Parent and educator Bianca Tanis was stunned to discover that the New York State School Boards Association (NYSSBA) was misinforming parents about their right to opt out of state testing. Tanis is an active member of NYSAPE (New York Allies for Public Education, which represents 50 parent and teacher organizations.) She wrote a response to set the record straight.
As the opt out movement grows, questions about a parent’s right to refuse and potential loss of school funding persist despite the fact that test refusal has been in full swing for two years now with NO negative consequences for any school districts or students. According to the New York State School Board Association (NYSSBA) 2015 advisory , Managing State Assessment Opt Outs, schools risk a loss of funding and unspecified penalties should less than 95% of students participate in the NYS State ELA and Math tests in grades 3-8. This is a patent falsehood, and a significant one, as this organization advises our local school boards and administrators.
According to the New York State Education Department (NYSED), under the ESEA waiver there is NO direct negative financial impact on a school district that does not meet the 95% participation rate if it is in good standing. In the worst-case scenario, a school in good standing that fails to meet the 95% rate for three consecutive years may be labeled a Local Assistance Plan (LAP) School. While the school will then be required to craft a plan detailing how it will seek to increase test participation, there is absolutely no impact on state aid or Title I monies, and the school district would continue to remain in good standing. These facts have been confirmed by Joseph Shibu of the NYSED Office of Accountability, and were recently reconfirmed in a March 24th, 2015 interview with Senior Deputy Education Commissioner Ken Wagner. You can read that interview here.
An April 2nd, 2015 interview credits NYSSBA Executive Director Timothy G. Kremer with saying, “If even a small percentage of children, 5%, boycott the English and math exams, then schools could risk federal sanctions or funding penalties.” The NYSBBA opt out advisory also warns that schools must be careful in how they handle opt outs: “Some district responses could have negative legal and financial consequences for both the district and school district officials.” Yet nowhere in the regulations or laws concerning education in NYS is there anything to indicate that schools stand to lose funding or Title I monies due to test refusal.
It should be noted that a 2014 survey conducted by the New York State Council Of School Superintendents (NYSCOSS) revealed that 35% of superintendents self-reported that their schools did not meet the 95% participation rate, and that none of these districts have been found to have lost any funding. Despite the lack of evidence for loss of funding, NYSSBA stands by its baseless claims. By putting forth false information and utilizing scare tactics, NYSSBA has essentially robbed many local BOEs of the opportunity to advocate for parents who wish to refuse. This is especially true in districts that are significantly under-resourced where loss of funding would be especially devastating.
The fact is, at every turn, this organization discourages school districts from recognizing parents’ rights to protect their children from a controversial test that no one, save the child, may view. According to NYSSBA the “State Education Department has stated that there is no provision in statute or regulation allowing parents to opt their children out of State tests.” The March 24th interview with Senior Deputy Education Commissioner Ken Wagner reports that “Wagner did not deny that there is nothing in place forbidding parents to refuse.” And it is worth noting that the Empire State School Administrators Association (ESSAA) reported to school administrators on 3/25/15 that the NYS Commissioner of Education’s Office has advised that “while the ordinary procedure is to present the test to a student and have him/her refuse, if a parent asks you to not present the test at all, NYSED has recommended that you comply with the parent’s wishes.”
These actions do not align well with NYSSBA’s self-proclaimed core beliefs in “open communication” and “Public education as grassroots democracy.” Their goal to “Serve as the primary information source on public education” is clearly undermined by what appears to be either a willful dissemination of false information or a failure to do their due diligence.
In response to NYSUT president Karen Magee’s very recent call for parents to refuse the NYS Common Core Test in grades 3-8, NYSSBA president Tim Kremer credits the union with a “brilliant strategy.” With this statement, Kremer once again undermines the role that parents have played in directing their children’s education and falsely characterizes test refusal as a union initiative. It is doubtful that Kremer is unaware that prior to President’s Magee’s 3 day old call for opt out, the parent driven test refusal movement has been in full swing for almost two years with more than 60,000 refusals last year.
In response to the passing of Governor Cuomo’s budget, the NYS PTA issued a statement in which they said, “Today is a sad day for the students and teachers of New York. The Governor, claiming to be the best advocate for children, has tied inadequate school funding to questionable education reform based on volatile state tests…” The School Administrators Association of New York (SAANYS) issued the following statement, “SAANYS and its members are extremely disappointed with many of the education components negotiated in this budget, specifically in regard to principal and teacher evaluations (APPR)” and according to the latest Quinnipiac polls, 71% of the public opposes the use of test scores to evaluate teachers. Parents, administrators and educators unilaterally denounced the bill as harmful for public education. Yet NYSSBA Executive Director Timothy G. Kremer had this to say in about the state budget, “All in all, school boards have been given additional resources and tools they need to invest in educational programs and improve teaching quality” and in an interview on the Capital Pressroom Kremer maintained that “overall, school boards are pleased with many of the education changes.” Once again, NYSSBA is out of synch with parents, educators, administrators, and the public.
It seems clear that NYSSBA has made a choice through their advice to school boards to put as many road blocks as possible in the way of parents seeking to refuse tests that erode local control, siphon school resources and adversely affect teaching and learning, thereby downplaying the concerns of communities across NYS. As the information available has evolved, NYSSBA’s direction to those they advise has not. Without speculating about why this organization seeks to diminish the role of parents in the direction of their children’s education, the effect of their disdain and disregard for opt out has in many ways diminished local control by attempting to silence the concerned voices of parents, and in many cases, school board members. If a school administrator or a Board of Education presents false information to a parent or community, can they be faulted if they are acting on false information from the body tasked with advising them?
While parties may agree to disagree on the merits of the Common Core and the Common Core based ELA and Math tests and their impact on children and schools, shouldn’t those in positions of school leadership be tasked with providing their communities with the most factual information available? NYSSBA claims that “School board members are the educational leaders of their communities.” Is it not then incumbent upon these leaders to educate parents and allow them to make informed, reasoned decisions for their children? It is ever OK for those in positions of power to mislead the public, no matter how well intentioned their reason? Until NYSSBA is willing to advise Boards of Education on how to effectively advocate for the rights of parents within the parameters of the law and until NYSSBA provides fully factual information to our local boards of education, parents and community members will urge their elected board members to spend tax-payer dollars elsewhere.
Open the article to find all the links.
There are rumors that some local school boards may drop out of NYSSBA to protest its actions in defending Cuomo’s anti-teacher actions. NYSSBA needs to take another look at its policies and the information it distributes to school boards.
I believe if parents really knew what teachers were expected to do re all this regimentation that testing promotes, they’d speak out against testing.
I agree.
The NYSSBA is an obstacle to reform. They are led by an Albany Insider, Tim Kremer, who places more stock in being part of the Albany power structure than providing leadership/advocacy for school districts. Many school districts have found that membership in this organization is no longer worth the exorbitant dues that School Boards charges. While Kremer is able to control the hand picked members of his Board he has abdicated any responsibility for strong statewide leadership and advocacy. Many members have mockingly begun to refer to Kremer as Tim(id) Kremer. Do not look for leadership or advocacy from this group until Kremer is put out to pasture. Funding cuts, unfair aid formulas, silly new evaluation regimes, an anti public schools governor–where has Tim(id) been? He has been more interested in raising dues and finding other (corporate) funding sources to maintain his cushy position than he has been speaking up on important education issues, or taking on misguided leadership from Cuomo, the legislature, and the Board of Regents. We have an insider in a key leadership role where we need an insurgent!.
You decide if Kremer is following the Code of Conduct:
Code of Conduct of the New York State School Boards Association
Consistent with our dedication to children, learning and community, members of the New York State School Boards Association, as representatives of the citizens of our state’s school districts and Boards of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES), hereby adopt this Code of Conduct. In so doing, we state our belief that a code of conduct promotes public confidence in the schools and advances the attainment of district goals and thus we recognize:
that we have been selected by our fellow citizens and entrusted with the authority and obligation to strive to provide all students of our communities and state with equal opportunity for educational excellence.
that the future welfare of our communities, local school districts and BOCES, state and nation depend in large measure upon the quality of education we provide in the public schools to fit the needs of every learner.
that legally the authority of the boards of education is derived from the state which ultimately sets the parameters in which school board service is conducted.
that we must never neglect our personal obligations to our communities and our legal obligations to the state, nor surrender these responsibilities to any other person, group, or organization; but that, beyond these, we have a moral and civic obligation to the nation which can remain strong and free only so long as public schools in the United States of America are kept free and strong.
In view of the foregoing considerations, it shall be our endeavor as school board members and as members of the New York State School Boards Association to:
devote time, thought, and study to the duties and responsibilities of being school board members as well as participate in training activities so that we may render effective, informed and creditable service.
regularly attend board meetings and take action after careful study of the issues facing the board and after full discussion at such meetings.
work with fellow school board members in a spirit of harmony and cooperation in spite of differences of opinion that arise during vigorous debate of points at issue.
base decisions upon available facts in each situation; to base each vote upon honest conviction, unswayed by partisan bias; thereafter, to abide by and uphold the final majority decision of the board.
communicate concerns and public reaction to board policies and school programs to the superintendent and other board members in a professional manner.
remember that as individuals, school board members have no legal authority outside the meetings of the board, and that this must be reflected in all expressions with staff, the local citizenry, and the media.
resist temptation and outside pressure to use our positions as school board members to benefit either ourselves or any other individual or agency apart from the total interest of our school districts.
agree to honor our positions and the people who elected us by maintaining high ethical standards and by not engaging in any activity which presents a conflict of interest, or an appearance of impropriety.
publicly disclose the nature and extent of any interest we as school board members have in any proposed contract or agreement which comes before the board.
keep confidential matters pertaining to the schools, which are either legally required to be kept confidential and/or, if disclosed, would needlessly injure individuals or the schools.
follow the dictates of the state’s Open Meetings Law.
recognize that the primary function of a school board is to establish policies (which are in conformity with applicable law and regulations) by which the schools are to be administered, but that the administration of the educational program and the conduct of school business shall be left to the superintendent of schools and his/her staff.
strive to procure, when the vacancy exists, the employment of a superintendent who is best qualified for the job and who represents the interests of our communities.
strive to build and exercise a relationship with the superintendent that is constructive and positive and which enables district staff to function as effectively as possible.
make decisions having received the recommendations of the superintendent in matters of employment or dismissal of school personnel.
welcome and encourage active involvement by citizens, including parents and organizations in board activities regarding establishing school policy and developing future plans.
finally, strive step by step toward ideal conditions for most effective school board service to our communities, in the spirit of teamwork and devotion to public education in a manner which serves as a role model to our students and which demonstrates that school board service is the greatest instrument for preservation and perpetuation of our representative democracy.
This position could be construed many ways. Is the man providing leadership on key issues impacting the quality of education in NY State? More and more–districts are saying “NO.”
I’m surprised no one answered the question in the title. I’ve got my hand up. I’m eager.
Whose side are they on?
Pearson, Pearson, Pearson, Pearson …
To quote Mr. Lofthouse: I’m surprised no one answered the question in the title. I’ve got my hand up. I’m eager.
Whose side are they on?
Pearson, Pearson, Pearson, Pearson …”
From Momofonedifferentlearner: Our school BOE & it’s interim super has surely let parents in lower Hudson Valley down. Tisk, tisk! I am so frustrated with the confusion this is creating!
It is the same message in IL and it’s incredibly frustrating.
Payroll and Procurement Analyst Lynn Pomerantz Antwork, it never ceases to amaze.
Here here, she is quite amazing; have had the pleasure to see her speak 2x now!
While protests have been going on across the state, the NY Post is really throwing itself behind Common Core through Sol Stern’s spectacularly ungrounded and super-superficial opinion piece and Al Sharpton’s poor political choice.
The NY Post doesn’t merit links.
How are they funded? any State money? who are their members? I tried looking this up but could not find out. Perhaps, if they have a financial stake in testing it is altering their view?