Jeanette Deuterman is a parent in Long Island, New York, who started a group called Long Island Opt Out. It now has 22,000 members. Long Island is the center of the anti-testing, anti-Common Core movement in New York State (with the Lower Hudson Valley a close second). Deuterman recently attended a forum composed of local superintendents to explain the virtues of the Common Core, and she was ready.
She wrote about the event:
There was a forum last night called “Common Core: Uncommon Challenges”. Panelists included Lydia Bellino, Assistant Superintendent for Cold Spring Harbor, Lorna Lewis, Superintendent Plainview Old Bethpage, Lydia Begley, Asst Superintendent Nassau BOCES, and moderated by Thomas Rogers, Superintendent for Syosset. Knowing who the speakers were, we knew that this would be a CC cheerleading forum. We rounded up our own experts – teachers, BATS, liaisons, and myself, and attended the event. For the first hour we heard how great it was that our second graders can use difficult advanced words in everyday language. We heard about 4 and 5 year olds learning how to write sentences. We were told that although it’s a plane being built in the air with our children on board, in a few years it will be great! Then it was our turn. One by one OUR experts approached the mike, and gave the true picture of CC and testing. We talked about privatizing, inappropriate grade level material, money, special needs and ELL children being broken and left behind, 5th graders who, being the first CC regents class, may not graduate, and 9th graders getting the brunt. We talked about those that DO stand with us to protect public education, and asked the panel “WHERE DO YOU STAND??” The response was that letters have been written, and some signed onto [Rep. Steven] Israel’s Bill…..Oh, and here I thought they might be part of the problem.
As often happens, when it was my turn at the mike, it was time to wrap it up. So I will write my response to the panel here instead.
Do you want to know why we are so upset? Do you want to know why we are now directing that anger at this panel? Because what we have heard is all the small benefits you see of CC. We didn’t hear you complain of testing. We didn’t hear you say the testing time is inappropriate and abusive. We didn’t hear you acknowledge that you understand why we as parents, choose to opt our children out. We didn’t hear you acknowledge the very real and very dangerous side of CC. We didn’t hear you say you understand that this is a means to privatize public education and make ungodly amounts of money. You are school leaders. You have a responsibility to inform the public. You have a responsibility to educate your parents in you district of the absolute crisis we are in, rather than trying to sell a CC package. CC is paying millions to PR firms to sell CC. They don’t need you. WE need you. We need you to be upstanders. We need you to be loud. We need you to protect our children. The next time you speak to parents or the community, PLEASE…..give them the whole picture. Educate them on what is really happening. Tell them what you talk about amongst yourselves behind closed doors. Be truthful. Be brave. Stand up.

Brava, Jeanette! It is always a pleasure and a privilege to stand beside you at any public forum. I hope others will take your words and use them at BOE meetings, library and school events, anywhere educators and parents gather. Call out every educator who speaks as a mouthpiece for Gates, Duncan, Broad, and Pearson.
LikeLike
GAGAers* one and all the panelists. May they writhe in hell in an eternal self congratulatory circle jerk when they pass from this realm.
*Going Along to Get Along (GAGA): Nefarious practice of most educators who implement the edudeformers agenda even though the educators know that those educational malpractices will cause harm to the students and defile the teaching and learning process. The members of the GAGA gang are destined to be greeted by the Karmic Gods of Retribution upon their passing from this realm.
Karmic Gods of Retribution: Those ethereal beings specifically evolved to construct the 21st level in Dante’s Hell. The 21st level signifies the combination of the 4th (greed), 8th (fraud) and 9th (treachery) levels into one mega level reserved especially for the edudeformers and those, who, knowing the negative consequences of the edudeformers agenda, willing implemented it so as to go along to get along (see GAGA). The Karmic Gods of Retribution also personally escort these poor souls, upon their physical death, to the 21st level unless they enlighten themselves, a la one D. Ravitch, to the evil and harm they have caused so many innocent children, and repent and fight against their former fellow deformers. There the edudeformers and GAGAers will lie down on a floor of smashed and broken ipads and ebooks curled in a fetal position alternately sucking their thumbs to the bones while listening to two words-Educational Excellence-repeated without pause for eternity.
LikeLike
I agree with every thing you say. I am so glad that as parents you are knowledgeable about the CC. I am not sure about superintendents, but as a teacher we have been warned. You speak out, you get fired! We are told that we are breaking the law if we advise parents to “opt out”. Teachers need educated parents to educate the rest and help us in this fight. Why do you think they want to take so called “tenure” (due process) away? So they can fire us for speaking the truth.
LikeLike
There is something deeply wrong with a system in which teachers and administrators are afraid to speak out in the best interest of students.
A system that threatens the reputations and livelihoods of teachers and strips them of their first amendment rights, all in the name of privatization and profit. The plutocrats in charge know full well that parents have the power to bring this down. Trying to use children as pawns for profiteering will be their undoing. Parents can turn the tables of fear right back on the reformers who now have plenty to worry about here in NY. Parents love for their children will not allow this bogus reform movement to continue much longer.
LikeLike
Common Core educational benchmarks may be the best thing to happen to public education in America. Read more at: http://thesubstandardizedteacher.blogspot.com/2014/11/pedagogical-elitism-common-core-and.html?spref=fb
LikeLike
“That is one reason why I spent several weeks re-writing the benchmarks for reading, writing and Social Studies into easier-to-understand objectives with one clear action and one clear context for each skill band.”
So you violated the copyright.
LikeLike
There are CCSS benchmarks for Social Studies????
LikeLike
What color was that Kule-aide that you’ve been drinking???? Is it a new flavor: Kommon Kore Kooolestest Kule-Aid?? Does it come with HFCS???
LikeLike
Okay, JJ, from your blog:
“This concept of Pedagogical Elitism has been rolling around in my head well before I ever realized it. I’ve coined it to encapsulate those who are vehemently opposed to educational objectives and any form of standardized tests. . . However, this is no longer a dualistic argument of educational “objectives” vs. educational “enlightenment.” This is about both. If the theories of social deconstruction have revealed anything, it is that everything is one in this Postmodern Society. Objectives put food on the table; enlightenment allows you to enjoy that food. They are forever intertwined in this existence we call life; separate them and you instill a developmental void within a person.”
As one who has read his meager share of Lyotard, Derrida, Foucault, etc., to state that we live in a Postmodern Society seems to me to be more than a bit of stretch. Stretch Armstrong might approve of that thought. And I can see why, perhaps, from his point of view the world is very much postmodern, not grounded in anything other than a human’s desire to enjoy stretching the shit out of him and what the hell can he do about it the humans make him.
But then you had to go and put those of us who are “vehemently opposed to educational objectives and any form of standardized tests” in a certainly not postmodern category of “Pedagogical Elitism”. WOW!! I thought “everything is one in this Postmodern Society”? How can you then not be considered as one of the pedagogical elite if we’re all “one in this Postmodern Society (properly capitalized, eh)?
Read Noel Wilson to understand my vehement opposition to those educational malpractices that are standards and standardized testing. Hell one of the few feeble critiques coming from the infamous TE here labeled it something to the effect “post modernist claptrap”, and that was without reading it. A brilliant tour de force I must admit.
Allow me to get you started:
“Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine. (updated 6/24/13 per Wilson email)
1. A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
2. A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
3. Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
4. Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other word all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
5. The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
6. Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
7. And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.
”In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
By Duane E. Swacker
LikeLike
How has Common Core increased testing? This part of opt-out seems to be more about APPR (teacher evaluation) than Common Core.
How is Common Core enabling people to make “ungodly amounts of money”? Where do you think existing state tests come from? Having shared curriculum and testing consortia will lower costs vs. having 50 different tests and little competition.
LikeLike
John
You are still a bit confused about the totality of the NCLB waiver package/RTTT/Regents Reform Agenda that is in place here in NY.
It was, and still is, a four-part agreement. The CC standards were just one part of the overall deal. Bear in mind that the NCLB is still the over riding law of the land that is wagging this dog. The element that parents are in an uproar against is the piece that links teacher evaluations (APPR here in NY) to test scores which are in turn tied to the CC standards. The end result has been a toxic educational brew of test-prep mania, scripted lessons, micro-management of teachers, untold lost opportunities for students, combined with an unprecedented level of mistrust and fear that is sucking the joy out of teaching and learning and is about to ruin a generation of students. Most parents see opting out as their one best course of action to stop the madness.
LikeLike
The opt out movement is also a push back against the Pearson tests which are the spear point of an invasion against our public schools. Tests that are academic traps, designed to trick, confuse, frustrate, tire out, and wear down young children into failing. Tests that produce an intentionally exaggerated failure rate to support the false claim that New York’s schools are failure factories. A test-and-punish regime that is, the antithesis of a civil rights movement. Tests that are producing an 80+% failure rate among minorities, yet are being sold as the magic elixir for closing the learning gap. Tests that are a direct form of psychological abuse of cognitively impaired, learning disabled, dyslexic, and ELL populations. Tests that are robbing students of much more valuable learning experiences. Tests that will soon wind up on the smoldering ash heap of failed education reforms. History will not look kindly on those who knowingly and willingly subjected our children to this test-and-punish federal reform.
No one will forgive those who know full well what they do.
LikeLike
2010 > 2014 TOTAL MINUTES spent testing (over either two or three days)
(The > is being used as an arrow showing the change from 2010-2-14, not a mathematical symbol!)
(this information is available in the test administration manuals, archived under the “assessment” link at NYSED.gov)
Grade 3 ELA 75 > 210
Grade 4 ELA 150 > 210
Grade 5 ELA 75 > 270
Grade 6 ELA 160 > 270
Grade 7 ELA 90 > 270
Grade 8 ELA 160 > 270
Grade 3 math 85 > 190
Grade 4 math 150 > 210
Grade 5 math 140 > 250
Grade 6 math 105 > 250
Grade 7 math 110 > 250
Grade 8 math 160 > 250
Bear in mind that this is minutes on task. It does not include additional time required to settle the children down, distribute materials, explain directions.
Of course, English Language Learners and Special Education students may have up to double time, which means some may have up to 500 minutes of testing over a three day period.
In terms of money–the state tests used to be developed by NYS educators paid by taxpayers. Now the state tests are being developed by a British, private firm, Pearson–you may have heard of them. They won a $32 million dollar contract to develop New York State’s assessments.
Also, even when districts score their own tests there are significant costs for the substitute teachers required when teachers are away scoring. However, increasingly, due to new test and scoring security rules, districts spend tens of thousands of dollars to contract with private companies who pick the tests up, score them, and then return them to districts. The growth experienced by these vendors over the past few years has been astronomical.
700 districts state-wide . . . if each district spends, say $20,000 on scoring that’s $14,000,000.000 annually for scoring services–and I would bey that my guestimate is very low because small and large city school districts spend 2 – 3 times that easily. I just spoke with a Supt today, the district has about 2,500 pupils, and he just signed a $45,000.00 contract for their scoring for the 2014-15 school year. That’s money being funneled out of taxpayer pockets, through the organizational infrastructure of public education, and into the pockets of vendors.
Now add to all of this the additional millions being spent on new instructional materials, test prep materials, consultants, training, etc.
It’s a HUGE industry.
Now multiply this by fifty states in the union . . . does this help make the corporate scenario a bit more clear???
LikeLike
Thank you so much for exposing the tip of the corporate iceberg that is now ruling over NY’s public school system. NCLB is an unconstitutional law that must be challenged and repealed.
LikeLike
RttT required testing of Math and ELA every year btwn 3-8th grade, prior to this in NY, we tested at grades 4 and 8, and HS Regents throughout HS.
LikeLike
Under the NCLB act, students have been taking standardized tests in math and ELA in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 for the last 13 years. Only the last two years have been under NCLB waiver rules which required the use of Common Core standards and companion tests linked to teacher evaluations and the harvesting of student data.
LikeLike
In order to receive an NCLB waiver, a state had to agree to a “college and career ready” curriculum (of which the Common Core was the only option), AND commit to “performance evaluations” of teachers. This means testing EVERY subject–social studies, fine arts, physical education, etc. And in many cases, the new CC tests are FAR longer than the old end of year tests. The test length doubled in Utah, just on the three already-tested subjects–a total of 10 hours per student in every year beginning in grade three. And now, because of the NCLB mandate, social studies has added six hours of standardized testing, another 4-6 in world languages, and more subjects to be added next year.
LikeLike
And the failure rate this year on the new Common Core tests for Utah (which is not in a testing consortia) is up to 71%.
LikeLike
The Democrats have abandoned children to Common Core, following the Teachers Union, and BATS shmoozes with Randi at her East Hampton House party, towhich Opt Out Long Island clings. We need to unite behind Republicans, who have held great hearings about this issue on Long Island. The “Stop Common Core” ballot line had 45,000 votes, short of the 50,000 required to be on the ballot next year. That is pretty close. The Green Party had their chance, but were lukewarm about Common Core in their wonkish education policy.
LikeLike
Not sure where you get your information but according to NYS Board of Elections the Stop Common Core ballot line got over 50,000 votes which means it will be on the ballot until 2018.
See the results here: http://nyenr.elections.state.ny.us/home.aspx
or read more about it here: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/story/news/education/2014/11/05/common-core-ballot-line/18556679/
LikeLike
HERE HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
that is great. I heard the other figure on the radio, glad to be wrong. This is a big breakthrough, though I am not certain who the candidate was, the Republican Astorino?
It was a bold move and maybe cynical too.
LikeLike