Archives for the year of: 2014

The New York State United Teachers decided not to endorse Andrew Cuomo for re-election, nor anyone else.

NYSUT has 600,000 members and a strong get-out-the-vote operation. It did endorse the Democratic Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli.

“Those who earn endorsements are friends of public education and labor,” NYSUT president Karen Magee said in a statement. “Over the last two years, they earned our support by advocating effectively for our public schools, colleges and health care institutions; listening intently to the concerns and aspirations of our members, and voting consistently the right way.”

Cuomo is a staunch advocate of privately-managed charter schools and has received large campaign contributions from the hedge fund industry, which supports charter schools. 3% of the state’s children are enrolled in charter schools. Cuomo is also a firm advocate for evaluating teachers by the test scores of their students, although he gives no sign of knowing that it has been tried and failed in many other places.

Two teachers from Long Island, New York, wrote a letter to Whoopi Goldberg to explain to her that “tenure” means “due process.”

Alicia Connelly-Foster of the Patchogue-Medford Congress of Teachers, NYSUT, AFT, NEA, and Viri Pettersen, President- Rockville Centre Teachers Association, NYSUT, AFT, NEA patiently explain that it takes a minimum of three years for a teacher to win tenure, during which time he or she is observed repeatedly by trained administrators.

They write:

“In New York state, the granting of due process is contingent on three years of observations. These observations are conducted by several different qualified administrators and occur quite frequently throughout each of these three years. Administrators hold degrees and certifications granted by the state, which, in turn, authorizes them to make these observations along with suggestions, criticisms and praise. Often, administrators from varying levels, including building principals, district-wide directors, or district office members, such as a superintendent of schools, observe the non-tenured teacher. New teachers are guided through mentoring by experienced educators, with supporting documentation showing that this mentoring occurred reported to our State Education department. The new teachers are required to participate in special professional development, geared to increasing their efficacy. At any point in this three-year process, administration or the Board of Education may elect to remove the teacher from the classroom, thus ending his/her employment with the district; no questions are asked. At the end of three years, the district has three options: to recommend the teacher for tenure (pending Board of Education approval), deny the teacher tenure, thus ending employment, or grant the teacher a fourth year of untenured status where the observation process, coupled with mentoring and professional development continues. At the conclusion of this fourth-year, the district has the option for retention as a tenured educator or dismissal.”

Why do teachers need due process? They write:

“Due process rights are important because they allow us to stand up for our students, through giving voice in supporting and protecting them. With due process, teachers can stand up for the student who we think may be unfairly suspended, especially when a parent is not available to defend the child. We can fight against rescinding support services of a special needs child because those services are too costly. Many times, parents may not be able attend their child’s CSE/IEP meeting. The only one in the room advocating for that child may well be the teacher.

“Without tenure, we could not stand up against the injustices we witness against children by districts that may temporarily have forgotten our reason for being here – our students and educational community. Without tenure, we could not stand up to our administrators/supervisors when something is wrong. Without tenure we could not stand up against harassment and workplace bullying. Without tenure, we could not stand up against racism, sexism, homophobia, bigotry and age discrimination. These days, many veteran teachers are no longer being viewed based on their outstanding contributions to our educational communities; instead they are more frequently being categorized based on their position on the pay scale. Without tenure, age-discrimination will become a pandemic in schools.

“Without tenure, the wonderful academic success stories and teacher innovations promoted in our educational communities are likely to dwindle because teachers will be afraid to defend their high student expectations to administration. Without tenure, academic freedom and creativity in the classroom will disappear. Without tenure, people will be afraid to defend social justice or advise the Gay-Straight Alliance Club at school, for fear of reprisal from a homophobic supervisor. Without tenure, teachers will be afraid to “tweet” and participate in political rallies (including those rallies where communities come together in the fight for better educational legislation and ending over-testing of students). Without tenure, teachers will be afraid to join a political party for fear of retaliation over their political ideologies. Without tenure, teachers will become afraid to be so-called “whistle-blowers” against a school district’s failure to comply with Special Education regulations. Without tenure, teachers will be afraid they may suffer for what their friends or family do. Without tenure, teachers will be afraid to refuse to change a grade or falsify attendance records and/or legal documents, if directed by an administrator.

“Tenure does not equate to “a job for life.” Tenure equates to due process rights, which requires the district to do its due diligence in removing a teacher from the classroom and prevents that reason from being arbitrary and capricious. As far as the union goes, it is not the union’s responsibility to “defend bad teachers”; rather, it is to ensure that the district has done everything it needs to do on its part and that corruption/abuse has not taken place during a due process hearing. (Note: To clarify another misconception being promoted by some, New York’s teacher tenure law has been streamlined to address lengthy due process hearings and cost associated therewith.)”

At its annual meeting, the Oklahoma PTA called for a ban on high-stakes testing. As parents and grandparents, no one can remember a world in which standardized testing is as important as it is today, thanks to No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. Parents in Oklahoma said: Enough is enough.” The following was reported in the Oklahoma PTA journal.

“July 18, 2014 – Tulsa: Over 340 delegates at the Oklahoma PTA’s annual convention voted unanimously to adopt resolutions that call for a ban on policies that force the state’s public schools to rely on high-stakes testing and put an end to mass administration of field tests.

“One in five students suffer from high test anxiety. A further 18% have mid-level anxiety,” stated Jeffery Corbett, Oklahoma PTA President. “Our children are not just a test score. They are so much more.”

“In addition, the resolution calls for elimination of any requirement that teacher evaluations be based on Oklahoma State Assessments and to develop a system of teacher evaluations which does not require extensive standardized testing.

2014 Convention Resolutions (Adopted)

1 Comment to “Oklahoma PTA Demands Moratorium on High-stakes Testing” ADD COMMENT

CJ Rowe July 22, 2014 at 10:43 pm

I want to thank the PTA for taking a stand against the insane state of testing that has developed in our country. I have taught for over twenty years and have seen the toll it has taken on students, teachers, and administrators. To judge the efforts of a school year entirely on one questionable measurement is ridiculous and has caused more harm to education in Oklahoma than anything I have seen in my career. We have turned from placing the focus on developing students who are capable of questioning and thinking and are excited about learning to drilling students on test-taking skills and material tested. Testing used to be a way to tailor instruction and target areas needing improvement in a positive manner. Now it is a stressful nightmare that consumes and drives all aspects of education. We have actually been told not to teach concepts that do not appear on the test, even though they are important in developing a well-rounded learner. When paired with test companies that don’t even set a passing level until all tests are taken and “normed”, how can they be a reliable measure of progress? Especially when test companies have a stake in results being poor so that they can sell remedial products. I taught twice as much to students before this all began and had engaged learners who enjoyed school instead of the burned-out victims of this toxic climate of prep and test for high stakes. It is not the concept of testing itself, but how that testing is being used that is the problem. Thank you for taking a step in changing the test process to one of positive development and collaboration to meet educational needs instead of the punitive. repercussions of the current system.

Stephanie Simon of politico.com reports on the story behind Michelle Rhee-Johnson’s decision to step down as leader of StudentsFirst, the organization she founded in 2010.

Although she managed to raise some millions from big donors like the Eli and Edythe BroadFoundation, the Walton Family Foundation, and the Michael Bloomberg Foundation for her efforts to curb collective bargaining, eliminate tenure and promote vouchers and charters, she fell far short of her announced goal of $1 billion.

But even more important, Rhee-Johnson alienated some of her allies in the movement.

“As she prepares to step down as CEO, she leaves a trail of disappointment and disillusionment. Reform activists who shared her vision say she never built an effective national organization and never found a way to use her celebrity status to drive real change.

“StudentsFirst was hobbled by a high staff turnover rate, embarrassing PR blunders and a lack of focus. But several leading education reformers say Rhee’s biggest weakness was her failure to build coalitions; instead, she alienated activists who should have been her natural allies with tactics they perceived as imperious, inflexible and often illogical. Several said her biggest contribution to the cause was drawing fire away from them as she positioned herself as the face of the national education reform movement.

““There was a growing consensus in the education reform community that she didn’t play well in the sandbox,” one reform leader said.

Rhee-Johnson says she intends to devote more time to her family, which some assume means that her husband Kevin Johnson may run for governor or senator of California. Whether Rhee-Johnson will spend more time with her two daughters who live in Tennessee is unclear.

She recently announced her decision to become chairman of her husband’s charter schools. In some states, that would be considered nepotism, but apparently not in California.

The growing recognition of the failure of her style of high-stakes testing and test-based teacher evaluation did not seem to have played a role in her decision to step aside. Probably, living in the corporate reform echo chamber, she was unaware that her prize policies are on the ropes, as parents and teachers join to fight the reign of standardized testing.

Politico.com reports this morning that Laurence H. Tribe, a legal scholar Harvard, has joined the campaign to eliminate teacher tenure. “Students Matter, which led the Vergara lawsuit to overturn teacher tenure and other job protections in California, will announce this morning that constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe is joining the group as senior adviser. Tribe, a Harvard law professor, will advise on legal strategy as Students Matter seeks to bring similar suits in states across the country.”

The burning question of the day: Will Laurence H. Tribe relinquish his tenure at Harvard Law School? More important, will he join with other activists to abolish tenure in higher education? Or do these eminent lawyers just like to beat up on the female-dominated teaching profession in pre-K-12?

Laura H. Chapman is a consultant on arts education who contributes frequently to the blog. Here is her response to the Common Core standards:

 

Rather than simply “correcting” the inadequate Common Core standards, they should be reconstructed and redesigned from the ground up.”

 

NO. No. No. They should be tossed–folded, stapled, mutilated, burned. They are based on lies about “college readiness,” and they are based on lies about “careers.” They are based on lies about being “state led.” They are based on lies about “international benchmarking.” They are based on phony baloney ideas about “text complexity,” and a one-size-fits-all notion of grade-to-grade “learning progressions” and on-time “mastery” right out of a factory model of education–no child left behind on the assembly line.

 

These standards are the production of Bill Gates, Inc…., aided by for-hire workers and federal appointees in USDE who are so dumb they think standards do not have implications for curriculum.

 

The process of generating the 1,620 standards (including parts a-e) was so uncoordinated that nobody seems to have noticed that the only topic in math taught at every grade is geometry, with not an ounce of supporting rationale for that emphasis.

 

Prior to grade three the standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and math are off-the-charts wrong-headed, free of any this basic understanding: No one can simply reverse engineer back to childhood what someone may earnestly hope kids will “know and be able to do,” if they graduate from high school. Education is not an engineering problem. It is not the same as training.

 

These standards are intended to suck the vitality out of instruction in all other subjects, including the sciences, arts, and humanities. All are now subordinate to and are treated as if they must be “aligned” with the Common Core. Non-sense. Should be the other way around so students have a reason to read and calculate–content and problems and unknowns in these broad domains of inquiry. The CCSS distract attention from the historic mission of sustaining a democracy through education centrally concerned with informed citizenship, leaning what life offers and may require beyond getting a job and going to college.

 

Teachers and kids have been drowning in a sea of standards since 1997 with the “Goals 2000″ project on behalf of world-class standards, K-12. Standards were written in 14 domains of study, 24 subjects, then parsed into 259 standards, and 4100 grade-level benchmarks. Some scholars at McRel guessed it might take 22 years to address them all. And, of course, they were not coordinated or fact-checked–(I found some strange and wondrous errors and emphases, like a zillion history standards).

 

Right now in Ohio, counting the CCSS, we have 3,203 standards on the books, about 265 per grade. We also have “accountability year” that runs from pretest “data” reporting by November 1 to posttest “data” reporting by mid April so the “evaluators of the data” can be delivered well-organized reports from every teacher.

 

The typical school year is no longer 180 days, 36 weeks, 9 months. It has been severely truncated by the practice of data mongering, and time stolen for testing and test-prep.

 

Now add some insult to injury by DARING to define “effective” teaching as the production of “a year’s worth of growth;” by suppressing the fact that “growth” is a pretest to posttest gain in test scores. The concept of “a year’s worth of growth is one of many statistical fictions teachers are dealing with. Many of the others are a by-product of an extraordinary marketing campaign to install the CCSS in every school.

 

The CCSS is a profit-making bonanza. yesterday at OfficeMAx I had the opportunity to buy a grade-level set of the CCSS, $20 per grade, boxed and formatted for a teacher’s use to appease the principals and other evaluators who will have their checklists to see whether you have posted the “expected learnings” for the ELA and math standards. These poster-like cards of the CCSS are plasticized for durability and coded with the CCSS numbering system for easy data-entry on the accountability spreadsheets that each teacher will need to “populate” with data.

 

Just say no to the CCSS and the whole bundle of “worst practices” it has spawned.

Multimillionaire equity investor Rex Sinquefeld doesn’t like public education. Apparently he doesn’t like teachers either. He doesn’t think teachers should be evaluated by their administrators but by the standardized test scores of their students. Evidently he doesn’t know that this method of evaluating teachers has failed to work wherever it was tried; evidently he doesn’t know that even the District of Columbia, which was first to implement this method, has put it on hold. Mr. Sinquefeld also seems unaware that about 70% of teachers don’t teach tested subjects.

He was unable to get these ideas adopted by the Missouri state legislature so he created a Constitutional amendment, which will be on the ballot this fall. It is called Constitutional Amendment 3.

If it passes, the problems and costs will begin. Missouri will have to develop tests for every subject that is taught and administer them at the beginning and end of each course. How will Missouri measure the effectiveness of art teachers, music teachers, physical education teachers? Vast new sums must be spent to create and administer dozens of new tests.

Experience in other states shows that teachers in affluent districts will get higher ratings than those who teach children in poor districts and those with disabilities. The tests measure advantage and disadvantage, not teacher quality.

The bottom line with Mr. Sinquefeld’s proposal is that it will be very costly and it will not identify the best and worst teachers. It will reward teachers in high-income districts and punish those who choose to work with students who are English learners or have disabilities or are homeless.

It will take decision-making power away from local administrators and shift it to a centralized bureaucracy. It has been tried and failed in many districts. It demoralizes teachers by reducing their jobs to nothing more than test scores.

There are research-proven ways to improve education, such as early childhood education, reduced class sizes for the students who need extra help, regular access to medical services for those who can’t afford it, and experienced teachers. These strategies have a solid research base.

Missouri should do what works, rather than investing many millions of dollars in proven failure.

Rex Sinquefeld is a billionaire (or maybe just a multi-millionaire) who has poured millions of dollars into political campaigns in Missouri.

He is not satisfied with what he has. He wants lower taxes, less government, and the privatization of public schools. He doesn’t want workers to have any rights.

Read about him and his political activities in these reports prepared by the Center for Media and Democracy: here, and here, and here.

What does Sinquefeld want?

Here is a quote from the third reference:

“Sinquefield is doing to Missouri what the Koch Brothers are doing to the entire country. For the Koch Brothers and Sinquefield, a lot of the action these days is not at the national but at the state level.

“By examining what Sinquefield is up to in Missouri, you get a sobering glimpse of how the wealthiest conservatives are conducting a low-profile campaign to destroy civil society.

“Sinquefield told The Wall Street Journal in 2012 that his two main interests are “rolling back taxes” and “rescuing education from teachers’ unions.”

“His anti-tax, anti-labor, and anti-public education views are common fare on the right. But what sets Sinquefield apart is the systematic way he has used his millions to try to push his private agenda down the throats of the citizens of Missouri.

“Our review of filings with the Missouri Ethics Commission shows that Sinquefield and his wife spent more than $28 million in disclosed donations in state elections since 2007, plus nearly $2 million more in disclosed donations in federal elections since 2006, for a total of at least $30 million.

“Sinquefield is, in fact, the biggest spender in Missouri politics.

“In 2013, Sinquefield spent more than $3.8 million on disclosed election-related spending, and that was a year without presidential or congressional elections. He gave nearly $1.8 million to Grow Missouri, $850,000 to the anti-union teachgreat.org, and another $750,000 to prop up the Missouri Club for Growth PAC.

“However, these amounts do not include whatever total he spent last year underwriting the Show-Me Institute, which he founded and which has reinforced some of the claims of his favorite political action committees. The total amount he spent on his lobbying arm, Pelopidas, in pushing his agenda last year will never be fully disclosed, as only limited information is available about direct lobbying expenditures. Similarly, the total amount he spent on the PR firm Slay & Associates, which works closely with him, also will not ever be disclosed. These are just a few of the tentacles of his operation to change Missouri laws and public opinion.

“Even more revealing is how Sinquefield behaved when Missouri was operating under laws to limit the amount of donations one person or group could give to influence elections. In order to bypass those clean election laws, he worked with his legal and political advisers to create more than 100 separate groups with similar names. Those multiple groups gave more, cumulatively, than Sinquefield would be able to give in his own name, technically complying with the law while actually circumventing it. That operation injected more than $2 million in disclosed donations flowing from Sinquefield during the 2008 election year, and it underscored his chess-like gamesmanship and his determination to do as he pleases. (Sinquefield is an avid chess player.)

“Shortly after that election, the Missouri legislature repealed those campaign finance limits, with his backing. Those changes benefited Sinquefield more than anyone. As a result, in 2010, Sinquefield made disclosed political donations more than ten times greater than what he spent in 2008…..

“In Missouri, Sinquefield’s strategy has been to focus on a few issues dear to him.

“First, he spent lavishly to try to prohibit some cities in the state from imposing an income tax. He shelled out more than $11 million underwriting the “Let Voters Decide” ballot proposition in 2010, which won by a two-to-one margin. He spent about $8.67 a vote.

“The proposition required Kansas City and St. Louis to hold a referendum on whether to keep the municipal income tax in 2011, and every five years after that. To Sinquefield’s dismay, in April 2011, citizens voted overwhelmingly to keep taxing themselves, with 78 percent in favor in Kansas City and 87 percent in St. Louis.

“But he hasn’t given up.

“Now Sinquefield is trying to do away with the 6 percent state income tax. Doing so would enrich him personally, since the investment firm he co-founded still manages more than $200 billion in investments, some of which he may still own. Plus, if the business is ever sold, he stands to make a windfall.

“To help replace lost revenue from the income tax, Sinquefield favors an increase in the sales tax (and a broadening of it to include such things as child care). A study he commissioned also recommends increased taxes on “restaurants, hotels, cigarettes, and beer,” while “shift[ing] the major tax burden from companies and affluent individuals,” like Sinquefield. And it recommends selling off the public’s assets, like the St. Louis airport, trading a short-term infusion of revenue in exchange for giving for-profit corporations access to decades of revenue.

“He doesn’t want an increase in property taxes. Can you blame him? He has a 22,000-square-foot house on an estate of hundreds of acres in the Missouri Ozarks, and another home in St. Louis worth at least $1.78 million, replete with a private elevator. He also owns a lot of cars, including a 2008 Bentley Continental Flying Spur that retailed for $170,000.

“Sinquefield’s taxation proposals would necessitate cuts in the state’s provision of services many people take for granted as part of living in a modern, civil society: public education, public libraries, and other public goods.”

One of his major goals is the privatization of public education.

There have been far too many killings of unarmed young black men. The nation expressed shock when George Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin in Florida. The nation should be even more outraged when young men like Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, are killed by the police. The U.S. Justice Department should set standards for the training of police officers so that the use of firearms is a last resort or a very rare occurrence. The police should be the protectors of the community, the keepers of the peace, not an armed force to be feared by young men of color.

It is time for Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, to take the lead in not only demanding an end to the use of deadly force against young people but in setting national standards for police conduct and prosecuting police forces that terrorize people of color.

Here is an account worth reading.

Peter Greene writes a farewell letter to Michelle and dissects Campbell Brown’s talking points.

Peter speculates on Michelle’s departure and hopes she understands why she provoked the reactions she did::

“Maybe education was providing too few rewards and too much tempest. People have called you some awful names and said some terrible personal things about you, and though I have called you the Kim Kardashian of education, I don’t condone or support the ugly personal attacks that are following you out the door. But I understand them– you have done some awful, awful things, and I’m not sure that it’s ever seemed, from out here in the cheap seats, that you understand that teachers and students are real, live human beings and not simply props for whatever publicity moment you are staging. I’m not saying that you deserve the invective being hurled at you; I am saying that when you poke a bear in the face repeatedly, it eventually gets up and takes a bite out of you.”

As Michelle leaves, stage right, she hands off the baton as leader of the campaign against “bad teachers” to Campbell Brown, who explained her goals in an opinion piece. Since she is not an educator, he feels he must explain that her effort to take away tenure from “bad teachers” will take away tenure for ALL teachers. He asks how she will judge the quality of teachers. If she really wants to protect those who are caring, dependable, and inspiring, how can she be sure that these are the same teachers whose students get higher scores?

Ultimately, he wants know how removing employment protections will attract more “great” teachers to the classroom.

Campbell would do well to listen to Peter.