Earlier today I posted a commentary by Roseanne Woods, a retired principal in Florida, about the harm done to students and schools by high-stakes testing. Roseanne has just begun to fight. If every retired educator stepped up and defended children, like her, we could protect our children and our future.
She wrote:
“Thank you Diane Ravitch. Being on your “blog’s honor roll” means a lot to me. There is much more to say about what’s going on in Florida, and I will do my best to speak truth to power. I can only do this because after 36 years as a teacher and principal in the Florida public schools, I am retired; others are afraid to speak out.
“In Florida, all education policy streams from Jeb Bush. His mouthpiece is his “Foundation for Excellence”, and all education policy for the last 15 years has flowed from this source. Because I live in Tallahassee, I often give my input to the Republican controlled Legislature. Every time I speak, people in the audience whisper their agreement to me, but they dare not speak it aloud.
“Unfortunately, many states have followed his model of school grades, which I refer to as the “Shame and Blame Grade Game”. Never before have so many good schools, teachers and children had to wear the scarlet letter of FAILURE. Kindergartners now get A-F grades. (How cruel is that?) Teachers are told that they must adhere to pacing guides with everyone on the same page every day. ((How stupid is that?) Across our state, schools are suspending their curriculum to get students ready for the upcoming high-stakes test. Third graders who don’t pass will be retained. I’ll be writing more about this soon.
“It is criminal what has happened to our schools. As someone said, it used to be considered unethical to teach-to-the test; now it’s the norm.
“Again, thank you Diane for making Florida part of this conversation.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
As you mentioned in a previous post, North Carolina also has the A-F school grading system. A fellow classmate and I searched for the grades that North Carolina schools received and the number of Cs and Ds was just shocking. We also noticed that schools received similar grades based on its geographical location. Most schools in County A received As or Bs, while schools in County B received lower grades. Although this system is not the best way to measure schools’ quality and it prompts “teach-to-the-test” type of education, it also gives a very quick and simple overview of schools. Thinking from a parents’ perspective, I would want to know where my kid’s school stands on the national level. If there wasn’t a close connection between standardized test scores and school grades, I think it isn’t such a bad idea to let the public know how schools are performing.
Khjinni,
The A-F grades don’t tell parents how their school is performing. They are meaningless. They may be a measure of the children’s family wealth it they may be absurd. My neighborhood school was rated A one year, then F the next year. The principal told me he hopes to stay in the B range, to avoid scrutiny. The real purpose of the grades is to destroy the idea of a neighborhood school, to establish grounds for closing schools, and to turn parents into shoppers.
“Although this system is not the best way to measure schools’ quality and it prompts “teach-to-the-test” type of education, it also gives a very quick and simple overview of schools.”
First it is impossible to “measure” a school’s quality. One can attempt to assess the quality and that assessment would have to be composed of many, many different factors but still would not be a “measure” of school quality. That “overview” (more like lack of view) is completely invalid and says absolutely nothing about the quality of a school
“Thinking from a parents’ perspective, I would want to know where my kid’s school stands on the national level.”
And what the hell good would that do for you other than to stroke your ego into thinking that “you’re the best”.
‘If there wasn’t a close connection between standardized test scores and school grades, I think it isn’t such a bad idea to let the public know how schools are performing.”
Well there is a “close connection” and no it’s not “a bad idea to let the public know (although they could find out themselves by going to the schools and finding out for themselves) how schools are performing”. The simple invalid and false metric of school letter grades is the worst way to attempt letting the public know.
Yes, retired educators can do a lot.
So glad to see one of our local true educators speaking out. I often wonder why so many of our teachers and principals keep quiet. Our school district used to be so great. With a high number of college educated citizens I was always so I impressed with Leon County schools. Now the administrators go along just to get along and common sense decisions are null and void….it’s all about the test, bout the test, bout the test.
I didn’t mean to disrespect you; I just wanted to point out that a “national curriculum” of on sizee fits all would not work and we have regional differences, differences in experiences/culture and that the curriculum frameworks should be broad enough to contain ALL of those — not dictated by one “National test” such as Pearson would propose. This is the debate in the state when content is discussed and it is why I oppose the tests they are setting forth to demand “conformity”… my comment wasn’t made to disrespect your expertise but just in general that there would be those discussions taking place (hopefully at the local level not from state bureaucrats).. The literary canon has undergone a significant series of shifts and that pleases me; the reading wars, the math wars, the canon wars etc … it was a general comment meant to say the “one size does not fit all”…. in any curriculum. sorry if it came across as “taking sides” against you.
jeanhaverhill@aol.com
“I will do my best to speak truth to power. I can only do this because after 36 years as a teacher and principal in the Florida public schools, I am retired; others are afraid to speak out.”
This is an important observation that must not go unnoticed. Along with the “Shame and Blame Grade Game”, there is a climate of mistrust, intimidation and fear that teacher’s jobs, futures, careers, etc might be in jeopardy should they speak openly and candidly regarding the threats to public education and the harm being done to students, and in particular, the younger children.
“Teachers are told that they must adhere to pacing guides with everyone on the same page every day. ((How stupid is that?)”
I have often wondered if there are some who would judge a school to be excellent were they able to walk from one classroom into another and hear the scripted lesson continue without missing a word.
Clearly Roseanne Woods deserves Platinum Status on this blog’s Honor Roll.
“Clearly Roseanne Woods deserves Platinum Status on this blog’s Honor Roll.”
I might agree if she had spoken out and refused to institute before retirement. Oh, I know, she had to have been worried about keeping her job. Expediency does not right make.
Duane, you are always quick to recommend others risk losing their wages and their hard earned pensions on principal. Are you going to help pay my rent or pay to help me care for a disabled partner at home when I am the only breadwinner? I have no investments, inheritances, or real property so when I’m fired for speaking truth to power because it is noble I’m homeless. Most teachers I know are in the same boat.
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.
I don’t know if this has been raised in FL yet, but it’s coming to a head in OH:
“Once again, Ohio’s notorious White Hat Management company could be exempt from reforms. House Bill 2 would require contracts between schools and operators to delineate which gets what assets after the contracts expire. This misses the point: Neither should own the assets. They belong to the taxpayers who paid for them.”
The measure is the latest in a series of legislative efforts to protect White Hat, achain of consistently failing charter schools run by prolific GOP donor David Brennan. The House Education Committee began hearings on the charter school reform bill today.
The proposal comes as the Ohio Supreme Court is poised to rule on a long-standing case that could determine whether taxpayers or private companies own school property purchased with public money. The assets include real estate,furniture and computers.”
It’s a really good question. Who owns the assets purchased with public money? Obviously lawmakers are trying to beat the court and secure the assets as privately-owned.
I think people start asking this in other ed reform states soon. I still can’t believe no lawmaker considered this question when they were happily shoving billions to private companies. No one thought to ask who owns the asset? Incredible. They can’t be this reckless. It has to be corruption.
http://www.progressohio.org/2015/02/charter-reform-hearings-open-with-gift-to-white-hats-failing-schools/
We have a bill that wil be coming before the legislature that exempts charters and voucher schools from the state tests. They will get to pick their own assessments. Two tier education is a reality in Florida.
Great. I guess we can look forward to that in New Mexico where Hanna Skandera is now queen. Four more years of our newly re-elected governor and her education vendetta against teachers. It just keeps getting worse.
I am glad to see this.
I was dismayed in the summer when trying to get retired teachers involved in fighting; some wanted to help, but many said, point-blank, “not interested.” It broke my heart. I don’t understand how you could live well on a hard-earned pension, knowing that the working conditions and the “deal” of working for not a lot to later have a decent retirement was a situation that might not be around for future teachers. Some do fight. As for those who “were not interested,” I still don’t know what to think.
Glad to see Roseanne Woods leading by good example.
Yes. Retired teachers should look to Detroit to see what happens to pensioners when the working base erodes.
This is my worst nightmare. I’m already paying into the pension system with no return as I am a return to worker. I pay for the “privilege” of working while the guilty guy absconded to Rome and lives well on our money. Retired teachers may think they are safe but MathVale is correct – look at Detroit. Listen to the GOP talk about ridding us of social security. Scary times. ALL who are invested need to protect the profession.
New Mexico inherited a Jeb Bushie from Florida, Hanna Skandera. For the past four years, she has been our Secretary of Education DESIGNEE due to the fact our state constitution bars a noneducator from the post. Our state legislature just gave her carte blanche yesterday by confirming her. She was seen writing down the names of teachers who testified against her. Our governor and Skandera have declared war on teachers. I am retiring this year and will dedicate my free time to getting rid of these shysters.
Could have written and thoroughly agree with your last sentence. Good luck, as we will all need it.
Here I sit in FL, a snowbird. While we own property here, we vote in CT where I fight to keep Jeb Bush-style reforms from taking over in our CT urban districts. There I speak with political muscle. In FL where I do not vote, all I can say is that I am proud of this retired principal and of the FL League of Women Voters who have spoken truth about what is wrong with the Jeb Bush so called ed reforms. Thank you Roseanne Woods! Any FL teacher who does Twitter, find me @gailj and tell me how I can help in Indian River County.
“Kindergartners now get A-F grades. (How cruel is that?)”
So cruel that those supposed educators who take part in giving A-F grades in elementary school should be drawn and quartered or at least stripped of their license and never allowed to come within 500 ft of a public school ever again. I say that those who would “grade” an elementary student a “failure” are just as sick and inhuman as pedophiles.
THANK YOU Roseanne Woods! If Florida ever gets it together, maybe that will motivate Alabama to straighten up, too. As for K students getting A-F grades, sadly, my county’s public school system has been using such as grading system ever since the school year after NCLB came out.
I enjoy reading the accounts of retired educators, (I am one) and others as we struggle to make the case against the testing craziness. I have to wonder………the lack of media coverage in
Missouri is very discouraging……I would like to get an idea of how bad a problem this is nationwide, and whether there are states where the span of reporting is wide enough to make discussion possible……and where there is so much control that there is not a reasonably wide span.
Here’s a letter I received today from a retired educator:
Your “viewpoint” in the Pensacola News Journal today accurately describes some damage being done to our public school system by the expansion of testing. Thank you for correctly placing the responsibility for the damage where it belongs…on the politicians! Yes parents are angry, students are stressed, and the best teachers are leaving the profession in droves. My wife and I are both retired teachers and our two children both planned to become teachers but changed their minds because of the “madness” they saw and experienced.
Another less obvious unintended consequence is the loss of electives and enrichment programs for the achievers. I was a music teacher and a wise principal once told me that any subject that is not included on “the test” will become less relevant. A study in 1988 by Madaus confirmed this by finding that “in every setting where a high-stakes test operates, the exam content eventually defines the curriculum.” Even where electives like music, art, and creative writing, among others still exist, schools often use them as a pull out, remediation time so the students get little benefit from the elective. So much time, energy, and money is invested in programs for the “lower quartile” programs for high achievers are often diminished. These might not be as obvious as some of the damages you correctly identified, but they are serious problems created and perpetuated by testing!
Thank you again for your well written “viewpoint”. Let’s hope the ones who created the problems will finally take steps to fix them. Good first steps…”deep six the teacher performance pay law”, get the government out of the schools, and LISTEN TO EDUCATORS!!!!