The Néw York Times has barely covered the historic parent Opt Out movement. Before the testing began, it ran a story about parents who decided not to opt out for fear their children would suffer. When the opt out was making news across the nation, given the huge numbers, the Times did not deign to report the story. Then, at last, the Times wrote a story about how teachers’ unions had fomented the opt out, with no attempt to explain why nearly 200,000 parents from across the state might take orders from the unions.
But there was more trivialization and dodging. On Friday the Times published a story about districts that follow a “sit and stare” policy for children who opt out. It quoted several superintendents who disapproved of the opt outs, but not one of the superintendents who were sympathetic.
The parent-educator group that led the Opt Out movement published a letter to the editor asking why the Times has been dismissive of their hard work.
LETTER
Parents’ Role in the New York Test Protest
APRIL 24, 2015
To the Editor:
From “Teachers Fight Tests, and Find Diverse Allies” (front page, April 21), readers would never know that the 185,000-plus students who opted out of the state English Language Arts test last week did so because of more than three years of organizing by a genuinely grass-roots movement of public school parents.
This year parent groups held more than 100 forums across the state; rallied, protested and raised thousands of dollars for billboards promoting test refusal; and engaged tens of thousands more parents via Facebook and Twitter. Sadly, this article epitomizes the media’s preference to portray every education story as a battle between the teachers unions and their opponents.
NANCY K. CAUTHEN
New York
The writer is on the steering committees of New York State Allies for Public Education and Change the Stakes.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I haven’t kept track — who owns the NYT these days?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ochs_Sulzberger_Jr.
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2014/06/8546790/sulzberger-scions-star-rises?page=all
Thanks for that.
I think the explanation lies in the fact that — who or whatever owns it — the NYT is still a humungous corporation and even though corps aren’t really persons they do share some characteristics of people, birds, sheep, and other animals in just naturally flocking together with those of their own kind, always automatically, uncritically, unthinkingly giving the benefit of the doubt to their own ilk.
“The Liarbirds”
The liarbirds flock together
And mimic Wall Street sounds
They’re really of a feather
“Ka-chinging” sound abounds
And it was actually published?! Even on the NY1 shows Close Up–based on the NYT’s weekly articles– and Inside City Hall (Time Warner Cable owns NY1), there is barely a mention of the opt-out/anti-“reform” movement during the journalists’ round table week end discussions. When they do discuss it, the virtues of Eva’s schools are extolled amid laments of “why can’t public schools get it right/learn from her?”!!!
I encourage more letters to the editor. Put the pressure on them as well. I too am AMAZED that the media is not shining a light on parents who oppose the current education reform. I think the extreme left has them convinced that it is a noble cause which will help the lower classes. Well many of my friends are from the lower classes and they are absolutely frazzled by these tests and the oppressive reforms. I hope that Diane will wave this warning flag as well as she defends us against the oppressors.
The extreme left? In 1969 there were people you could call the extreme left who felt the union was betraying a commitment to minorities for going on strike in NYC. This grew out of the tension existing between unions and Blacks dating to the time when Blacks were hired to replace striking Whites and to the proposition that the last-hired first-fired seniority gained by unions, resulting in Blacks being part of the first fired because of the history of not hiring them at all. Keeping black and white workers in opposition, however, is only good for laissez faire capitalists. Depending on where you live in the U. S. different races have different takes on unions based on historical references. The mix seems somewhat different today. Now that minorities are also in the unions it would be a bit disingenuous to characterize the charter movement as extreme left since it seems bent on separating people either economically and, as a result, racially, and on privatizing education. As opposed to “extreme left,” I might say “1950 Republican types.” But that is because I grew up in Indiana. It might be a good idea not to talk about left, right etc. because it obfuscates the arguments. These labels are always in flux and not particularly bound to any deep philosophy.
So-called education reformers have successfully convinced many naifs that undermining public education, via charter schools, high stakes exams, punitive teacher evaluation schemes, etc., is somehow connected to social justice.
Nothing could be further from the truth: destroying a public good for private venal and power-seeking ends, and busting unions, is inherently reactionary.
Why does the NY Times ignore the parent-led mass opt-out movement? Because the NY Times is the preeminent propaganda tool of the ruling class who want to privatize all public services so they can redistribute even more of our wealth into their greedy hands.
Diane, the NYT, at this point, is a third-rate paper, save for the puzzle section.
Leaving aside their politics (a pretty big “aside”), they have made some huge blunders over the years, not to mention pilfering the work of others.
My sister Hella, by the way, did extensive reporting on pedophilic rabbis in “Jewish Week.” They essentially stole her work, and credited it to someone else. Eventually, she got a quasi-apology (from the public editor, I believe.). If she were a hawk, she would have sued them. But she was so happy that they were shedding some light on a big societal problem that she let it go.
Bottom line, the NYT is a rag with a pretty good puzzle section. It is USA Today, without the fancy colors.
Paul….the LA Times, an even lesser rated paper than the NY Times it would seem, is run by billionaire Wall street publisher, Austin Beutner, close friend and ally of Eli Broad, who focuses almost entirely as a cheering section for the charter school Wall Street group.
They (Beutner and Karin Klein) just this week editorialized their choices for LAUSD Board of Education candidates for our May 19 election. They adamantly chose the two privatizers, one a newbie candidate who is a millionaire owner of a string of charters, the other the incumbent who throughout her term of office, colluded with and supported completely the former Supt. John Deasy who is now under investigation by the FBi and the SEC for bidding fraud, etc.
Without a truly free press, the public is inundated with misinformation. At least those who even bother to read print media. So now, Obama, and our lying charter schemer both want to BRIBE uninformed people to go to the polls, but the LA Times downplays this kind of illegal and immoral behavior.
Letters from our educators activist group, Joining Forces for Education, rejecting all this garbage, are rarely used.
“The Presstitutes”
The presstitutes
Dress up in suits
And work at NY Times
While journalist
Is simply dissed
‘Cuz truth reports are crimes
This is plain diatribe.
You need a Thesaurus for your usual overused comment…”diatribe” is nonsense. You do need to learn the difference between a real diatribe and informed opinions.
diatribe |ˈdīəˌtrīb|
noun
a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something: a diatribe against the Roman Catholic Church.
ORIGIN late 16th cent. (denoting a disquisition): from French, via Latin from Greek diatribē ‘spending of time, discourse,’ from dia ‘through’ + tribein ‘rub.’
Is there any other type of diatribe besides plain ones?
If you want to hear some toasty diatribes, listen to Kasich, Christie, Bush, or any reformer talk about or to teachers. Or drop in a conservative blog. There’s some through rub going on there.
“Liartribe Diatribe”
The diatribe from liartribe
Is really something special
It’s not just plain, like DAM refrain
It’s Limbaugh reverential
Better than liartribe, like the Times.
You are cool SomeDAM Poet! Really cool!
The New York Times editorial group clearly favors a corporate mentality and has for years. When they express editorial opinion it is clearly in favor of charters, Moskowitz, testing, test scores and evaluation based on test scores for teachers. They have never, ever really investigated teaching, its components and tried to find out the educational perspective on our schools. Obviously, the Times, from the editorial perspective, sides with big business and hedge funds, and blames unions for the parental opt outs, as though parents didn’t have a brain in their heads. They thoroughly and completely bypass any science and statistics about the VAM, completely ignore the real issue which is poverty, a different society, and a testing system run amok.
Twelve years of Bloomberg and the NCLB laws did enormous damage to our NYC system, disassembling the NYC DOE Board of Examiners, the DOE curriculum writers, the changeover to meaningless grades of 1,2,3,4 in place of standardized, normed testing that was more diagnostic in nature etc. etc. It was the first time test prep reared its ugly head as a systemic way of educating our children.
Papers are corporations too, so it does not surprise me in the least. “Fair and balanced” has not applied in the education section for many, many years.
Quite frankly, they are doing their part to downplay what is going on, as opposed to lending it credence, which might help foster the opt out movement. But………here’s the news; this is not going away. It will only get bigger. No matter what hedge fund people and Wall Street do, unless they can figure out a way to take away our brains and our ability to vote and organize (although they might like to do that too), this will get bigger.
The editorial staff has a bit of arrogance(I am being kind here) that comes out when they express opinions, and one can glean from this how they sit around at editorial meetings trying to pretend a balance on educational issues, minimizing articles that express the opposite point of view. Every so often, they will throw a bone, printing a small opinion piece, or some letters voicing support of the anti testing movement. When they do that, the Times is quick to insert the opposing point of view, so as to not give too much weight to the growing opt out movement. It is strategic, calculated and clearly coming from a place of disseminating content that reflects a huge bias of anti-unionism, disrespect for the intellect and knowledge of the professional educators who perform the work, marginalizing anything positive.
This is as the Times corporate owners intend it to be.
The media is owned by a handful of Corporations today. Forty years ago it was represented by over one hundred and twenty Corporations. The message is controlled as it has been bought.
So glad we have the internet. We can’t let .1%ers take that, too.
They keep trying, Mathvale…cannot believe that Net Neutrality is still being assailed by the Right.
Pam, Wouldn’t it be fun to know how many individual NYTimes employees opted out their children? Wish they’d reply anonymously here.
Think they’d be a natural to oppose convoluted, unvalidated test questions. Montclair, NJ, Anna Quindlen’s former hometown, had a high opt-out.
Ballad of the NYT
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
We write the ads.
They buy the ads.
We write the ads.
Nothing but ads.
What did you expect?
We’re the New Urinalism.
We’re the Main Stream
In a Trickle-Down World.
Nice. Clever, too.
I like that very much.
Urinalism, Main Stream, trickle down
ha ha ha ha ha.
Thanks, a bit derivative for an Old Spartan, though, as our student paper was the State Journal and we naturally called it the State Urinal. Looking back, though, it’s fair to say it maintained a far higher standard of professional journalism than the NYT does today.
My impression, from 45 years of reading the NYTimes thoroughly and habitually but skeptically is that grassroots or labor politics do not count as news for the NYTimes unless these escalate to a higher level conflict.
I think that if Tisch were forced to resign or if Cuomo were forced to change policy, then the NYTimes would be forced to report on the grassroots political force behind this, and not just attribute it to unions (who are regarded as boorish interlopers). Also, the “three men in a room” of NYS budget politics (I’m a New Yorker) works to suppress conflicts in NYS since every budget must be bipartisan in order to pass.
On the other hand, the NYTimes *does* have lifestyle and human interest stories. For that reason, I think the 4/23 article about “sit and stare” is about as good as can be expected from the NYTimes. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/nyregion/only-alternative-for-some-students-sitting-out-standardized-tests-do-nothing.html?ref=education
I have read the NYTimes religiously for about 45 years, but I have not done a real empirical analysis (although as I librarian I know how). One comparison, however: NYTimes reporting of the Occupy Wall Street action was partly lifestyle or human interest, and partly about the legal conflict, such as when protesters were arrested. It was left to opinion pieces to argue whether OWS was pointless or not. (I think OWS was important.)
Aside from the NYTimes, corporate liberals like Arne Duncan view education from 30,000 feet. They really believe that education must be quantitatively analyzed and made more efficient. If an economist writes down an equation to analyze education, they will believe this with greater certainty than anything thousands of parents or thousands of teachers can say.
Perhaps Arne should read How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking by Jordan Ellenberg.
The news story also called it “the so-called opt-out movement” which is laughable. So-called? Really?
Webster’s first definition: “commonly named “
Dude,
The primary focus was whether this is a real movement or a union initiative.
Got it?
Get it?
Good.
You might also consider contacting FAIR, which has had a lot of fun demanding that inaccurate major corporate media reporting get straighter than the norm.
I have been saying this for so long!! The NYT has been conveying a wrong message about teachers,public schools and Unions for several years now.
Either they report extremely biased information, or are completely silent on these issues.
I’ve mentioned this several times over the years to my NYT reader friends and family. I now look to outside news sources for real news.
“All the news that’s fit to print” or all the news we want you read?
Opt-out rates in New York City and in many of the suburbs that constitute the core of the Times’s readership and subscriber base are extremely low–0.7% in the five boroughs, e.g. The core of the opt-out movement is in eastern Nassau and Suffolk Counties and hundreds of miles away upstate, areas that the Times will cover but not on a regular basis.
If there were a true conspiracy of some kind, the Times probably wouldn’t have published a letter from a leader of the opt-out movement.
The Times is a national newspaper
The Opt Out is a national story, covered by national meda but not the Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/nyregion/as-common-core-testing-is-ushered-in-parents-and-students-opt-out.html
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/04/17/us/ap-us-common-core-opting-out.html
I think there is a difference between not covering a story and not covering it in a manner that you agree with.
So true. And the eyes of the nation are especially glued to New York at this time and on this issue, which includes Common Core and the other current deform policies.
The Timea is falling down on its duties as a national newspaper.
Above in reply to Diane.
Right. It’s easy to tell by looking at who writer(s) are/is.
Diane
I think you believe that every body and all media is against you. There may be story here.
For your information the Opt Out rates every where in this country is less than 0.5% of all the students (~49 million in total) in K-12 schools and is not a tsunami or anything like it. Please do not make a mountain out of a mole hill. Mean while keep feeding the tiny fire called Opt Out.
Here are the New York Times Opt Out stories.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/magazine/the-opt-out-revolution.html?_r=0 Aug 11, 2003
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/11/magazine/the-opt-out-generation-wants-back-in.html?pagewanted=all Aug 7, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/nyregion/as-common-core-testing-is-ushered-in-parents-and-students-opt-out.html Mar 1, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/nyregion/despite-opposing-standardized-testing-many-new-york-parents-and-students-opt-in.html April 13, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/education/teachers-unions-reasserting-themselves-with-push-against-standardized-testing.html Apr 21, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/nyregion/only-alternative-for-some-students-sitting-out-standardized-tests-do-nothing.html April 23, 2015
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/opinion/the-revolt-over-standardized-tests-in-new-york-schools.html April 17, 2015
Raj,
Not one of those stories reported the Opt Out movement. The sit-and-stare article was about a policy affecting students who opt out and quoted only superintendents who opposed opting out. The other story was about parents who decided NOT to opt out. A third said that opting out was led by unions, which is untrue. None of the other stories reported factually about the historic size of the movement or interviewed its parent leaders. You made my point. Thank you!
No one is making a mountain out of a molehill except for the media like NYT and CNN who pretend to be calm but try to sensationalize once and wash it away. It’s way much higher than some bystanders like you think since opt-opt is not just local event. It’s all across the nation.
Raj, Montclair, NJ (a university town & former hometown of Anna Quindlen, a former NYTimes columnist you’re likely too young to know), had 42% opt-out. Princeton, NJ , another university town, had high opt-out also.
The opt out rates in NYC are so low because they are used for middle and high school admissions not because families are in support of these state tests.
Thank you!
This argument has been making the rounds recently to rationalize the extremely low opt-out rate in the five boroughs, but there are some large holes in it:
— For a full third of the tested kids, the third and sixth graders, there are absolutely no stakes for middle and high school admissions.
— Fifth-grade scores are no longer needed for Hunter, although a child without scores will have to sit for a separate pre-assessement before taking the Hunter test. In any case, fifth-grade scores are needed by only a small subset of high-achieving children (as a side note, it is interesting that what is acknowledged as being one of the best and highest-performing public schools in America has such faith in allegedly flawed and faulty tests).
— At no school can state test scores be used for more than 49.99% of the admissions process. Many selective schools and even entire districts have removed state tests from their admissions equations, or from the screen that determines who can take their admissions test
— State test scores are not required to sit for the SHSAT
— Most importantly, the vast majority of students in New York City attend a middle school or high school that does not consider state test scores at all
The goal of the opt-out movement has seemingly now coalesced around the idea of eliminating annual testing altogether. This goal faces two significant obstacles: one, the likelihood that annual state assessments will remain a provision of ESEA/NCLB/whatever. The second is that enormous numbers of parents actually do want their child to be tested.
Would want to see the demographics on this, Tim.
This is only anecdotal and, I am not in NY, but in my state, parents don’t like the test but they also have zero interest in opting out. They do want to see how their child compares to others. If a child does well parents will share that tidbit because I guess they think people are interested.
Before my child was in 3rd grade, I asked if parents could opt out and was told no. I asked what funds would be withheld if testing participating fell below a certain threshold. I did not receive an answer to that question.
I spent a lot of time deciding if I was going to opt my child out of the tests. I decided not to opt-out.
Now that my child is in third grade and I know how much time is spent preparing for the test, I see no reason to opt out. My child attends a Title 1 school in a what many feel is an undesirable district. I trust the teachers. If they feel it is important to prepare for these tests, then I will support my school and allow my child to take the tests. I will add that my child’s school doesn’t go overboard with test prep, but a much larger % of time is spent practicing than what is spent on the actual test.
Can you be more specific about what demographics you would like to see, Akademos?
And I realize now that I made a mistake in my first post — the state tests don’t have any impact on admissions for 8th graders, either.
“Look, over there, a squirrel”
While opt-out hits the mark
Of nearly 200K
The squirrels in Central Park
Are fun to watch today
SQUIRREL ❢❢❢
Here’s a somewhat inane tech-centric analysis from Forbes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanshapiro/2015/04/25/somethings-wrong-with-both-standardized-tests-and-the-opt-out-movement/
Makes me really miss Marshall McLuhan.
“A Timely Appeal to Orwell”
Newspeak’s more appealing
Than stark reality
The Times is simply stealing
A page from Orwell, see?
“Stating the Obvious”
The NY Times has spoken
The obvious is true
The NY Times is broken
And LA Times is too.
I suspect that they are friends with David Coleman and crew. Just a hunch.
One way the NY Times might pay attention, to this story, is if everyone opting out (or who agrees with parents opting their children out) cancelled their subscription to the Times, they might pay a little attention. And if these same people started calling or emailing companies who advertise in the Times and telling them they are also going to be boycotting companies who do business with the Times, the Times might start paying a little more attention to what is really going on in pubic education.
YES…this would be real time fight back. Same goes for the LA Times.
Tim,
While it is certainly true that parents are divided on the issue of high-stakes testing, many factors suppressed the test refusal rate in NYC. First, numerous principals warned parents that opting out would result in negative consequences, such as their children being held back, forced to go to summer school or required to take a harder, longer test. Some principals warned that test refusals would lead to a loss of funding or hurt teachers. Other principals intimidated parents by requiring them to attend meetings with administrators and defend their decision to opt their children out.
Second, state officials issued vague threats about schools losing funding for falling below 95% participation, even though those rules were designed to ensure that schools and districts don’t exclude their lowest scoring students from testing. It is highly unlikely that federal or state officials would act on those threats as any application of those rules to parent refusal would undoubtedly lead to lawsuits. Nonetheless, we heard from many parents who said they were unwilling to take the chance that opting out might deprive their resource-starved schools of funding. Parents at Title I schools understandably took threats about funding loss particularly seriously.
Third, let’s not forget that these tests have been high stakes for NYC kids in a way that hasn’t been true elsewhere in the state. For 10 years, promotion was based on state test scores. Even though that’s no longer true, NYC schools are still adapting, with some still requiring kids who don’t take the tests to go through extra hoops to be promoted. Screened schools’ use of test scores in middle and high school admissions represents a small fraction of the stakes that have been attached to these tests for NYC kids. I heard from countless parents who wanted to opt their kids out but who didn’t want their kids held back yet again.
Fourth, Cuomo’s determination to fire “bad teachers” is clearly aimed at NYC and other urban areas. In many parts of the state, including Long Island, teachers and administrators have felt much freer to express their concerns about high-stakes testing. Most NYC teachers are understandably scared to talk about the tests. Their union leaders have been clear that they do not support opt out and will not protect teachers who say anything that could be construed as promoting opt out among parents. Contrast that with NYSUT locals that openly support opt out. Even the state leadership of NYSUT pulled out the stops to promote test refusal, albeit at the last minute.
Finally, NYC parents have been almost completely dis-empowered. We live under mayoral control of the schools. We have no elected school boards and our CECs have no power except with respect to zoning. Parent advocates in superintendent offices and parent coordinators in schools work for the DOE. We know that under the previous administration, the folks designated to “advocate” for parents mostly towed the DOE’s party line. These things don’t change over night; in fact, the DOE has barely changed.
In short, Tim, your conclusion that low test refusal rates in NYC reflect the desire of city parents to have our children subjected to high-stakes testing is simply wrong. NYC’s lower test refusal rates, when compared to the state as a whole, reflect widespread intimidation, misinformation and the dis-empowerment of one third of the state’s public school parents.
Nancy K. Cauthen, PhD
NYS Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE.org)
Change the Stakes (changethestakes.org)
Nancy, I’ll start with what we agree upon: mayoral control is an abomination, whether it’s under Mayor Bloomberg or Mayor de Blasio. And you are spot-on to say that little of substance has changed on de Blasio’s watch: CECs and SLTs are still effectively powerless and the PEP still isn’t an independent body. I don’t think we can say with any certainty, though, whether or not opt-out rates would be significantly higher under a system with a democratically elected school board with the power to appoint a chancellor.
That’s where the agreement ends, unfortunately. I don’t think you have offered up nearly enough evidence to be able to claim I am wrong. If numerous principals are directly defying the Chancellor’s unambiguous and concise memo regarding how to handle opt-outs, it should be easy to compile a list and send it to the DOE and the press, even anonymously — hearsay isn’t going to cut the mustard here. I have no doubt that what you describe did occur, but not remotely close to the extent that would explain a 0.7% opt-out rate. At the Title I schools that my children attend, there was no intimidation or misinformation whatsoever. The principals’ sole requirement was that parents either email or submit a letter prior to the morning of the administration of the first test, a reasonable request given the logistical hurdles that opting-out students present.
As a side note: the opt-out movement is quick to point to intimidation as being a primary reason why the rates are so low in the big cities and districts with high rates of poor minority students. I wonder if it will acknowledge that some families elsewhere may have been intimidated INTO opting out, especially in districts where it was so visibly and fervently pushed by superintendents, principals, and teachers. From a WCBS report on Long Island: “Parents who had their kids take the test on Long Island shied away from CBS2’s cameras, not wanting to offend teachers.” A report about Buffalo-area parents who decided to have their children take the test said that kids who were opting out mocked test-takers as they left the testing room. Peer pressure is powerful stuff.
New York City’s opt-out rate is extraordinarily low given all the time, energy, and money that went into promoting the movement, but it is in the same ballpark as the rate in Buffalo, Yonkers, Rochester, Syracuse, etc. — it can’t all be explained away by allegations of intimidation, the assumption that parents are misinformed, or the few thousand parents worried about selective schools. Perhaps Title I parents are leery of a movement that is completely interwoven with the same advocacy and interest groups who have fought so viciously against choice, be it charters or rezoning. Maybe NYC public school parents carefully weighed their options and came to the same conclusion as parents in Pleasantville, Jericho, and Byram Hills — I know, preposterous, right? Maybe, as I said, there are a lot of parents who believe that tests are one way to get an idea of how their child is doing. The numbers are what the numbers are.
Tim, “the numbers are what the numbers are.” Indeed. Have you noticed that opt-out numbers are growing at a phenomenal rate? In New York State they have at least tripled over last year. Nowhere are numbers declining. Crunch those numbers. How many more years of an annual tripling of opt-out families are needed before no one is left to take these miserable tests?
By the way, speaking of numbers, what is the amount of money you believe was spent in NYC promoting opt-out? And who provided the funds?
The group Nancy Cauthen and I both belong to, Change The Stakes, has a budget of zero dollars. All we are is teachers and parents raising our voices. 200,000+ families in NYS have refused the state tests with NO vested interests backing what they are doing. This is called freedom of speech, democracy, ordinary people standing up for our children. That’s all this is about, and if you think otherwise, you’re sadly misinformed.
Jeff, if all of that is the case, then why is there a “donate” button featured on every single page of content on the Change the Stakes website? Is the button inoperable? Have you not had a single donation? Who pays for your website and any physical materials that you have distributed?
I’ll look into that. I suspect the answer will be that people over the years have chipped in tiny amounts for costs like xeroxing fliers. What I can tell you right now is that ALL of the work done by CTS has been on a volunteer basis. Are you trying to say that there is not a massive and growing grass-roots uprising against data-driven corporate control of public education? It’s a truly amazing confluence of ordinary parents and teachers uniting across the political spectrum to restore democratic governance of our public schools. I believe that parents and teachers should determine the shape of education — which is by the way how it works in private schools. Who do you think should be in charge?
Tim,
The tests don’t give parents any useful information about how their children are doing. Parents who expect any won’t get it. The report cards I got in public school many decades ago were far more informative, as were the written and individualized reports that my own children and grandchildren got in their schools.
I taught in NYC and in L.A. always in Title One schools. The majority of parents tended to simply go with the flow. They had too much else on their minds or too much else to do. Only a very few ever took real part in the function of the school. I suspect most would find opting out a very confusing issue to deal with on many levels unless they were specifically organized by someone in the community or the press. As you know, the press won’t be a help on this issue.
Thank you Nancy. Excellent. I would add: Given the Big Picture in the context of 30+ years of relentless ridicule and misinformation about the very real accomplishments of our imperfect public schools, I would argue that almost no one would have accepted testing as we know it today had they had the benefit of fair and balanced reporting over the course of those years. And had they known how truly meangless the results of standardized tests are when high stakes are attached to them.
Oops. I meant my comment in reply to Nancy.
Thank you, Tauna! I agree!
Really, Tim — “the Chancellor’s unambiguous and concise memo”? You mean the memo that very few NYC public school parents have actually seen? You also say, “it should be easy to compile a list and send it to the DOE and the press.” Really? How so given that most of the parents who contact us understandably don’t want to be named?
Change the Stakes put out a press release about principal threats at the end of March, https://changethestakes.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/principals-continue-to-spread-misinformation-about-opting-out/. The DOE’s response? Have individual parents call them about violations at their schools! Tim, this is what institutionalized intimidation looks like.
And please, cease and desist with your talk about the “money that went into promoting the movement,” Money? As Jeff Nichols wrote, we have no money! We are completely grassroots.
Now that you know who we are, perhaps you’d like to share who YOU are.
The report that you put together regarding New Voices is a perfect template to follow, even if New Voices is a selective admissions non-Title I school. You have been contacted by “countless” numbers of parents and teachers about “numerous” principals who have disregarded the chancellor’s memo: you can certainly identify the schools while preserving teacher and parent anonymity.
I am a New York City resident whose children attend or have attended Title I traditional district DOE zoned schools. Everyone in my house works in the private sector in fields wholly unrelated to any aspect of education. I have my own concerns about institutionalized intimidation.
HELP! It’s not just the NYT. Our local paper up here in the Adirondacks, the Post-Star, owned by Lee Enterprises, has an editor (Ken Tingley) who has published about 4 articles just in the last month alone actually extolling the virtues of Common Core, persuading parents to not opt-out, and blaming the parents (it was originally the union, now it’s changed to more of the parents) as the problem.
It’s astounding to read his commentaries and slanted articles on this issue. Can someone tell me–where is the pressure coming from on Tingley to publish such ignorant misinformation over and over? Further, he is tone deaf to any citizen letters or responses, too, unless they are favorable to his position.
Here is a link to this morning’s commentary by Mr. Tingley and a portion of his outrageous editorial. Please, people, tell me I’m not alone in thinking that this commentary is utterly outrageous! (For those that can’t access it, I’ve copied it below.) http://poststar.com/news/opinion/columns/ktingley/column-opting-out-of-common-core-reaches-hysterical-proportions/article_165c8f6c-d7b7-52a6-aeae-eb5323d4c15e.html
April 26, 2015–Ken Tingley–Commentary, Post-Star’-“Taking The Easy Way Out”
“You’d think the No. 2 pencil had become a weapon of mass destruction.This past week, standardized tests for math were scheduled for students in fourth and eighth grades. Mass hysteria ensued. Nothing makes parents crazier than an evaluation of their children.
Whether it is their playing time in Little League or the number of gold stars on an art project, parents are often the least qualified to judge how their children are measuring up in the real world.
So to ensure they had even less information about their child’s development, hundreds of parents across the region boycotted Common Core testing designed to give educators valuable information about the students they are teaching.A prominent teachers’ union encouraged the boycott, and pandering state legislators proposed a law to encourage more to opt out next year.
Taken directly from its website, this is what Common Core is all about:“The Common Core focuses on developing the critical-thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills students will need to be successful.”If there is a problem with the content of the tests, that can be fixed.If administrators are frightening teachers into thinking their jobs are on the line, that needs to stop.
But the basis of Common Core — to make our children thinkers instead of memorizers — is sound. Consider the testing equivalent to an annual checkup with the doctor. But in this case, the results provide an insight, not only into the students’ capabilities, but into whether the teaching concepts are working as well.
I don’t see the value of opting out of anything in life. If I did, I would have left my dentist years ago.I’m of the “If it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger” mindset.Your teacher doesn’t like you? Get over it. You are going to have a boss someday who doesn’t like you.
The test is unfair? That’s too bad. In college, they will give you an impossible amount of work to do in a short period of time.Can’t do it? Somebody else will.
For some time, we’ve watched our education standards in this country slip compared to other countries. That’s a problem in today’s world economy.If we want to compete, we’ve all got to work harder as parents, students and teachers.The courses have to be more challenging, the school days have to be longer and learning needs to be constant.
The Common Core was meant to do that. Instead of memorizing, our children are being taught to think, analyze and come up with creative, out-of-the-box solutions.
Opting out is an affront to problem-solving.It is the easy way out.It is a protest that penalizes students and educators alike.Taking these tests will not hurt our children. They are the first baby steps toward making our education system better, our children smarter and our country more competitive.
What we saw this week was discouraging. The parents who are opting out need a timeout.”
It’s hard to think readers would take Ken Tingley’s writing seriously. E.g., “Whether it is their playing time in Little League … parents are often the least qualified … children are measuring up in the real world” overlooks the fact that parents may be satisfied with continuous progress/learning in school without convoluted standardized tests. Does he realize that parents were not rejecting previous standardized tests on this scale?
“I would have left my dentist years ago.” Is his dentist using unvalidated methods?
Has he tried the sample tests, OR just used the spiel on website as a stenographer?
Is there something in his water supply? Hope lots of readers phone him.
Well, Fred LeBrun of the Albany TImes Union is at it again today pointing out the strength of the opt-out movement and Cuomo’s comment that the “tests are MEANINGLESS.” He also points out that Pearson’s 5 year contract with NYS is coming up for renewal this summer. I can’t wait to see what happens with that since Cuomo says their tests are meaningless. Will taxpayers have to foot the bill for these meaningless tests again??????
http://www.timesunion.com/tuplus-local/article/LeBrun-Welcome-to-New-York-the-state-of-6224177.php
Amazing some detractors downplay the sigificance of event by phony quantification logic. It’s like saying nuclear meltdown in Fukushima is exaggrated because only a hundreds of people–e.g. volunteer workers at the Daiichi plant– will be affected. Hence no health ministry’s radiation testing on children and pregnant mothers required. Or tens of thousands of protesters marching in the downtown Tokyo calling for the halt of nuclear powerplants are not representative of general public because it’s less than 0.002% of total population. Or many of those are so called pro-shimin mercenaries sympathetic with China & South Korea–and hence, unpatriotic citizens. Then, what about tens of thousands of US soldiers killed or crippled in Veitnam War? What about thousands of those killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? They are still less than 1% of entire body of military. No big deal?
Well explain hysteria and paranoid are two sources of radioactive substances that affect those who don’t really like people speaking out in the wake of social injustice. And that’s pretty much common whether it’s in US, Japan, or elsewhere.