Jennifer Rickert is an elementary school teacher in upstate Néw York. She loves teaching. She has taught for 22 years. She tried her best to implement the Common Core. She was enthusiastic about doing it right. But when she read the guidelines for the Spring 2015 tests, she concluded her students were being set up for failure. She can’t do it.
She explains why in this post.
She details each of her objections to the test, including the fact that some passages may be written at a level suitable for eleventh-graders (her students are age 11 and 12). And students will be asked to choose the “right answer” when some answers are “plausible” but not the right answer.
She summarizes why she will not give the test:
“In summary, we are going to ask 11-year-olds to read and comprehend passages that are taken from higher grades, some at 5 years above their level, with controversial and provocative language, based on abstract literature and historical documents that the students have not learned about yet, and choose an answer from several plausible choices? We are going to have our students spend nine hours of seat time, allowing extra time for our Special Education students, on these inappropriate tests? (Add another nine hours for math.)
“And after all is said and done, we will reduce each child to a number: 4, 3, 2, or 1, based on their performance, providing the teachers and parents with little to no information about what they can and cannot do?
“No. No, I cannot.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Bravo, Jennifer. Have you thought about administering the test to Cuomo or Silver?
Reframe this a letter and send it to Lamar Alexander. Keep it brief.
Other teachers who know what absurditites are being foisted on schools should do the same.
Flood his mail and send a cc to Elizabeth Warren.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
If you have the time and mental stamina, the reauthorization hearings are on line now at http://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/hearing/?id=1ad5f642-5056-a032-52f2-57297bf23f2b
RESEARCH on CCSS: future drop out rate to possibly double to 30%. Graduation rate will likely drop by 15% https://americanprinciplesproject.org/blog/common-core-advocates-would-love-to-sweep-this-study-under-the-rug/
“Testing..testing..Is this on?”
Eleven-year-olds to take the test
And not “eleventh-grade”??
Just tell the kids to do their best
The test’s already made
With results bought and paid.
“If you don’t speak out now when it matters, when would it matter for you to speak out?” [Jim Hightower]
Heartfelt thanks to Jennifer Rickert for speaking out now, when it matters.
And when it will make a difference.
😎
I really appreciated it because I have a 6th grader and I’m in a “PAARC state”. I appreciate her specifics and lack of what I consider marketing language.
Did anyone ever explain why this was put in all at once, in every grade? Was there some reason they couldn’t put it in gradually rather than changing midstream for kids who are halfway through elementary school? Other than making it as chaotic, grim and arduous as possible, I mean.
I hope it wasn’t done like this because they were afraid that if they put it in one grade at a time people would have a chance to reject it. The rush to cement it in place looks a little hinky to me – like they didn’t trust the public to accept or reject it.
“Was there some reason they couldn’t put it in gradually rather than changing midstream for kids who are halfway through elementary school?”
Do you think that what is developmentally inappropriate for children this year will somehow change in five years if we start teaching developmentally inappropriate materials to children in kindergarten and work up from there?
That makes no sense.
If you want a legal opinion, ask a lawyer – if you need medical advice, talk to your doctor – If you want to know what’s good for kids in school – ASK A TEACHER! The problem is, “they” are not listening to the teachers….
TAGO!
Thank you Jennifer for your courage, conviction and integrity. I stand and applaud your brave actions.
Several plausible answers are only to confuse and trick kids…guarantee lower scores. There is absolutely no reason to make tests deliberately deceptive. Smart kids may even over analyze answers and be convinced of a wrong choice. I have seen questions where I honestly would not know what choice is considered “correct”…and my job will depend on this?? It’s just plain wrong.
Properly written MC test items must include three plausible distractors and only one correct option. When he item stem (question or incomplete statement) is objective.
and is followed by three plausible distractors, the item is valid. See example:
1) Which type of tree is a conifer?
a) oak
b) maple
c) hemlock
d) dogwood
Two biology teachers could not possibly argue over which is the correct answer.
The problem with Pearson ELA is that they write many item stems that are subjective, using terms such as “most likely”, best”, “tone” or :intent” MC test items that use subjective stems are not valid and extremely unreliable. Example:
Which statement best describes the author’s tone in Line 4, paragraph 7?
a) playful
b) teasing
c) funny
d) sarcastic
These are the type of items that even veteran ELA teachers argue about. Invalid and completely unreliable. Yet Pearson ELA tests are littered with items like this and they are indeed designed to trick students into wrong responses.
Teachers in my Pennsylvania district were just trained for the “new” state tests. There was an emphasis that this is not test prep (which the presenters said were workbooks), though it is clearly teaching to the test. We were told there is no longer just once distractor – every choice is a plausible response. Our kids have to pick the “best” one.
In addition, many questions are now two parts, and it is very likely that if a child gets the first part wrong, the second part will also be wrong. The trainers claimed that was not necessarily true, but we know better.
Also ludicrous is the new push not to “frontload.” The example given was when teaching Poe, don’t teach his biography before you have the 8th graders read his stories. It will influence their interpretations… let them closely read the text and make their own inferences. Last time I checked, teaching wasn’t called “frontloading.” This is yet another brilliantly marketed way to get teachers to stop teaching. Ironic how “frontloading” sounds like “freeloading,” which is what reformers are doing with our tax dollars.
“. . . Invalid and completely unreliable.”
I would add “completely” before invalid.
By definition if a test is invalid it is also unreliable and if unreliable it is invalid as proven by Noel Wilson in his never refuted nor rebutted complete destruction of educational standards and standardized testing educational malpractices. See: “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
Danielle
When item stems are subjective, all reasonable answer choices become plausible. Tests written in this style have ZERO reliability and NO validity. One hundred teachers would all respond differently to a supposedly objective test written for 11 year olds. This is a serious, serious problem. And teaching careers will hinge on this crap. The fundamental problem is that CC standards are a list of abstract and subjective skills that cannot be measured with objective MC items. Eventually this will be settled in a court of law. In the meantime a generation of students will learn to hate their day job.
Duane Swacker, what you write seems to apply to every test, standardized or not. Wilson’s argument dismisses, for example, ACT as well.
This wonderful person and brave teacher deserves a Medal of Honor. Do you think her school or district will just get someone else to administer the test to her students?
Now is the time for a tidal wave of refusal to test to build. If everyone followed this courageous teacher’s lead, there simply would not be enough people to administer these assessments to all students.
That along with parents and students themselves opting out might make a huge statement.
To answer your question of the first paragraph: YES.
I was assigned to give the ACT test (it’s being used in MO as a “point getter” for districts for their state evaluation) this spring. I asked if I was allowed to review the test before giving it. Of course the answer was “NO”. And I told them to find someone else because it is unethical to give an assessment which one hasn’t read. The test organizer tried to guilt me into still doing it, saying something to the effect “Well now someone else will have to do your part”. Didn’t have the desired effect on me-I refuse to give the test.
Huge KUDOS Jennifer!! As a mom and a special education teacher, I applaud you! Thank you♡ Thank you♡
Since when was Tom Sawyer not a children’s book? Overall I applaud the position but am not comfortable with the view that 11 year olds cannot handle serious literature–especially a classic young person’s book like Tom Sawyer!
I applaud this post overall. Test questions designed to fool help precisely nobody. But I’m a little concerned that Tom Sawyer is one of the books in question. Is this classic work of young people’s literature out of reach for these students? It shouldn’t be.
Amen……..
http://teachinghistorymatters.com/
Nationally recognized NY history teacher has a few words for the Government of NY.
Ms. Rickert Is a brave woman and has tremendous integrity. She has spoken about what many others simply think.
I think her speech, as strong as it was, would have welcomed some discourse on the history of who wrote the CCSS, what their backgrounds were like, and how some did not sign off on the standards because they had some doubts. Additionally, she could have mentioned a rampant history of no field testing or norming.
We cannot underestimate the politician’s unwillingness to listen to an really follow experts in the field. But likewise, we cannot underestimate our own need to keep on advocating in every way available to us, from the most conventional to the most creative and outside the box.
I am always reminded by Eleanor Roosevelt when she said that government is not an “us and a them” arrangement, but rather, that WE ARE the government. I wonder what this Mount Olympus like figure would be saying now if she were as herself and fully alive in this historical context of education. I have a close friend who showed me a picture of her when she visited her classroom as a child. She showed me the photograph of the First Lady peeking her head into the door of the room and waving her hand.
Mrs. Roosevelt was no stranger to personal sadness and social challenges. Sometimes I think this made her stronger and shaped her politics. Ms. Rickert and her bravery for going up against the memes and rhetoric and lies is on a similar place in the importance spectrum as Mrs. Roosevelt, I think.
It is so incomprehensible to me that someone like Eva Moskowitz thinks we just solve the ills of society by promoting social entrepreneurs to take over and privatize education. It is astounding how she does not think about the systemic causes of poverty.
I imagine a room with MLK, Mrs. Roosevelt, Caesar Chavez, and John F. Kennedy and in this same room are Eli Broad, Eva Moskowitz, and Arne Duncan. What would the dialogue be like?
What if . . . .
Can someone please tell me if there is any truth to this: My Union president (on Long Island) said that NY state can pull a teacher’s license even if the district does not take action against the teacher for refusing to administer the tests. This would effectively end your career. We were discussing Beth Dimino’s refusal and the leadership discouraged us from doing the same because of the licensing issue. Can anyone (Diane Ravitch) verify if this is true and/or likely?
An easy way to find out would be to refuse to be part of the process yourself. And you’d be doing the right and ethical thing.
“Can you imagine 50 people a day walkin in and singing a bar of . . . ”
“You can get anything you want at . . . . . .’ceptin Alice”
Small world. . . Arlo’s granddaughter attends the school I teach in, and Alice Brock, by whom the song was inspired by, was just interviewed by my friend Charles Giuliano, an arts writer who lives downstairs from us, who used to hang with her years ago.
So Duane, I hear an MO judge just fined a charter for self dealing; if only we could do the same in Florida.
Did you read the New Yorker article featuring Jeb Bush and his crony network who has capitalized upon public education? It was a great piece. Lots of reprehensible real estate arrangements there as well where so many companies that manage charters also own the school building they lease to themselves so that they collect a double set of revenues. All upon tax payers.
The average American is so numb and dumb, but at the same time, many of them are finally rousing from their stupidity slumber. This is an interesting time in our history, a sad one, an oppressive one, but not ever without hope.
So much fighting to do. . . . This Rickery woman is a fighter and a winner in a sense.
Cx:
Rickert . . . .
My regional (Mid-Hudson valley) NYSUT rep told me that only local school districts can take legal action against a teacher. I emailed NYSED asking what the penalty was for speaking out and the one person(out of five) that responded replied (incorrectly) that speaking out would be a violation of free speech rights (see my next post) . Actually, public school employees have very limited free speech rights. Refusing is insubordination; an offense that can be subject to dismissal via a 3020a. If Beth has the support of her principal, superintendent, and BOE, she should be safe. We still have conflicting information on refusal from NYSUT and they must clear the air and get all member the accurate, legal answer. I would suggest calling NYSUT legal. However, I have found that most legal advise remains general and vague because it ends up becoming a case specific issue.
This sounds about right to me. I wouldn’t count on the Constitution to protect me against disciplinary action if I were a teacher who refused to administer a test.
Free Speech Rights of Teachers?
The following are a series of excerpts from various articles concerning the free speech rights of teachers as public employees. This information is intended to shed some light on the general sense of fear that many teachers are feeling in regards to speaking out against the federal test-and-punish reform movement. I am a teacher, not a lawyer, but perhaps this information will help some teachers of conscience make a more informed decision about voicing their concerns about what many of us perceive as the harmful effects of the federally coerced Common Core standards and the required companion assessments, as well as linking said scores to teacher evaluations. In the opinion of many educators, this toxic mix of bad educational policies are undermining classroom environments and often constraining the professional judgment of teachers and limiting or use of best practices.
From the ACLU: https://aclu-wa.org/news/free-speech-rights-public-school-teachers
Teachers do not forfeit the right to comment publicly on matters of public importance simply because they accept a public school teaching position. Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance unless it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning.
A teacher appears to speak for the school district when he or she teaches, so the district administration has a strong interest in determining the content of the message its teachers will deliver. Washington courts have upheld the authority of school districts to prescribe both course content and teaching methods. Courts in other jurisdictions have ruled that teachers have no free speech rights to include unapproved materials on reading lists.
Depending on the precise form of message displayed on the teachers’ clothing, a school may have legitimate concern that a teacher’s display of a political message is more likely than a student’s to disrupt the school’s intended educational message. This right may be limited only if there is good reason to believe that the speech would cause a substantial and material disruption to education or violate the rights of others. Washington courts have not considered the question, but courts in other jurisdictions have differed over whether teachers have the same right as students to display personal political messages on their clothing. In one case, a court upheld a dress code that prevented teachers from wearing political buttons in the classroom because school districts have legitimate authority to “dissociate themselves from matters of political controversy.”
From the New York State Association of School Attorneys:
http://www.guerciolaw.com/school-employees-right-to-free-speech-appears-limited-when-job-related/
School employees’ right to free speech appears limited when job-related.
Does a school employee’s right to free speech stop at the schoolhouse door? While the outcomes of employee disciplinary cases and other cases involving adverse job actions always depend on the facts, court rulings suggest that there has been a deterioration of public employees’ rights to free speech in the workplace. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2006 ruling in Garcetti v. Ceballos, courts have been taking a different approach when public employees claim to be protected by the First Amendment in connection with an adverse job action. All such lawsuits now involve an examination of whether the employee was speaking pursuant to his or her job duties. According to Garcetti, if speech was made as a result of an employee’s job duties, no First Amendment protection applies (see sidebar below). For school districts, the change raises a question that is not always easily answered: What do the “job duties” of a specific school employee entail? Some New York courts have closely examined the employee’s “actual duties” as opposed to the employee’s job description in an effort to afford the most First Amendment protection. Nevertheless, the Garcetti decision appears to have made it harder for public employees to successfully assert First Amendment protection.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which has jurisdiction over all of New York State, made this ruling about free speech rights: “The general principle … is that, when a public employee airs a complaint or grievance, or expresses concern about misconduct, to his or her immediate supervisor or pursuant to a clear duty to report imposed by law or employer policy, he or she is speaking as an employee and not as a citizen.” In light of Garcetti, “the First Amendment does not protect the employee’s speech from discipline or retaliation by the employer,” the court said. The court continued: In such circumstances, the employer is free to “discipline” the employee without violating the employee’s First Amendment rights. If, however, the employee goes outside of the established institutional channels in order to express a complaint or concern, the employee is speaking as a citizen, and the speech is protected by the First Amendment.
For instance, the Second Circuit ruled that statements by a special education counselor to administrators about the lack of physical education and art classes at a satellite BOCES facility were made within the scope of employment and were not protected by the First Amendment. On the other hand, conversations with other teachers about the same issues were not part of any official duty. Therefore, a teacher might be able to prevail in a free-speech defense against any alleged retaliation for critical comments about the school made to colleagues but not if the adverse job action stemmed from similar comments made in the line of duty.
From Joshana Jones, Esq. Atlanta, GA:
http://theeducatorsroom.com/2012/12/teachers-freedom-of-speech-rights/
Public school teachers are in a unique position. They are employees of the state and therefore school districts have an interest in making sure that messages from teachers are in line with the goals and vision of the district.
The following factors will help a teacher understand if their free speech is protected:
1) The speech must touch on a matter of public concern
2) The teacher’s speech must outweigh the district’s interest in efficiency. The courts may consider any of the following:
a) The effect of the speech on the harmony of the staff
b) Whether the speech has a detrimental impact on working relationships
c) Whether the speech interferes with the normal operation of the employer’s business
The Pickering Balance Test: http://publicpersonnellaw.blogspot.com/2010/01/essentials-of-pickering-balancing-test.html
Essentials of the “Pickering Balancing Test”
Pickering v Board of Education, 391 US 563
The so-called Pickering Test is applied in balancing the interests of a public employer with its employees’ right to Free Speech and requires the court’s consideration of the following:
1. Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech address a matter or matters of public interest and concern?
2. Did the individual demonstrate that his or her speech was a significant or motivating factor in the employer’s decision?
3. Did the court balance the interests of the individual commenting on matters of public concern as a citizen and the public employer’s interest in “promoting the efficiency of public service?”
From Sherrod v, School Board of Palm Beach County, FL
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020101012611
Protected Speech
In determining the threshold issue of whether a public employee has engaged in speech entitled to constitutional protection, the court first asks “whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. If the answer is “no,” the employee’s speech is not entitled to First Amendment protection. If the answer is “yes,” “the question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public.”
In Abdur-Rahman v. Walker, 567 F.3d 1278 (11th Cir.2009), the Eleventh Circuit discussed the rationale behind the requirement that a public employee speak “as a citizen” to receive constitutional protection for his speech: First, because “government offices could not function if every employment decision became a constitutional matter,” “Supreme Court precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Second, government employers, like private employers, need a significant degree of control over their employee’s words and actions; without it, there would be little chance of the efficient provision of public services. Because of the unique trusted position that public employees occupy, they ought not to receive constitutional protection for speech that “expresses views that contravene governmental policies or impairs the proper performance of governmental functions. Third, when complaints under the First Amendment are limited to instances in which a public employee proves that he “spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern,” courts avoid “judicial oversight” of workplace communications and “permanent judicial intervention in the conduct of governmental operations to a degree inconsistent with sound principles of federalism and the separation of powers.”
Garcetti v. Ceballos (Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garcetti_v._Ceballos
Opinion of the Court
The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit, ruling in a 5-4 decision delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy that the First Amendment does not prevent employees from being disciplined for expressions they make pursuant to their professional duties.
Kennedy’s majority opinion
The Court wrote that its “precedents do not support the existence of a constitutional cause of action behind every statement a public employee makes in the course of doing his or her job.” Instead, public employees are not speaking as citizens when they are speaking to fulfill a responsibility of their job.
Though the speech at issue concerned the subject matter of his employment, and was expressed within his office rather than publicly, the Court did not consider either fact dispositive, and noted that employees in either context may receive First Amendment protection. The “controlling factor” was instead that his statements were made pursuant to his duties as a deputy district attorney. Restricting such speech, which “owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities,” did not in the Court’s view violate any rights that the employee had as a private citizen. Instead, the restrictions were simply the control an employer exercised “over what the employer itself has commissioned or created.”
NYSUT “Free Speech” lawsuit:
http://www.nysut.org/news/2014/october/lawsuit-charges-state-education-department-ban-on-discussing-tests-violates-free-speech
ALBANY, N.Y. Oct. 9, 2014 – New York State United Teachers has filed suit in federal court seeking to invalidate confidentiality agreements the State Education Department requires teachers to sign before scoring state tests, saying the prohibition – with its accompanying threats of discipline, including dismissal, license revocation and criminal prosecution – is an unconstitutional prior restraint on teachers’ free speech rights.
The suit, filed Wednesday by NYSUT’s Office of General Counsel on behalf of five teachers, charges the State Education Department with violating teachers’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights by preventing them from speaking out on matters of public concern. The suit charges SED’s rules unconstitutionally make teachers’ speech conditional on government approval while establishing a “system to police the free exchange of ideas and opinions regarding its compulsory and costly testing regime.”
Bobby Jindal’s Executive Order: http://eagnews.org/bobby-jindal-issues-executive-order-protecting-anti-common-core-teachers/
BATON ROUGE, La. – Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has issued an executive order to protect teachers who are critics of Common Core national standards. Teachers statewide are feeling pressure from all sides, saying they are overworked and students are over-tested, and now many are saying they aren’t allowed to voice concerns or dissenting opinions.
The newspaper reports today, “Jindal issued an Executive Order to protect freedom of speech and the rights of teachers.”
The order reads, in part:
FREEDOM OF SPEECH PROTECTIONS FOR LOUISIANA TEACHERS
NOW THEREFORE, I, BOBBY JINDAL, Governor of the State of Louisiana, by virtue of the authority vested by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Louisiana, do hereby order and direct as follows:
SECTION 1: As part of the ongoing discussion among state and local education officials, teachers, parents, and stakeholders regarding classroom curriculum and testing, and as part of the larger discussion of the quality of Louisiana’s educational system, legal guarantees afforded to all citizens shall be maintained and provided to teachers;
SECTION 2: State and local school administration officials are not authorized under the existing laws of this state to deny a teacher’s constitutional freedom of speech in order to stifle the discussion and debate surrounding curriculum and standardized assessments by teachers.
http://www.warren.senate.gov/?p=email_senator
Here is Senator Warrens’ email address. Please let her know about the poor quality of the tests and how it can only serve to demoralizes students and teachers. Thanks.
NY Teacher, then it’s a fact that Jennifer can lose her job for refusing to give the test, isn’t it?
Despite what people think, public school (including university) employees don’t have free speech rights as employees. Every description of speech rights of school employees includes a loop hole that ensures, the school can discipline (terminate) a teacher’s employment if she publicly speaks up against school policy. Such loop holes (similarly to all legal loop holes) are introduced by tying free speech to school interest.
We could call this method of introducing loop holes the “unless” method since the exception to a policy is often introduced with this word. Even the ACLU quote you give contains such a loop hole
“Teachers cannot be fired or disciplined for statements about matters of public importance UNLESS it can be demonstrated that the teacher’s speech created a substantial adverse impact on school functioning.”
Jennifer’s refusal to give the test can certainly have “substantial adverse impact on school functioning”.
Jenifer Rickert did not refuse to administer the common core ELA test. She obviously knew better than to open herself to insubordination charges. Her request for reassignment can be accepted and she can supervise one of the many the opt out rooms at Ichabod Crane MS. If her request is denied she then has the option to administer the test or subject herself to possible charges. She does have the benefit of a very supportive principal in Tim Farley and I assume a supportive superintendent and BOE. Ichabod Crane school district is the epicenter of the upstate opt out movement along with Greenville.
Despite the free speech limits placed on teachers, let it be noted that, to the best of my knowledge, no NY teacher has been charged for disrupting the normal operations of their district because of critical comments made in the social media or on blogs. Still there is a heavy veil of fear silencing thousands of NY teachers across the state.