Archives for the month of: August, 2015
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Note to Bruce Lederman: New York’s Teacher Evaluation System Might Be Illegal on Its Face

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
14

Lisa Eggert Litvin, a lawyer in the northern suburbs outside New York City, asserts persuasively that the New York State Education Department issued regulations for teacher and principal evaluations in an illegal manner, by declaring an “emergency” and failing to meet the requirements of state law.

I call this post “Note to Bruce Lederman,” because he is the lawyer who is challenging the legitimacy and validity of the state teacher evaluation program on behalf of his wife, teacher Sheri Lederman; if he doesn’t know already, he should be aware that the program was imposed without meeting the requirements of state law.

Litvin is co-president of the Hastings on Hudson PTSA and co-chair of the New York Suburban Consortium for Public Education. She follows the actions of the State Education Department and is an expert on school finance.

She writes:

The state Education Department, with the approval of the Board of Regents, creates rules that school districts legally have to follow. But in doing so, the department has failed to follow the laws that tell it how to make these rules.

Over the past two years, the majority of the Education Department’s rules have been temporary “emergency” rules, which then become permanent — but the vast bulk of these rules haven’t been real emergencies at all. Typically, SED’s reason for the “emergency” is simply that it has run out of time to get something done, and following the legal requirements would take too long. So, SED fast tracks the rules’ adoption process by improperly labeling them as “emergency.” But the law is specific that an “emergency” is rare, and exists only when “necessary for the preservation of the public health, safety or general welfare,” not simply because something is time-sensitive.

Why is this important? Because the legal process for SED to make rules, set forth in the State Administrative Procedure Act, ensures that the public has a right to offer input before rules are finalized, typically in a 45-day window. Also, SED must respond to each of the public’s comments. This is central to our democracy, as this is the only voice the public has in situations where non-elected officials, like the Board of Regents and the Education Department, which the board oversees, make binding rules.

This past June, in response to an impending deadline set by the state Legislature, SED proposed and the Board of Regents adopted new teacher evaluation rules, on an “emergency” basis. There was tremendous outcry over these rules, as they arbitrarily place even more weight on standardized test scores than the prior plan, apparently with no supporting research. Over 25,000 New Yorkers — including many of the state’s most well respected educators — signed a petition urging that the new evaluation plan not be rushed. They called instead for the state to work hand-in-hand with experts on testing and psychometrics to create a thoughtful, well reasoned and research-based plan that would accurately assess teachers, and not harm children’s educations. (Prior plans have not been supported by experts, and have shown erratic and unreliable results.)

The Board of Regents, which is supposed to set state education policy, and SED could have sought an extension to the Legislature’s deadline or presented an alternative vision for creating a better evaluation system. Instead, SED claimed “emergency” — a designation reserved for the “preservation of the general welfare,” even though it was clear that there was no such threat — and pushed the rules through, without any opportunity for public give and take. For this reason, those emergency evaluation rules should be declared invalid.

In its follow-up efforts to make the emergency teacher evaluation rules permanent, SED still continues to disregard the law. The law requires that SED provide the public with critical information about how the rules were created, specifically identifying for the public “each scientific or statistical study, report or analysis that served as the basis for the rule … and the name of the person that produced each study, report or analysis.”

In short, the “emergency” rules were adopted when there was no emergency; public hearings were avoided; and the state continues to break the law by making its “emergency” mandates permanent without public input.

Litvin calls on the Board of Regents and the State Education Department to stop declaring phony “emergencies” and to provide the factual information required by law. It is time, she says, for the new commissioner of education to demonstrate her willingness to consult with experts and practitioners in a collaborative and transparent manner. She should immediately suspend the new evaluation rules and turn to recognized experts to produce a research-based plan. The “emergency” rule-making evades the law and offends democracy by cutting the public out of its role in reviewing policy. Litvin calls for the restoration of a transparent, democratic, open process.

Categories New York, Teacher Evaluations

Connecticut Will Drop Smarter Balanced for 11th Graders and Require SAT Instead

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
63

The New York Times reports today that Connecticut has decided to drop the Smarter Balanced Assessment for 11th graders and require all students to take the SAT instead.

Although it is not clear in the article, it appears that students in other grades will still take the Smarter Balanced tests.

Since David Coleman was “architect” of the Common Core and is now President of the College Board, the SAT will be aligned with the Common Core.

This is, of course, a tremendous financial coup for the College Board, which charges for every student who takes the SAT.

But it will also benefit Connecticut students, because the cut score (passing mark) on the SBA is set so high that most students are certain to fail and would not be eligible to graduate from high school. Connecticut has now finessed that problem.

The federal government requires that states assess students in both reading and math once during high school. Because so many Connecticut public school students take the SAT anyway, replacing the existing high school test, given in 11th grade, with the SAT would leave young people with one exam fewer on their roster.

State officials said that while scores had not yet been set on what would count as meeting or exceeding “achievement level,” a particular score on the SAT would not be required to graduate from high school or to rise to the 12th grade. Instead, the test will be used as one of several measures, including grades and attendance, to decide if a student has met the requirements necessary to move on.

Dorie Nolt, a spokeswoman for the federal Education Department, said that several states, including Kentucky, South Carolina and Wisconsin, already use the ACT college admissions exam to fulfill their high school testing requirement.

Categories Common Core, Connecticut, Testing

The Great “Credit Recovery” Scandal and Its Roots in Accountability

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
22

Over the past few days, the New York Post (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who hates public schools and loves charter schools) has been flogging a scandal. The Post published a story by a young woman who said she got a high school diploma from a New York City public high school when she should have been failed. She hated school, she skipped classes, she should never have been allowed to graduate. Then the Post “discovered” that many students were graduating by taking “credit recovery” online classes, where they could make up for a failed course in a few weeks. In other words, the soaring graduation rates of which the Bloomberg administration boasted, are fake.

But the Post didn’t want to blame Bloomberg, whom they regularly hailed for expanding charters and cracking down on the public schools. They wanted to blame Mayor Bill de Blasio, whom they frequently ridicule as a hapless fool, and his schools chancellor, Carmen Farina.

Here is the sordid story, told by Perdidostreetschool blogger. The story is told by Harris Lirtzman, former Director of Risk Management for the New York City Retirement Systems in the NYC Comptroller’s Office from 1996-2002 and former Deputy State Comptroller for Administration from 2003-2007. Lirtzman was an untenured teacher in the Bronx from 2009-2012 and was pressured to pass unqualified students to boost the high school graduation rate to at least 70%. That was the target.

Credit recovery became widely accepted during the Bloomberg era as a way to raise graduation rates. The New York Post applauded Bloomberg’s reforms, especially charter schools, but they ignored the use of credit recovery to inflate the graduation rate. Many critics–such as Leonie Haimson–complained about credit recovery, but they were ignored by the Department of Education and the media. In 2011, she testified about credit recovery and other means of playing with data to make the graduation rate go higher. The New York Post didn’t report her testimony or show any subsequent interest in credit recovery. What the Post–or the New York Times– should do now is an in-depth investigation of credit recovery. When is it valid, when is it not? How many students rely on simple online courses to make up for semester-long or year-long courses that they failed? Which firms are profiting by supplying this quick fix? Some might justify credit recovery by saying that it is better for the student to have a high school diploma that was obtained through credit recovery than to be a dropout. If so, let’s have that discussion.

Categories Bill de Blasio, Bloomberg, Michael, Farina, Carmen, New York City, Scandals Fraud and Hoaxes

What I Thought of the GOP Debate

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
87

Not too much was said about education last night, and the candidates already have demonstrated by word and deed that they would like to break up, eliminate, eviscerate, or diminish public education. We already know the records of Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich. If you care about public education as a central component of a democratic society, this is not a good field from which to choose a president. The group proved to be bellicose, obsessed with abortion, and playing to the far right extremes of the Republican party.

Some especially offensive moments:

1) when Donald Trump responded to a question about his attitude towards women by belittling the woman who asked the question.

2) when Scott Walker said that he opposes abortion without exception, even in the case of rape, incest, and the risk to the mother’s life. When pressed about the latter, he said that he would always choose the life of the unborn child over the life of the mother. I wished there had been a follow-up about whether he would sacrifice the life of his own wife. There wasn’t.

Here are some other responses to the debate that I liked: Andy Borowitz in his daily New Yorker joke said that Scott Walker proved that he was ready to be an assistant manager at a car rental agency.

Paul Krugman’s reactions resonated with me. The thought of any of these guys becoming President of the United States is alarming.

Categories Republicans

Bruce Lederman Explains the Challenge to New York State Teacher Evaluation System

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
63

Bruce Lederman is representing his wife, Sheri Lederman, a fourth grade teacher in Great Neck, New York, in a legal challenge to New York State’s teacher evaluation system. Several readers asked to see the court papers, and I will post some of the affidavits from nationally recognized experts in a day or two. For now, here is Bruce Lederman’s explanation of the theory behind the legal claim on behalf of Sheri Lederman. The New York State Education Department sought to have the case dismissed without a hearing, but the state Supreme Court accepted the case. There will be oral arguments on August 12 at 10 a.m. in Albany in the court of Judge McDonough, 10 Eagle Street. If you are interested, please attend.

Bruce Lederman writes:

Diane:

                  Several of your readers have asked for an explanation of the legal theories behind the Lederman v. King lawsuit.  I am attaching the reply memorandum of law which explains in detail the evidence and expert opinions in the case, as well as the legal arguments at issue. I also attached reply expert and facts affidavits from Aaron Pallas (Columbia), Linda Darling-Hammond (Stanford), Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (ASU), and Sean Patrick Corcoran (NYU), Jesse Rothstein (Berkeley), Carol Burris, Sharon Fougner and myself (which has an important email exchange with Professor John Friedman, co-author of the widely cited Chetty, Friedman & Rockoff studies).

                  To summarize for your readers the legal theories, we are proceeding based upon three theories.   First, seek to have Sheri’s Growth Score Rating of 1 out of 20 points declared null and void under New York law on the grounds that it is “arbitrary and capricious.” Under New York law, any actions by a State Agency (in this case the Dept. of Education) can be challenged as “arbitrary and capricious” which is generally defined by the Courts as irrational and unreasonable based upon the facts. Second, we are asserting that the New York Growth Model (a VAM program) actually violates the New York law because it does not measure growth as defined in Education Law §3012-c(2)(i), is also not transparent and available to teachers before the beginning of the school year as required by Education Law § 3012-c(2)(j)(1) and does not allow all teachers to get all points as required by Education Law § 3012-c(2)(j)(2). Third, we argue that if Sheri is not allowed to have the individual facts of her case reviewed and is rated by a computer program whose results are not reviewable by a human being base upon real life facts, then she has been denied due process of law in violation of the Constitution. We ask, rhetorically, is this 2001 a space odyssey where the computer is always right and common sense has gone out the window?

                  One specific thing we are challenging is that she got a growth score of 14 out of 20 in year 2012/13 and a growth score of 1 out of 20 in 2013/14, even though the proficiency of her students (i.e., Students whose scores meet or exceed state standards) was virtually identical and there is no rational explanation for such wild swings in scores year to year. Another thing her case illustrates is the problem of ceiling effect when teaching high performing students. For one student, she got a failing student growth percentile (SGP) of 27 out of 100 because the student got 60 out of 60 questions right on a 3rd grade test, and got 64 out of 66 questions right on his 4th grade test while in Sheri’s class. Even though the student was in the 98th percentile, the teacher was rated in the 27th percentile because a child got 2 questions wrong. Is that rational?

                  The issues of why New York’s Growth Model does not comply with the law is that the law tells the Department of Education to measure change in student achievement between two points in time. New York’s Growth Model does not do this because instead of measuring growth, it creates what we are calling a “survivor-type” competition where the computer predicts what children should do and evaluates teachers on a bell-curve for whose students met the computer predictions. There are many problems with this, most notably that the computer is comparing apples and oranges. The fact that a child got a score of 300 on a 3rd grade math test and a score of 295 on a 4th grade math test does not prove that the child did not learn substantial amounts in 4th grade. This is explained very well by Professor Aaron Pallas in his reply affidavit, which I highly recommend reading. Sheri and I suggest that all our experts provide important information and I suggest that people read their affidavits.              

    

                  Another significant fact is a series of statistics located by Dr. Carol Burris. Dr. Burris found that there were wild swings in teacher ratings between 2012/13 and 2013/14 which made absolutely no sense. For example, Scarsdale, which is generally highly regarded, went from having 0% ineffective teachers and 13% highly effective teachers to 19% ineffective teachers and 0% highly effective teachers in one year. Something is obviously wrong. There are additional examples in Dr. Burris’ reply affidavit which your readers may find interesting.

Finally, a very important issue which is presented is the defense of New York State which claims that there are academic studies recommending the use of VAM-type programs for these types of high stakes teacher evaluations. All of our experts do a great job of explaining that there are no studies that suggest that VAM-type programs can accurately rate teachers in individual cases. Professor Sean Patrick Corcoran from NYU explains that studies have found that VAM is unbiased, not that it is accurate. New York’s Education Department is misunderstanding the difference in their position in our case. Professor Corcoran provides a simple example that if you throw darts at a dart board and always miss, but miss as much to the left as to the right, and as much to the top as to the bottom, you are not biased, but you are also neither precise nor accurate. Also, I had an interesting email exchange with John Friedman, co-author of the widely discussed Chetty, Friedman Rockoff studies where he readily acknowledged that his studies were only saying that VAM-type scores tend to be accurate “on average” which he explained means over the lifetime of teacher. He suggested considering VAM scores like a type of lifetime batting average in baseball. Professor Friedman specifically said that VAM scores can be too high or too low in any year, and that they may be wrong because a particular student had a bad day when the test was taken. Following this logic (which comes from one of the leading VA researchers) rating teachers based upon VAM generated scores is like rating a baseball player based upon a single randomly chosen at bat.

                  We are scheduled to have an oral argument on August 12, 2015, and are optimistic that the Judge will recognize that something is terribly wrong with New York’s Growth Model and the rating of 1 out of 20 points given to Sheri. We believe we have established that New York’s Growth Model (which it paid a contractor $3.48 million to develop) is a statistical black box which no rational person could find fair or accurate.

                  We thank all those who have supported us.

Categories Education Reform

Michael Hiltzik: Is There Really a STEM Shortage?

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
26

Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times is one of our most thoughtful commentators on education. He cuts through hype and spin.

Recently he noticed a startling contradiction. a spokesman for QUALCOMM bemoaned the lack of well-prepared workers for STEM jobs. But at the same time, the same high-tech corporation announced that it was cutting its workforce.

He writes:

“Alice Tornquist, a Washington lobbyist for the high-tech firm Qualcomm, took the stage at a recent Qualcomm-underwritten conference to remind her audience that companies like hers face a dire shortage of university graduates in engineering. The urgent remedy she advocated was to raise the cap on visas for foreign-born engineers.

“Although our industry and other high-tech industries have grown exponentially,” Tornquist said, “our immigration system has failed to keep pace.” The nation’s outdated limits and “convoluted green-card process,” she said, had left firms like hers “hampered in hiring the talent that they need.”

“What Tornquist didn’t mention was that Qualcomm may then have had more engineers than it needed: Only a few weeks after her June 2 talk, the San Diego company announced that it would cut its workforce, of whom two-thirds are engineers, by 15%, or nearly 5,000 people.

“The mismatch between Qualcomm’s plea to import more high-tech workers and its efforts to downsize its existing payroll hints at the phoniness of the high-tech sector’s persistent claim of a “shortage” of U.S. graduates in the “STEM” disciplines — science, technology, engineering and mathematics.”

He questions whether there is a shortage of STEM graduates, or whether the tech industries are looking to import cheap workers.

The industry claims shortages and highlights national security concerns, but the facts are complex. “”If you can make the case that our security and prosperity is under threat, it’s an easy sell in Congress and the media,” says Michael Teitelbaum, a demographer at Harvard Law School and author of the 2014 book “Falling Behind? Boom, Bust, and the Global Race for Scientific Talent,” which challenges claims of a STEM shortage in the U.S.

“Despite its “cost-cutting initiative,” a company spokesperson says, Qualcomm “continues to have open positions in specific areas, and still faces a “‘skills deficit’ in all areas of today’s workforce, especially engineering.”

Hiltzik adds:

“The industry’s push for more visas glosses over other issues. As we’ve reported, the majority of H-1B visas go not to marquee high-tech companies such as Google and Microsoft, but to outsourcing firms including the India-based giants Infosys and Tata. They’re not recruiting elite STEM graduates with unique skills, but contract workers to replace American technical employees — who often are required to train their foreign-born replacement as a condition of receiving their severance. This is the scandalous method of cost-cutting used by companies such as Southern California Edison, which outsourced the jobs of some 500 information technology employees, as we reported in February.”

Categories Economy, STEM, Teachers and Teaching

Weekly Standard: Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento “Mired in Scandal”

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
16

The Weekly Standard, a conservative publication, writes that Mayor Kevin Johnson of Sacramento (husband of Michelle Rhee Johnson) is caught up in a growing number of scandals.

Despite little national coverage, scandals surrounding former NBA star and Sacramento mayor Kevin Johnson have been intensifying over past few months. Monday’s report at Deadspin is a good place to start — things have gotten so bad that Johnson’s allies are accusing a local paper that’s done a lot of damning reporting on Johnson of racism.

As Deadspin notes, there’s “a variety of sexual, financial, and ethical improprieties” swirling around Johnson. Among other things, the mayor is suing — and being sued — by the National Conference of Black Mayors. And Johnson is also accused of using public money and resources for his own personal benefit involving work done for the National Basketball Players Association.

That last scandal is particulary interesting, because it mirrors accusations made against him in 2009, when he was accused of misusing federal grants meant for the Americorps program by Gerald Walpin, the inspector general of the Corporation for National and Community Service….
Mr. Walpin made a referral to the United States prosecutor in Sacramento, recommending that Mr. Johnson and Mr. Gonzalez face criminal charges and be banned from future contracts.

According to Walpin, the chairman of the board of the Corporation for National and Community Service, Alan Solomont, was a major Democratic fundraiser and was unhappy with his reports pointing out the misuse of federal money. Johnson was also said to be close to the Obamas, and shortly afterward the president abruptly fired Walpin from his job. The firing set off a flurry of inquiries from a bipartisan group of senators concerned that Walpin’s firing had been been politically motivated. There were also allegations that the U.S. attorney in Sacramento, Lawrence Brown, filed an ethics complaint against Walpin to help lift a ban on Johnson receiving federal funds as well as curry favor with the White House. Brown was seeking a presidential appointment to become United States attorney for the Eastern District of California.

Now Johnson remains mired in scandal six years later and is being accused of allegations of corruption very similar to what was first alleged by Walpin. And in the intervening years, the Obama administration has acquired quite the reputation for selectively enforcing laws against compromised allies and for the vigorous prosecution of political enemies on dubious grounds. Johnson’s current troubles certainly suggest that the president was wrong to fire Walpin, and are an unpleasant reminder of the Chicago-style politics that have come to define this administration’s questionable uses of political power.

Categories California, Michelle Rhee, Rhee, Michelle

Jon Pelto: Washington State Lowers Pass Mark for Common Core Test

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
17

Jonathan Pelto reports a very important story from Washington State. As we have learned to expect, a majority of the students in the state “failed” the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Why?because the testing groups set the “cut score” (passing mark) unrealistically high.

Remarkably, the state board of education lowered the cut score so that most students would be able to graduate.

Pelto writes:

“Yup, you read that correctly, after taxpayers were forced to spend hundreds of millions of dollars developing the Common Core and the Common Core Tests and students and teachers wasted unfathomable amounts of time prepping and taking the tests that were designed to label the vast majority of students as failures, the “lead” state behind the SBAC testing scheme simply threw out results.

“Instead of going with the cut score that was adopted by the SBAC coordinating committee last November, an unfair rating system that was adopted with the support of [Connecticut] Governor Dannel Malloy’s representatives, the Washington State Board of Education choose a new “passing” level , “where about as many kids are expected to pass the exams as passed the state’s previous tests.”

Now, Pelto wonders, what will Connecticut do?

His answer:

“Okay everyone – now would be a good time for Connecticut’s students, parents and teachers to start screaming out of utter frustration and anger!

“And then let’s go get the pitchforks!”

The reality is that no one knows how the cut scores were set, whether they actually predict college and career readiness, or why they were set so high that most students fail in every state.

Categories Common Core, Students, Testing, Washington State

Carol Burris Joins NPE as Executive Director

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2015 //
7

Great news from NPE!

When award winning principal Carol Burris announced that she was retiring early to dedicate all of her energies to “fighting the assault on our public schools and our teachers,” many wondered how and where she would continue that fight.

There is no need to wonder any longer.

Today NPE President Diane Ravitch announced that Carol Burris will become the new Executive Director of the NPE Fund, NPE’s non-political 501C3.

“The Board of the Network for Public Education is thrilled that Carol Burris has agreed to serve as Executive Director of the NPE Fund. NPE Fund will conduct research, issue policy papers, and communicate to the public about the crucial issues facing public education today. With Carol’s extensive and exemplary experience as a principal, a teacher, and a writer, she is exactly the right person to lead the NPE Fund at this time.”

Burris had this to say about her new role with NPE:

“We are living in a time of unrelenting attacks on the women and men who have dedicated their life’s work to educating and caring for children. Our youngest students are buckling under the pressure of excessive testing, and our most vulnerable children are unfairly classified as failures. Parents are skeptical of and confused by the Common Core. Profiteers are seeking to capitalize on dissatisfaction and confusion.

“We must now stand together to stop the privatization of our democratically controlled local schools and protect all children’s rightful heritage to a free and equitably funded public education. I am proud to join Ravitch and the members of the NPE in leading that fight.”

And NPE Board Member Dr. Julian Vasquez Heilig added:

“Carol Burris brings the perspective of a life long educator and an important national voice to the position of ED for the NPE C3. I am thrilled to be working with her to connect communities and allies across the nation in the important work for our nation’s children.”

You can read more about this exciting development on our website.

Robin Hiller, who has been NPE’s Executive Director since the organization’s inception in 2012, will stay on as the ED of NPE’s 501C4, which will continue to make political endorsements and “engage in the war of ideas over the future of public education.”

Ravitch lauded Hiller, saying that she has “led the way in building a solid foundation for the growth of NPE as a voice for parents and teachers.”

Please join us in welcoming Carol!

Save the date for #NPE16NC!

Click here to read more about our 3rd Annual Conference, which will feature a keynote address from North Carolina’s own Rev. Barber, the founder of the Moral Mondays movement.

We hope to see you there!

Support The Network for Public Education

The Network for Public Education is an advocacy group whose goal is to fight to protect, preserve and strengthen our public school system, an essential institution in a democratic society.

Over the past two years, donations to The Network for Public Education helped us put on two National Conferences, and the first PUBLIC Education Nation. In the coming year, we will hold more events, and work on the issues that our members and donors care about the most!

To make a donation, go to the NPE website and click the donate button. We accept donations using PayPal, the most trusted site used to make on-line payments.

Categories Education Reform, Network for Public Education, Privatization, Resistance, Standardized Testing

Best Quotes of the Day from Readers

By dianeravitch
August 6, 2015 //
8

From Jon Awbrey, in response to post saying that North Carolina is waging war on public education: Same scenario in all States, mobilized by ALEC-Qaida …

Also from Jon Awbrey: The Kochs resemble MLK, Jr only in that they are True Believers in a particular religion. The difference is, their religion is Moneytheism.

From Regina Roybal: My brother happened to post on facebook today a quote by MLK Jr. on a Bernie Sanders ad I hadn’t heard before but which seems apt: “This country has socialism for the rich, rugged individualism for the poor.”

From Lloyd Lofthouse:

The Koch brothers offer evidence to the sayings that “To know a person watch what they do, not what they say” and “As I grow older, I pay less attention to what men say. I just watch what they do.” – Andrew Carnegie

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.”
― Søren Kierkegaard

Categories Education Reform
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »