Archives for the year of: 2015

The Network for Public Education Action Fund endorses Jason Morris for school board in Néw London, Connecticut.

Jason is the parent of two children in the New London School District. He has spent the last several years working diligently to bring about change in the public schools as a parent activist with a group called the New London Parent Advocates.

When he learned that students in his local elementary school were being punished for not performing on standardized tests or for not taking them because their parents had decided to opt them out, he did something about it. Jason fought for 2 years to ensure that “no student should be punished for either not taking the test or for shutting down from the stress.” And he won.

Jason’s commitment to undoing the harmful impact of standardized testing in our schools in indisputable. He is a strong believer that “authentic, teacher created, progress testing is the only form of testing that can be universally accepted, useful, valuable, and as least harmful as possible.” He is similarly clear that the current overemphasis on testing in our schools is misguided. He stated, “Testing doesn’t bring equity, focusing on equity of resources is where we start.”

Equity is a very clear priority for Jason. Mongi Dhaouadi, a New London parent and founding member of New London Parent Advocates says, “We aren’t the kind of group that just complains, we want to find solutions. Because of his commitment, research skills and passion, Jason has been instrumental to the New London Parent Advocates. He has worked on diversity, restorative justice, and hiring teachers to reduce class size.”

Jason’s restorative justice work, and commitment to ending “zero tolerance” policies, is laudable. As a part of the New London Parent Advocates he presented a report to the Board of Education that clearly showed how such policies disproportionately affect male students of color.

If you live in New London, help Jason Morris. Open the link and you will find his Facebook page. He is a passionate parent advocate who will be a great board member.

New York State’s historic opt out of 2015 was fueled by angry parents on Long Island, the Lower Hudson Valley, and Upstate New York. Parents were angry because Governor Andrew Cuomo bullied a compliant Legislature into passing a state budget that contained a radical, educationally invalid high-stakes testing mandate. Parents, led by the New York State Allies for Public Education  (NYSAPE), knew that upping the weight of testing would hurt the quality of their child’s education, and they rebelled. 

On Long Island, which has some of the best public schools in the state, a group of respected superintendents understood that the state mandates were bad for education, motivated by politics, not by evidence, research, or experience. 

One of the clear-thinking, outspoken superintendents is David Gamberg. He is the superintendent of two adjoining districts on the North Fork, a semi-rural region of farms and vineyards, with Long Island Sound on one side and Peconic Bay on the other. Gamberg is proud of the music and arts in his schools and the gardens where children raise vegetables for the school cafeteria. His vision of good education is diametrically opposed to the testing mandates imposed by the politicians in Albany. 

He and other fearless superintendents on the Island have been holding forums for parents in Nassau and Suffolk counties and plan for another half dozen such public meetings by the end of the year. 

Meanwhile, David Gamberg has been writing a series of articles about “what’s worth fighting for.” This is his latest

Funny to think of David Gamberg as a fighter. He is a gentle, soft-spoken man who loves children and understands education. He knows there are principles, practices, and people “worth fighting for.”

Ohio parents and other supporters of public schools–which enroll the vast majority of the state’s children–convened a conference and came away believing that their revolution has just begun. They are waking up the resistance to the destruction and privatization of public education.

They understand that Ohio schools need change, not privatization. They need equitable funding and fewer mandates. They need experienced teachers who are respected. They need real regulation and oversight of privately managed charters.

They say, “Build It and They Will Come.” They mean build the resistance to the steamrollers launched by John Kasich and his puppet Legislature, and parents will fight for their children and their communities.

I will speak tonight at Wellesley College at 7:30 pm. The event will be live streamed. 

I Will Be Speaking at Wellesley College on Thursday at 7, LiveStreamed

Geoff Decker, writing in Chalkbeat New York City, says the state is asking charter schools to do their best to recruit more students with disabilities and students who are English language learners. The state has set very low targets. For example, New York City charters are supposed to meet a target of 7 percent English language learners, which is only half of the city’s proportion of 14.3 percent.

Why should they have a target of 7 percent when the citywide average is 14 percent?

The state says it will crack down, but not very hard. It will act like a cotton hand in a velvet glove.

Such disparities have been flash points in debates about New York City’s charter schools for years. Lawmakers stepped in five years ago, requiring schools to have targets for enrolling students with disabilities, English language learners, and students from low-income families. The idea was that not making efforts to hit those targets would jeopardize a school’s ability to stay open.

This year, for the first time, schools’ progress toward those goals are being scrutinized. But it appears that state regulators plan to treat the targets as guidelines, not requirements.

“We’re not exactly sure how rigidly we’re going to interpret the targets because there may be some challenges that the schools face,” Joseph Belluck, who chairs the committee that governs SUNY’s Charter Schools Institute, said last week. If a school can’t show it has tried to meet its targets, SUNY will be stricter, he added.

“We hope that they will not say that they’ve done nothing to meet them,” Belluck said. “That would be a problem.”

So here is the scenario. The SUNY Charter Schools Institute will ask charters that enroll only 2 or 3 percent English language learners, have you really truly tried to increase the enrollment of ELLs? The charter operator will say, “Oh, yes, we have certainly tried. We printed flyers in Spanish. We have done our best.” And the case will be closed. No sanctions for non-compliance. And charters will continue to under-enroll the students with the greatest needs without penalty.

Cathy Fuentes-Rower went to the Indiana legislative hearing about the teacher shortage, and she patiently waited seven hours to testify. Cathy is a parent, not a teacher. She was forced to listen to a lineup of “experts” who insisted there was not too much testing, compared to Florida; and there is no teacher shortage, because the superintendents who reported a shortage are biased, and the conservative NCTQ said the data were inconclusive.

When she finally testified, she spoke out boldly.

She said:


I am a mother of four children in public schools.

I know that my children’s learning conditions are their teachers’ working conditions.

This educational environment has become a pressure cooker for our kids and teachers because the legislature has decided that somehow educators weren’t accountable enough. The learning and teaching process has been transformed into a test-taking, data collecting nightmare to somehow prove accountability… at the root of which is an apparent deep distrust of teachers.


We’ve had standardized tests for a long time. But it is what is at stake when the kids take the test now that has transformed their experience.

In the past, standardized tests were just one aspect of an overall assessment of how our kids were doing. We trusted teachers to relay to us how our kids were learning. Now it has become the end-all be-all. If my eleven year-old doesn’t score well on a test, it could affect his teacher’s job, his school’s letter grade, the label on his district, property taxes, and the community as a whole.

This intensity of pressure comes down and lands right on the shoulders of my child.

Who stands between my child and that weight of the world? Buffering him and protecting him from this stress?

His teacher. And for teachers whose students have special needs, live in poverty, or are learning English as a new language, the pressure to perform is tremendous. The consequence is a stigmatizing F on their small heads—or in 3rd grade, flunking.

These policies are not brought about because parents clamored for them. Parents have not been begging for a better school than their neighbor’s child. They’ve been begging for a great school. Period.

Parents want equity. Instead, we get competition.

Competition involves winners and losers. No 6 year-old should be a loser when it comes to educational opportunity.

These recent changes in policy are occurring all over the country. And this is also why the teacher shortage is not unique to Indiana. Bills that have transformed our kids’ learning environment into a pressure cooker are all from the same source: ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council). The goal of this organization is to create more competition in education and to privatize it. There is even an Indiana Reform Package of model legislation on the ALEC website touting our reforms. Our governor has written the introduction to the ALEC report card on American Education. Many members of our education committee are or were ALEC members. In fact, you, Rep. Behning, our house education committee chair, were the ALEC chairperson for Indiana for several years.

The A-F grading of schools, teachers’ loss of voice in advocating for kids through the loss of collective bargaining, the draconian 3rd grade reading law, vouchers and charters creating a competition for funding, a developmentally inappropriate 90 minute block of literacy instruction, these are all ALEC laws. They were not backed by research of what are best practices in teaching. They were not created by teachers. Parents do not want this obsession with data.

We want funding for our public schools such that all children have smaller class sizes for individualized instruction. We want WHOLE CHILD accountability for our teachers and our schools. That means research-backed education. Kids learn through play. Are they getting recess? Kids need to have time to follow their interests and do hands-on projects. Are they getting the broad curriculum and what is NOT on the test: social studies and science? Many of these things are being squeezed out for test prep. Do our high schoolers have extracurricular activities—things that keep them connected and wanting to go to school?

We want our teachers to be paid as the professionals that they are and to have more time for teaching and less for testing. You cannot reduce the time on testing if you don’t reduce the stakes attached to it.

We want a multi-measure evaluation of teaching and success.

You cannot say you respect teachers when every single thing they do is micromanaged by having to prove themselves with data. You cannot quantify joy, creativity and critical thinking. My children are not numbers.

They are unique human beings who are learning and growing. I don’t want my eleven year-old college and career-ready because he is a child. I don’t want him to have pressures to perform like an adult, because he is not one. His teachers know how to give him that childhood, they know what is developmentally appropriate for him, AND research (yes data!) shows that giving him these learning experiences will ensure that when the time comes, he will be ready to take his part in our society and our democracy.

So let teachers do their jobs. The best way to do this is to give them a voice, allow them to create policy, not business people and legislators who know nothing about it. Certainly not ALEC backers who make money off of it.

There is nothing more precious to me in this world than my children and every day I entrust them to the care of their teachers. I care more about what they tell me regarding my kids’ education than I do about any stinking ISTEP score. This is because they are the professionals. I trust them to do their jobs.

If you truly support teachers, you will, too.

Thank you.

Cathy Fuentes-Rohwer

NPE Action Fund endorses Jason France for election to the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

The Network for Public Education is proud to endorse Jason France for Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE), District 6. Jason France, also know as the education blogger Crazy Crawfish, is a former Louisiana Department of Education employee, a public education activist, and the parent of two Baton Rouge public school students.

Jason is running for Louisiana BESE to “remove the outside influence of corporations and the federal government (and their phony education surrogates) to allow parents and educators the freedom and final say over the education of their children.”

France is running for the seat currently occupied by BESE President Chas Roemer. Roemer is the son of former Louisiana governor Buddy Roemer – he has never attended public school, and his children don’t attend public school. He has been a champion of “charter schools, Common Core, test-based evaluations for schools and teachers and Education Superintendent John White,” according to the Times-Picayune. Roemer is a classic example of the privileged few making decisions for other people’s children.

The next BESE Board will have a crucially important to role to play in the future of public education in Louisiana. The next board will decide to keep or fire controversial reformster State Superintendent John White, who has stated a desire to stay in the position. A flip in District 6 would mean the potential for real change for students and teachers in Louisiana.

NPE is certain Jason France is just the candidate to help bring about the kind of revolutionary change needed in Louisiana. Please visit Jason’s campaign website to learn more about his policy positions on issues such as Charters, Common Core, Testing, VAM, and Student Privacy. You can also read the most recent post on his blog, which is a direct appeal to the voters of Louisiana.

PBS NewsHour Clarification | Press | PBS NewsHour
 

 

PBS NewsHour Clarification | Press | PBS NewsHour

On October 12, 2015, the PBS NewsHour aired a report from veteran education reporter John Merrow, based on nearly a year of reporting, about suspension pol

View on http://www.pbs.org

Preview by Yahoo

 
PBS NewsHour Clarification
October 20, 2015 at 5:56 PM EDT
On October 12, 2015, the PBS NewsHour aired a report from veteran education reporter John Merrow, based on nearly a year of reporting, about suspension policies of young children and one successful charter school network in New York City. The NewsHour stands by the report. 
However, the CEO of Success Academy, Eva Moskowitz, has since raised objections to two specific issues in Mr. Merrow’s report. She protests that she was not given the opportunity to respond to one family’s comments in the story and she asserts that Mr. Merrow’s reporting about attrition rates is incorrect.
Mr. Merrow’s report was not about any particular child, but about suspension policy. The reporting included conversations with nearly a dozen families about their young children’s suspensions from Success Academy, as well as other sources, including one within Success Academy. Most of these sources were unwilling to go on camera. 
In their interview Mr. Merrow asked Ms. Moskowitz for her response to the information he had gathered from these sources, and she was given ample time to respond.
Only one family was willing to talk on camera, but the mother was not willing to allow Success Academy to release her son’s school records. Ms. Moskowitz should have been given a chance to respond to this family’s comments. The NewsHour regrets that decision.
Ms. Moskowitz also disputes Mr. Merrow’s reporting on Success Academy’s attrition rate. This is a complicated area because charter schools, including Success Academy Charter Schools, calculate attrition differently. Mr. Merrow addressed these disparities by comparing similar time frames and methods for calculating attrition. He used both public numbers and internal documents to calculate a comparison of attrition rates. 
One of the charter schools in the report calculates attrition by the names of individual children over a 365-day calendar year, from the beginning of one school year to the beginning of the next school year. Success Academy’s data is based on the number of children over the school year, not the calendar year. Mr. Merrow reconciled those numbers fairly and thoroughly.
The fundamental point of Mr. Merrow’s report is about the policy of suspensions of young children. It accurately documents that Success Academy suspends students as young as five- and six-year olds at a greater rate than many other schools, which Ms. Moskowitz does not dispute. Mr. Merrow’s report also explains that Success Academy Charter Schools are achieving superior academic results and are popular among New York area families. 
While the NewsHour regrets the decision to include that particular mother and child without providing Ms. Moskowitz with an opportunity to respond, the NewsHour stands by the report.

John Merrow’s PBS segment about suspensions of 5- and 6-year old children at Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy created quite a stir.

Eva was outraged by Merrow’s interview, even though he said some very positive things about her schools, pointing to very high test scores, parent satisfaction, and the arts.

What outraged her was Merrow’s focus on suspensions, especially his on-camera interview of a child who had left Success Academy after multiple suspensions, as well as his mother.

Eva responded with a long angry letter, revealing in full detail the disciplinary record of the boy and demanding an apology to her from PBS and Merrow. She called boy “John Doe” but his name and face were on PBS.

Jersey Jazzman was shocked that Eva had released the boy’s confidential records. Doing so without the written permission of his parent violates the federal student privacy law called FERPA.

He writes:

“I’m not a lawyer so I can’t offer an opinion as to whether FERPA was violated here. But even if it was, there’s probably not any recourse for the parent under federal law: the worst that could happen is that SA could be denied federal funds.

“Something tells me that a school that can raise over $9 million in one night isn’t going to worry too much about that…

“But whether the law was broken isn’t even the most important issue here. What Moskowitz did was an inexcusable lapse of judgment. Eva Moskowitz has put her need to protect her brand over the privacy of a child who, by her own account, has challenges in a school setting.

“This is yet another problem with the “market reform” theory of education. How much money does any corporation spend to maintain its public image? How hard will they fight if they perceive that image is being threatened? How little reluctance do they show to go after a critic of their company or their products?

“Schools, however, are not corporations (at least, not yet). Parent complaints are not threats to a brand; they are advocacy for a child. I’m not at all suggesting that school leaders don’t have the right to defend themselves, either in court or in public. But it would have been more than enough for Moskowitz to say: “We dispute these allegations; however, we will not discuss any individual case publicly, as all parents and children have a right to privacy in school.”

“Not only would this have been less questionable legally and ethically: I’d wager it would have been better for Moskowitz in the eyes of the public. Her attacks on this boy — and that’s exactly what they are — come off to me as petty, unthinking, and, worst of all, cold. And I can’t believe I’m the only one who feels this way.

“It’s very strange that a woman who has worked so hard to cultivate her public image is willing to risk having it trashed just so she can win a PR fight with a 10-year-old boy. She must think the stakes are very high.

“And that’s the problem.”

Leo Casey, executive director of the Albert Shanker Institute, notes that numerous authorities warn about the adverse effects of suspending students from school. He notes that Eva Moskowitz, by contrast, believes that suspending students teaches them important lessons and makes it less likely that they will need to be suspended in the future. She belittles the New York City public schools for reducing suspensions.

Casey compares the suspensions that Success Academy charter schools reported to the U.S. Department of Education to the suspensions that SA reported to the New York State Department of Education and finds that the reported rates are different.

Here is the executive summary of the Shanker Institute report:

Success Academy Charter School CEO Eva Moskowitz has taken up the issue of school discipline recently, defending the practices in her own schools and criticizing the efforts to reform student discipline in the New York City public schools. A close inspection of available data shows that: first, Success Academy has misrepresented its suspensions to the U.S. Education Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection, reporting only two suspensions while reporting hundreds of suspensions to the New York State Education Department; second, that when students of the same age groups are compared, Success Academy charter schools suspend their students at roughly seven times the rate of New York City public schools; and third, that the suspended students are overwhelmingly African American and Latino. Moskowitz’s attacks on New York City public schools reform efforts is designed as a shot across the bow of the U.S. Education Department and U.S. Justice Department, which has advised that excessive suspensions of students of color is a violation of U.S. civil rights law.

Moskowitz defends suspensions as a valid disciplinary tool and mocks the public schools for minimizing suspensions:

The New York City public school policies that Moskowitz derides are part of a national reform effort, inspired by a body of research showing that overly punitive disciplinary policies are ineffective and discriminatory. Based on this research evidence, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychological Association and School Discipline Consensus Project of the Council of State Governments have all gone on record on the harmful effects of employing such policies. The U.S. Education Department, the U.S. Justice Department, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, consortia of researchers, national foundations, and the Dignity in Schools advocacy coalition have all examined the state of student discipline in America’s schools in light of this research.1

Their findings? Suspensions and expulsions, the most severe forms of school discipline, are being used excessively in American schools, often for such minor infractions such as “talking back” or being out of uniform. Further, these severe punishments are being applied disproportionality to students of color, especially African-American and Latino boys, students with disabilities and LGBT youth.

As a result of these data, the U.S. Education Department and U.S. Justice Department issued guidance to schools, based on their finding that discriminatory uses of suspensions and expulsions were in violation of Title IV and Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Since this guidance came from the federal agencies that are charged with the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act, it added the force of the law to the powerful moral arguments for addressing the problem of discriminatory discipline. School districts and schools, public and charter, took notice. The more progressive minded, such as the new de Blasio administration of the New York City Department of Education, began to reform their disciplinary practices in accord with these regulations. As a consequence, the suspensions and expulsions from New York City’s public schools have been dramatically reduced.

It will be interesting to see if the new Secretary of Education John King, himself a leader in the “no-excuses” charter movement, will require Success Academy charters to abide by Title IV and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.