced significant budget and staff (FTE) reductions over the past decade while CDE has grown their department by 41%. Angela Engel, director of Uniting4Kids concluded, “While the cost of mandates is increasing, actual resources and services for children are diminishing. When you look at the actual outcomes, it’s clear that reforms associated with high-stakes tests simply don’t work.”

---

[i] http://www.coloradokids.org/includes/downloads/countydatareport.pdf

[ii] http://childrens-voices.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/CDE-Specific-Hearing-Questions-CDE-JBC-Hearing-12-11-09-2.pdf

[iii] 2010 Kids Count, Colorado Children’sCampaign. http://www.coloradokids.org/facts/kids_count/publications.html#

[iv] Colorado Annual Dropout Rates by Race Ethnicity 1995-2006, Colorado Department of Education

[v] http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/2009_Colorado_Quick_Facts.pdf

DISSERTATION ABSTRACT

PREDICTING OBJECTIVE MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE

Kristina Eva Chirico

Doctor of Philosophy, December 16, 2005

(Master of Science, May 11, 2002)

(B.A., Agnes Scott College, 1998)

69 Typed Pages

Directed by Philip M. Lewis

In today’s competitive job market, many organizations use various selection procedures in order to hire the best possible employees. Most selection tools such as structured interviews, mental ability tests, and per sonality inventories have been shown to predict employee performance in terms of subjective measures (i.e., supervisory ratings). However, organizations are more interested in predicting objective measures of performance (e.g., sales). The purpose of this study was to determine whether biodata, situational judgment, and role-play could be effective in predicting objective measures of performance. Four objective measures (i.e., sales amount, number of orders, debt, and the number of active staff members) were collected from 189 District Sales Managers employed by an international company selling beauty and related products. The results indicated that none of the objective measures are related to the predictors.

http://etd.auburn.edu/etd/handle/10415/1286

March 17, 2011
Dear Superintendent,

On March 1, 2011 the Colorado Department of Education released the following memo “CSAP misconceptions and facts” to Colorado superintendents regarding CSAP. I have provided corrections to each of those statements below in bold. Please feel free to contact me with additional questions.

“Dear Superintendents,
We have had several phone calls again this year about the considerations by a few parents to refuse having their children take the state assessments. Despite the convictions of a few, the law and the rules of the assessment are clear about student participation on the CSAP. Here are some clarifications.”

Misconception 1: Parents may “opt out” their child(ren) from participating in the state assessment program (CSA P/CSAP-A).

Clarification: Per Colorado law [22-7-409(1.2.a.1.d.I)], as part of the school and district accountability system, every student enrolled in a public school is required to take CSAP or CSAP-A. There is nothing in this section of the law allowing parents choice regarding this testing. People may be confusing the law governing testing with the law governing instruction in human sexuality. Parents are able to excuse their child(ren) from the curriculum concerning human sexuality. The state assessment does not cover this area of the curriculum; therefore, this part of the law does not apply to CSAP/CSAP-A.
Correction:
In 2010 there were 324 parental refusals, 519 tests that were not completed, 157 students withdrew before completion, 20 were listed as not completed due to extreme frustration, 254 were misadministered.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/csap/csap_summary.html

To clarify parents are not confused. We are opting our children out and we will continue to do so.

Misconception 2: Schools and districts are not penalized when parents refuse to allow their child(ren) to be assessed.
Clarification: Lack of participation is represented in both AYP and the new accreditation system as reflected in the Performance Frameworks. Schools and districts not meeting the participation requirements drop one full category on the Performance Frameworks.
Correction:
The participation requirement is 95%. More than half of schools are currently not meeting AYP. It is because of unrealistic benchmarks and has nothing to do with test participation rates. Negative weighted penalties have been removed. See link below:

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdegen/downloads/SB163/UpdatedAccountabilityAlignmentBill2PageSummary.pdf

School academic performance ratings (SAR) will no longer be assigned for Colorado schools. The Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB 09-163) repealed previous SAR law. Negative weights for Unsatisfactory and No Score percentages are not in effect anymore.

..non-participant data are not counted as zeroes – they are excluded from the calculation… So the calculations are performed on the basis solely of students that took the test and had valid scores on it.” – Jo O’Brien – Assistant Commissioner of Standards, Colorado Department of Education.
According to the Supreme Court
Parental rights are broadly protected by Supreme Court decisions (Meyer and Pierce), especially in the area of education. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents posses the “fundamental right” to “direct the upbringing and education of t heir children.” Furthermore, the Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State: those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35) The Supreme Court criticized a state legislature for trying to interfere “with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402.) In Meyer, the Supreme Court held that the right of parents to raise their children free from unreasonable state interferences is one of the unwritten “liberties” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (262 U.S. 399).
In recognition of both the right and responsibility of parents to control their children’s education, the Court has stated,
“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for the obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder.” (Prince V. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158)

Misconception 3: Parental refusals have no negative impact on students as a group.
Clarification: The accuracy of all of the accountability data is impacted when students do not participate due to parental refusal. This data is publicly displayed and also is utilized to make policy decisions at the state, district and school level. Obviously, the more accurately the data reflects the true performance of the students the better when high stakes decisions are being made. We entrust our schools with the great responsibility of educating our children. CSAP gives us a common tool to use when we’re looking at how well schools and districts are doing that job and preparing kids for the world of college or work. It is useful for Colorado’s citizens to be able to look at the performance of its public schools using a common, fair tool, given under the same conditions in every school: CSAP. It’s an important method of looking at all our schools and districts in a comparable way.
Correction:
CSAP has had a negative impact on students, schools and the education profession.
“We entrust our schools with the great responsibility of educating our children” – Clearly this is a falsehood or the federal and state government would not be wasting so much money to micro-manage administrators and educators.
Last year nearly $300 million was cut to k-12 education, this year similar cuts will be made. At the same time k-12 is experiencing massive cuts the State School Board voted to expand CSAP. While you are debating which schools to close, teachers to lay-off, and student services to cut, you should take a close look at where the money is being spent.
Education is the only profession where the professionals are not in control.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdebudget/downloads/08-09_Long_Bill_edu_act.pdf

Misconception 4: Parental refusals have no negative impact on their individual child(ren).
Clarification: CSAP does not try to measure all the learning students engage in throughout the year – but it is a very reliable end-of-year measure of how well students can read, write, and do math and science problems. Students who do not participate are not provided with this information. In addition, students who do not participate in state testing do not get growth projections, which can be an important gauge of whether or not the student is on track. Further, CSAP scores serve as an early predictor of college and career readiness. As an example, they are able to provide a good prediction of each student’s probable ACT scores.

Correction:
CSAP is not reliable; in fact it has never been independently audited or evaluated for validity. Open-ended responses are scored by temporary workers employed through Kelly Services who have little or no education background.
See link for test sample and grading rubric: http://www.angelaengel.com/blog/

Parents are also not interested in decorative growth projections. Those serve bureaucrats so they can feel like they have accomplished something. Good instruction and positive school climates are the best predictors of college and career readiness, not scatter plots and line graphs. We trust our teachers to communicate our children’s progress and we want our resources going to smaller class sizes, staff development, student services, and to creating meaningful learning opportunities.

Misconception 5: Schools are obligated to provide alternate learning activities during testing times.
Clarification: Since all students are required to take CSAP/CSAP-A, schools are not required to provide alternate activities.
This is correct. One out of five according to standardized grading mechanisms qualifies as an ‘F.’ However, I would caution administrators against putting children to work filing, cleaning, and completing other office tasks that are otherwise the responsibility of paid school personnel. For laws pertaining to child labor please consult the Fair labor standards Act of 1938:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/epub/wageindex.download?p_file=F15794/FairLaborStandAct.pdf

Additionally, while anti-bullying legislation is being considered in both the Colorado State House and the United States Capitol, please consider your district assessment policies and the examples of leadership that you are setting in your communities.
Video link on “What it means to be educated”

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B5jfOu7Y_PrDN2NjOTBiMTEtZTUyOS00Y2Y1LTgyMzQtMGVlNzRhMjZlYjc5&hl=en

Angela Engel
8131 S. Marion Ct.
Centennial, CO 80122
Angela_Engel@msn.com
Angelaengel.com
(303)908-1954

Dear Superintendent,

On March 1, 2011 the Colorado Department of Education released the following memo “CSAP misconceptions and facts” to Colorado superintendents regarding CSAP. I have provided corrections to each of those statements below in bold. Please feel free to contact me with additional questions.

“Dear Superintendents,
We have had several phone calls again this year about the considerations by a few parents to refuse having their children take the state assessments. Despite the convictions of a few, the law and the rules of the assessment are clear about student participation on the CSAP. Here are some clarifications.”

Misconception 1: Parents may “opt out” their child(ren) from participating in the state assessment program (CSA P/CSAP-A).

Clarification: Per Colorado law [22-7-409(1.2.a.1.d.I)], as part of the school and district accountability system, every student enrolled in a public school is required to take CSAP or CSAP-A. There is nothing in this section of the law allowing parents choice regarding this testing. People may be confusing the law governing testing with the law governing instruction in human sexuality. Parents are able to excuse their child(ren) from the curriculum concerning human sexuality. The state assessment does not cover this area of the curriculum; therefore, this part of the law does not apply to CSAP/CSAP-A.

Correction:
In 2010 there were 324 parental refusals, 519 tests that were not completed, 157 students withdrew before completion, 20 were listed as not completed due to extreme frustration, 254 were misadministered.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/csap/csap_summary.html

To clarify parents are not confused. We are opting our children out and we will continue to do so.

Misconception 2: Schools and districts are not penalized when parents refuse to allow their child(ren) to be assessed.

Clarification: Lack of participation is represented in both AYP and the new accreditation system as reflected in the Performance Frameworks. Schools and districts not meeting the participation requirements drop one full category on the Performance Frameworks.

Correction:
The participation requirement is 95%. More than half of schools are currently not meeting AYP. It is because of unrealistic benchmarks and has nothing to do with test participation rates. Negative weighted penalties have been removed. See link below:

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdegen/downloads/SB163/UpdatedAccountabilityAlignmentBill2PageSummary.pdf

School academic performance ratings (SAR) will no longer be assigned for Colorado schools. The Education Accountability Act of 2009 (SB 09-163) repealed previous SAR law. Negative weights for Unsatisfactory and No Score percentages are not in effect anymore.

..non-participant data are not counted as zeroes – they are excluded from the calculation… So the calculations are performed on the basis solely of students that took the test and had valid scores on it.” – Jo O’Brien – Assistant Commissioner of Standards, CDE.

According to the Supreme Court
Parental rights are broadly protected by Supreme Court decisions (Meyer and Pierce), especially in the area of education. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that parents posses the “fundamental right” to “direct the upbringing and education of t heir children.” Furthermore, the Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State: those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right coupled with the high duty to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” (Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 534-35) The Supreme Court criticized a state legislature for trying to interfere “with the power of parents to control the education of their own.” (Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 402.) In Meyer, the Supreme Court held that the right of parents to raise their children free from unreasonable state interferences is one of the unwritten “liberties” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (262 U.S. 399).
In recognition of both the right and responsibility of parents to control their children’s education, the Court has stated,
“It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for the obligations the State can neither supply nor hinder.” (Prince V. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158)

Misconception 3: Parental refusals have no negative impact on students as a group.
Clarification: The accuracy of all of the accountability data is impacted when students do not participate due to parental refusal. This data is publicly displayed and also is utilized to make policy decisions at the state, district and school level. Obviously, the more accurately the data reflects the true performance of the students the better when high stakes decisions are being made. We entrust our schools with the great responsibility of educating our children. CSAP gives us a common tool to use when we’re looking at how well schools and districts are doing that job and preparing kids for the world of college or work. It is useful for Colorado’s citizens to be able to look at the performance of its public schools using a common, fair tool, given under the same conditions in every school: CSAP. It’s an important method of looking at all our schools and districts in a comparable way.

Correction:
CSAP has had a negative impact on students, schools and the education profession.
“We entrust our schools with the great responsibility of educating our children” – Clearly this is a falsehood or the federal and state government would not be wasting so much money to micro-manage administrators and educators.
Last year nearly $300 million was cut to k-12 education, this year similar cuts will be made. At the same time k-12 is experiencing massive cuts the State School Board voted to expand CSAP. While you are debating which schools to close, teachers to lay-off, and student services to cut, you should take a close look at where the money is being spent.
Education is the only profession where the professionals are not in control.

http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdebudget/downloads/08-09_Long_Bill_edu_act.pdf

Misconception 4: Parental refusals have no negative impact on their individual child(ren).
Clarification: CSAP does not try to measure all the learning students engage in throughout the year – but it is a very reliable end-of-year measure of how well students can read, write, and do math and science problems. Students who do not participate are not provided with this information. In addition, students who do not participate in state testing do not get growth projections, which can be an important gauge of whether or not the student is on track. Further, CSAP scores serve as an early predictor of college and career readiness. As an example, they are able to provide a good prediction of each student’s probable ACT scores.

Correction:
CSAP is not reliable; in fact it has never been independently audited or evaluated for validity. Open-ended responses are scored by temporary workers employed through Kelly Services who have little or no education background.
See link for test sample and grading rubric: http://www.angelaengel.com/blog/

Parents are also not interested in decorative growth projections. Those serve bureaucrats so they can feel like they have accomplished something. Good instruction and positive school climates are the best predictors of college and career readiness, not scatter plots and line graphs. We trust our teachers to communicate our children’s progress and we want our resources going to smaller class sizes, staff development, student services, and to creating meaningful learning opportunities.

Misconception 5: Schools are obligated to provide alternate learning activities during testing times.
Clarification: Since all students are required to take CSAP/CSAP-A, schools are not required to provide alternate activities.

This is correct. One out of five according to standardized grading mechanisms qualifies as an ‘F.’ However, I would caution administrators against putting students to work filing, cleaning, and completing other office tasks that are otherwise the responsibility of paid school personnel. For laws pertaining to child labor please consult the Fair labor standards Act of 1938:

http://www.osha.gov/pls/epub/wageindex.download?p_file=F15794/FairLaborStandAct.pdf

Additionally, while anti-bullying legislation is being considered in both the Colorado State House and the United States Capitol, please consider your district assessment policies and the examples of leadership that you are setting in your communities.

Video link on “What it means to be educated”
leaf?id=0B5jfOu7Y_PrDN2NjOTBiMTEtZTUyOS00Y2Y1LTgyMzQtMGVlNzRhMjZlYjc5&hl=en

Angela Engel
Angela_Engel@msn.com
Angelaengel.com

Hard-Hitting Education Documentary Exposes the Silent Epidemic in our Schools

Opening December 2^nd, 6:30 p.m. in Denver, Colo.

DENVER (November 30, 2010) – A new education documentary, Race to Nowhere, opens on Thursday, Dec. 2^nd at 6:30 p.m. at the Oriental Theatre (4335 W. 44^th) in Denver, Colo.

A concerned mother turned filmmaker aims her camera at the high-stakes, high-pressure culture that has invaded our schools and our children’s lives, creating unhealthy, disengaged, unprepared and stressed-out youth.  Race to Nowhere points to the silent epidemic in our schools: cheating has become commonplace; students are disengaged; stress-related illness and depression are rampant; and many young people arrive at college and the workplace unprepared and uninspired.

Featuring the heartbreaking stories of young people in all types of communities who have been pushed to the brink, educators who are burned out and worried that students aren’t developing the skills they need, and parents who are trying to do what’s best for their kids, Race to Nowhere is a call to action to challenge current assumptions on how to best prepare the youth of America to become healthy, bright, contributing and leading citizens.

A panel discussion moderated by Angela Engel, author of Seeds of Tomorrow; Solutions for Improving our Children’s education, will follow the screening. Featured panelists include Representative Solano (legislator and retired teacher); Lisa Calderon (Denver Public Schools parent and organizer of DEFENSE); Azar Kohzadi (Denver School of the Arts educator); Ryan Strong (student); and Claire Dumke (child psychologist).

“We are pleased to present a panel of education experts and consumers and to use the film as the centerpiece for a growing national dialogue on how we can end this ‘race to nowhere,’” said author Angela Engel.

“As a mother, I experienced the stress firsthand and realized that no one was talking about it,” says Vicki Abeles. “I saw kids who were anxious, depressed, physically ill, checking out, abusing drugs and, worst case, attempting suicide. I felt compelled to speak out about this crisis by making a film and giving voice to the students, teachers, and parents.  I wanted to expose a deeper truth about our education system.  We are graduating a generation of robo-students, unable to think and work independently, creatively and collaboratively.”

School reform has become an urgent national issue and 2010 is the year of the education film. Race to Nowhere is the only film that shows what is actually happening to our kids as a result of current policies and practices obsessed with testing, performance and competition rather than meaningful teaching and learning. Race to Nowhere finally gives voice to those on the front lines who are most affected by education policies – the students and teachers themselves. Race to Nowhere is the only film to spotlight the intersection of health and education.  The film empowers everyone to get involved and take ownership of what’s happening in our schools and communities.

“Every once in a while, a film comes along that has the potential to change the culture,” said New York Times bestselling author Rachel Simmons (Odd Girl Out: The Hidden Culture of Aggression in Girls).  “Race to Nowhere shines a light on the crisis of learning and meaning facing American education. The film is both a call to arms and a beacon of hope, a source of relief and outrage and a way forward for all of us.”

Tickets are available at www.rtnorientalco.eventbrite.com or VIEW OUR NEW TRAILER.

Event sponsors include: Uniting 4 Kids, Friends of the Open School, IDEA, DEFENSE, The Patchwork School, and the Oriental Theatre.

For more information, visit: www.racetonowhere.com and www.angelaengel.com

Media Contacts:

Entertainment/Film Media:

David Magdael

dmagdael@tcdm-associates.com – 213-624-7827

Kate Stabrawa

720-318-4080

KateStabrawa@gmail.com