Archives for category: Honor Roll

I received an email from Stephen Earley, an elementary school principal in Vermont. He reminds us that the state of Vermont decided not to request an NCLB waiver. It wasn’t because Vermont likes NCLB but because the state education commissioner realized that Arne Duncan’s mandates are no better than those in NCLB.

Because the state of Vermont rejected the waiver and showed independence and critical thinking, Vermont is the first state to join our honor roll.

The honor roll is the place we recognize individuals, school boards, PTAs, districts and now a state because they support public education.

Here is Stephen Earley’s comment:

The state of Vermont withdrew its NCLB waiver request because the state refused to compromise its beliefs about what is best for children. This statement came from the Commissioner’s office at the time:

****

“However as the Vermont Department of Education has continued to negotiate for the flexibility that was promised since we started in August, it has become clear that the USED is interested in simply replacing one punitive, prescriptive model of accountability with another.

The term “flexibility” is a misnomer. Two of the more heavy handed methods the USED is still insisting on are using a single test to determine accountability, and using that test to represent a majority of a teacher’s evaluation.

We cannot continue to expend energy requesting a detailed accountability system that looks less and less like what we want for Vermont. We do not have confidence that the requirements we are being asked to meet is the formula for success. We want to move forward towards a system that is better for our schools, our educators, and most importantly, our students.”

****
The state consistently has some of the best scores on the NAEP exam, but over 70% of its schools are not meeting AYP standards now, in part because they never lowered the cutoff on the test as other states have. With such a high percentage of schools not making AYP, it might have made sense to some to jump through all of the Feds’ hoops and proceed with the waiver process. But the state board of education saw what was being demanded, and saw how harmful it would be, and ultimately (and unanimously) said no.

In addition, the state’s high-stakes test is given during the first week of October, which means that test prep and cramming are kept to a minimum, and what is emphasized is actual knowledge that can be retained over the summer.

Carolyn Hill ran for a seat on the Louisiana state education board as a reformer. But after she assumed office, she realized that “reform” was intended to privatize the public schools, not improve them.

For having the wisdom and courage to see beyond the rhetoric; for speaking out and acting on behalf of children and educators, Carolyn Hill joins our honor roll as a hero of public education.

Commentary: In Louisiana, trickery is disguised as school reform

As a member of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, I am writing to express my disappointment in the deceptive practices that are being used to disparage our traditional schools and educators.

I ran for the BESE position because I wanted to be an integral part of reforming schools in Louisiana. My campaign was based on reform. Shortly after being elected to the state board, I realized what is being offered up as reform is nothing more than trickery.

I am reminded of the biblical story relating to Adam and Eve. God warned Adam not to eat of the forbidden fruit; yet, Eve manipulated Adam and evil arose from the eating of this fruit. I use this example to inform my constituents and the public that everything that glistens isn’t gold. Many so-called reformers are trashing traditional public schools while many parents are facing real discrimination.

Choice is being sold to many parents as the silver bullet. However, many parents have reported their concerns and confusion regarding the responses they have received. Some students are being denied access to schools of their choice. I want to appeal to parents to exercise caution with their choice options. The virtual learning opportunities, if not monitored, may have far reaching implications regarding student success. Be wise and proactive in your choice decisions and don’t accept less than was promised.

I recall growing up and revering the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King. However, as an African-American, I am concerned that there is silence regarding the future of our children. Where are our leaders? Why do we want out-of-state vendors to come to Louisiana to educate our children? Where are the standards? Why do we promote certification in traditional schools and don’t require the same standards for charter schools? Why are we operating under different standards? Why does a state Board of Education and Legislature make a distinction between education providers? Why would any board of education not require certification and testing when education is all about the attainment of standards?

I did campaign on education reform — responsible reform — where there is an equitable playing field. The education reform that exists in Louisiana today consists of irresponsible education policies and laws. Again, I am saddened that many have forgotten the struggles of King and others who have taken a stand for all people.

Are we going to abandon this legacy?

I am also reminded of all the elected officials who were in opposition to the education reform legislation during this past legislative session. I want to say thank you. I also say we must not abandon our responsibilities. We must rise to be the voices for our children, parents, and educators. If we don’t stand openly and vocally for our children, then it may be said we are as guilty as if we had eaten of the forbidden fruit.

—Carolyn Hill is the District 8 member of the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education.

No one has been more active in opposing untested evaluation methods than high school principal Carol Burris.

Burris was a key figure in organizing New York principals to oppose the state’s test-based evaluation system, which has never been validated or worked anywhere.

Burris has written articles frequently. She is tireless.

I visited her school, South Side High School in Rockville Center, Long Island. It is an excellent and beloved community school that serves all the children of the community. it has no tracking. It has a strong IB program.

Carol went to the first public hearing of the Cuomo commission, but was not allowed to speak. When the commission held hearings on Long Island, she got her chance. She got a standing ovation.

Please read her testimony.

I asked readers to tell me about good school districts that manage to offer a good education despite the testing mania. This reader in Tacoma explains what is happening there.

I am adding Tacoma, Washington, to the honor roll because it is an exemplar of good public education:

In Tacoma Public Schools, some schools do better than others, but overall I think we’ve done as best we can to follow the laws while also ensuring that the students are well-served. We are innovative. We have a high school extended day program modeled after the Harlem Children’s Zone program. We have a School of the Arts, a Science and Math Academy, and two Montessori programs (1 that’s K-8 and 1 that’s K-5). We have an arts focused elementary school, IB high school and middle school, and AP options in all 5 high schools. We have middle and high school sports programs and after school clubs in all levels. We do what charter schools propose but we include ALL students – SpEd, ESL, 504, everyone.

We still give the tests mandated by the state and it does take a great deal of instructional time, but rather than teach to the test, we focus on AVID (Advancement Via Individual Determination) strategies throughout the district so that students learn both the skills to succeed in any subject area and the subject area content necessary to progress to higher level.

Our state is fighting a charter school initiative for the fourth time. I suspect (strongly hope?) that it won’t pass. Kevin Johnson came to speak and while the Tacoma mayor was there to support him, only about 100 people showed up and many of them just came to see a former NBA player and didn’t even stay for the whole show. Our district has proven we can be innovative, get results, keep kids in school and do it all without charter schools as an option.

There is this superintendent in a small district in Texas who is brilliant. His name is John Kuhn. He speaks like a giant. He writes like a dream. He says what teachers everywhere are saying, and he says it better than anyone I know.

Read this and thank John Kuhn for being a hero of public education, a hero of teachers, and a hero of students.

I hereby place the Niagara (NY) PTA on our honor roll. They are heroes of public education. They stood up for their children, their teachers, their principals, and their local schools.

These smart, independent, thoughtful parents passed an excellent resolution against high-stakes testing and against the state’s untried educator evaluation system, created hurriedly to justify Race to the Top requirements.

Many other PTAs are considering following the lead of the Niagara PTA.

This is democracy at work!

This is the American people telling the state officials, stop the misuse of testing. Stop ruining the education of our children. Stop demoralizing our teachers.

Here is a clear example where an upstate PTA makes more sense than the New York State Board of Regents or the New York State Education Department.

Here is the resolution written and adopted by the Niagara PTA:

Parent Teacher Association Resolution
November 16, 2012
Niagara Region Parent Teacher Association

Background:

There is now more than two decades of scientific research demonstrating that high-stakes testing regimes yield unreliable measures of student learning. Such tests cannot serve as a basis for determining teacher effectiveness. In fact, scientific research shows that high-stakes testing lowers the quality of education. Some of the documented harmful outcomes of high-stakes testing are: “teaching to the test”; narrowed curriculum opportunities; increased emotional distress among children and increased “drop outs”; corruption; the marginalization of both very high performing students and students with special needs; an overall lowering of standards and disregard for individual difference, critical thinking and human creativity. Thus, high-stakes testing has been proven to be an ineffective tool for preparing students for the 21st century.

The intent of this resolution is to ask the State Education Department to suspend its testing program until such time as it can create a new one that reliably measures educational progress without harming children and lowering the quality of education. We need a testing program that helps students and schools, not harms them.

Rationale for Submitting as an Emergency Resolution:

All of the following developments have occurred since April 15, 2012:

• In April, 2012, the New York State Education Department’s testing program’s relationship with Pearson, Inc. produced assessments that were judged by psychometricians, practitioners, parents, and students to be demonstrably flawed instruments, incapable of measuring student learning or teacher effectiveness.
• The New York State Education Department has published numerous memoranda and documents related to assessment and the Common Core Learning Standards, each of which add layers of unprecedented bureaucracy and great uncertainty, proving that there are many aspects of implementation, and the consequences of implementation, that NYSED can’t manage without causing great damage to our schools.
• The research of Walter Troup, of the University of Texas, and others, has demonstrated that the methodology used by Pearson to create the New York State assessments renders them “virtually useless at measuring the effects of classroom instruction” (New York Times, July 28, 2012).
• The United States Department of Education has granted the New York State Education Department a waiver from the requirements of No Child Left Behind (May 29, 2012), which technically lifts the federal testing mandate in grades 3 – 8. Finally, school districts have been informed as recently as September 19, 2012, that more field testing is necessary this October, requiring more testing and less learning.
• As of September, 2012, the curriculum associated with the Common Core Learning Standards still has not yet been fully developed (NYSED continues to ask vendors to write is curriculum modules), nor has it been has not been implemented fully in any part of the United States or New York State so that it’s effects on students can be measured or researched.
• To date, there has been no trial or testing to verify effectiveness of this student testing and teacher evaluation system, and no research to show that holding students or teachers accountable to the Common Core Learning Standards has been proven to increase the effectiveness of either.
• The Chicago teacher’s strike was a crisis that was primarily focused on the inappropriate role of standardized testing in evaluating students and linking these tests to teacher annual professional performance reviews. We should be aware of the very real possibility that the numerous controversies, implementation issues, and confusion may well cause considerable disruptions to the important work of educating our children.
• Why would we spend millions of dollars and subject children to another year of emotional distress when it has been determined that these high stakes tests yield no useful information?

Therefore we submit the following resolution:

1. WHEREAS, dating back to 1865, the New York State assessment program was historically a successful collaborative effort involving teachers, administrators and college and university faculty resulting in assessments that measured the efficacy of locally developed curricula in helping students meet state learning standards and yielded data that informed teaching and learning; and, the future well-being of each community in New York State relies on a high-quality public education system that prepares all students for college, careers, citizenship and lifelong learning, and strengthens the nation’s social and economic well-being; and

2. WHEREAS, the New York State PTA supports the health and well being of all children, and has voiced its concern regarding government over reliance on testing, stating that it has “tipped the balance of objectives, tasks, and assessments heavily toward standardized tests” resulting in consequences that can have a “profound impact on students, schools, and the community”, including subjecting students to “drill and kill” test preparation and less focus on curricular areas likely to develop the “whole child”; and

3. WHEREAS, when parents were asked about the high-stakes standardized testing and its negative effects for students from all backgrounds, and especially for low-income students, English language learners, children of color, and those with disabilities in a recent survey of 8,000 parents in New York State, it was found that 75% reported that their child was more anxious in the month before a test, and 80% reported that test preparation prevented their child from engaging in meaningful school activities. Sixty five percent of parents felt that too much time was devoted to test preparation, and 87% of them believed that too much time was being devoted to standardized testing. Ninety five percent of parents were opposed to increasing the number and length of tests causing many informed families to “opt out” of all New York State assessments; and

4. WHEREAS, all schools and school districts in New York State have been spending growing amounts of time, money and energy on high-stakes standardized testing to comply with state and federal accountability systems, in which student performance on standardized tests is inappropriately used to measure individual student progress and teacher effectiveness, which undermines educational quality and equity in U.S. public schools by hampering educators’ efforts to focus on the broad range of learning experiences that promote the innovation, creativity, problem solving, collaboration, communication, critical thinking and deep subject-matter knowledge that will allow students to thrive in a democracy and an increasingly global society and economy; and

5. WHEREAS, it is widely recognized that standardized testing, in particular the New York State assessments developed by Pearson, Inc. and administered to children in grades 3 – 8 in April of 2012, provided no data that will help teachers improve their instruction for children, and were judged by assessment experts, school administrators, teachers, and families to be invalid and unreliable instruments to judge student learning or teacher performance, and are damaging the culture and structure of the systems in which students learn, including narrowing the curriculum, teaching to the test, reducing love of learning, pushing students out of school, driving excellent teachers out of the profession, inhibiting the ability of schools to foster engaging school experiences that promote joy in learning, depth of thought and breadth of knowledge for students necessary for student success; and

therefore be it

RESOLVED, that the New York State Parent Teacher Association calls on Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, the Board of Regents of the State University of New York, and Dr. John B. King, Jr., Commissioner of the State Education Department to enact a moratorium on policies that force New York State public schools to rely on high-stakes testing due to the fact that there is no convincing evidence that the pressure associated with high-stakes testing leads to any important benefits to student achievement; and be it

RESOLVED, that the New York State Parent Teacher Association calls on Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, the Board of Regents of the State University of New York, and Dr. John B. King, Jr., Commissioner of the State Education Department to end its agreement with Pearson, Inc. and return to the inclusive practice of assessment design that included teachers and administrators, and engaged the college and university academic community, resulting in the development of tests that effectively measured each district’s progress in helping students meet state standards using their own locally developed curricula and will provide practitioners with data that can be used to improve teaching and learning; and be it

RESOLVED, that the New York State Parent Teacher Association calls on Andrew Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York, the New York State Senate and Assembly and Dr. John B. King, Jr., Commissioner of the State Education Department to eliminate the requirement that 40 % of teacher and principal evaluations be based on New York State Assessments and an impractical and unproven Student Learning Objective(SLO) testing model, to develop a system of Annual Professional Performance Review which does not require extensive standardized testing, and requires districts to document that their Annual Professional Performance Review Process assesses the progress of each teacher in meeting the New York State Teaching Standards using multiple measures of teaching performance.

-END-
CONCLUSION : Given the Mission and purpose of the PTA which clearly states that the PTA is: “A powerful voice for all children, a relevant resource for families and communities, and a strong advocate for the education and well-being of every child.” We believe it is our duty and responsibility to be a voice and advocate for our children and our schools.
REFERENCES
For a general overview of standardized testing technology and the issues associated with high-stakes testing, See Daniel Koretz, Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008; and George Madaus, Michael K. Russell, and Jennifer Higgins, The Paradoxes of High-stakes Testing: How They Affect Students, Their Parents, Teachers, Principals, Schools, and Society. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Pub., 2009.

The following studies and research briefs caution against using student test scores to evaluate teachers: Peter Schochet and Hanley S. Chiang, Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains. U.S Department of Education (NCEE 2010-4004), July 2010. Available online: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/pdf/20104004.pdf; Tim Sass, “The Stability of Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality and Implications for Teacher Compensation Policy.” In Brief 4. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, November 2008. Available online: http://www.urban.org/publications/1001266.html; the following report represents the views of nationally leading education experts: Eva Baker et al. “Problems with the Use of Student Test Scores to Evaluate Teachers.” Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute, August 29, 2010. Available online: http://www.epi.org/publication/bp278/. Note as well the letter sent by the National Research Council to the U.S. Department of Education warning it about the limits of so-called “value-added measures” of teacher effectiveness. See: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12780#

For a general overview of the relationship between high-stakes testing and corruption, see Sharon Nichols, Sharon Lynn, and David C. Berliner, Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2007.

Research continues to draw a link between dropping out of school and high-stakes testing, see: Elizabeth Glennie, Kara Bonneau, Michelle Vandellen, and Kenneth A. Dodge, “Addition by Subtraction: The Relation Between Dropout Rates and School-Level Academic Achievement.” Teachers College Record 114, no. 8 (2012): 1-26., and Martin Carnoy, “Have State Accountability and High-Stakes Tests Influenced Student Progression Rates in High School?”, Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 24, no. 4 (2005): 19-31. That high-stakes testing lowers the quality of instruction and narrows the curriculum to what is tested has long been documented, see, for example, Linda McNeil’s, Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing. New York: Routledge, 2000; Recent research on high-stakes testing and gifted students is reviewed here: Tonya Moon, “Myth 16: High-Stakes Tests Are Synonymous With Rigor and Difficulty,” Gifted Child Quarterly 53, no. 4 (2009): 277-279.

Recent work continues to reveal a limited relationship between test scores and economic performance, e.g., Henry Levin, “More Than Just Test Scores,” Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 137 August 20012. Available online at http://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/more-than-just-test-scores-sept2012-2.pdf

A growing body of research documents the role of high-stakes testing in causing teachers to leave the field. See for example, Daniel Sass, Belinda Flores, Lorena Claeys, and Bertha Pérez, “Identifying Personal and Contextual Factors that Contribute to Attrition Rates for Texas Public School Teachers.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 20, no. 15 (2012): 1-25.

See: David Berliner, “Our Impoverished View of Educational Reform,” Teachers College Record 108, no. 6 (2006): 949-95.

WHEREAS 2

• NYS PTA Where We Stand Position Paper on Standards, Testing and the Whole Child
• Recent work continues to reveal a limited relationship between test scores and economic performance, e.g., Henry Levin, “More Than Just Test Scores,” Prospects: Quarterly Review of Comparative Education, 137 August 2012. Available online at http://roundtheinkwell.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/more-than-just-test-scores-sept2012-2.pdf
• For a general overview of the relationship between high-stakes testing and corruption, see Sharon Nichols, Sharon Lynn, and David C. Berliner, Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press, 2007.

WHEREAS 3

http://www.fairtest.org/sites/default/files/HowTestsDamageEd.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/what-parents-say-testing-is-doing-to-their-kids/2012/05/30/gJQABJCz2U_blog.html
• Research Regarding Test Anxiety:
• Ryan, K. E., Ryan, A. M., Arbuthnot, K., & Samuels, M. (2007). Students’ motivation for standardized math exams. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 5-13.

• Zohar, D. (1998). An additive model of test anxiety: Role of exam-specific expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 330-340.

• Jones, M., Jones, B. D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203.

• Carter, E. W., Wehby, J., Hughes, C., Johnson, S. M., Plank, D. R., Barton-Arwood, S. M., & Lunsford, L. B. (2005). Preparing adolescents with high-incidence disabilities for high-stakes testing with strategy instruction. Preventing School Failure, 49(2), 55-62.

• Paris, S. G. (2000). Trojan horse in the schoolyard. Issues In Education, 6(1/2), 1.
WHEREAS 4

• For a general overview of standardized testing technology and the issues associated with high-stakes testing, See Daniel Koretz, Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008; and George Madaus, Michael K. Russell, and Jennifer Higgins, The Paradoxes of High-stakes Testing: How They Affect Students, Their Parents, Teachers, Principals, Schools, and Society. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Pub., 2009.
http://www.mcte.org/journal/mej07/3Henry.pdf
• Baines, L. A., & Stanley, G. (2004). High-stakes hustle: Public schools and the new billion dollar accountability. Educational Forum, The, 69(1), 8-15.
• Behrent, M. (2009). Reclaiming our freedom to teach: Education reform in the Obama era. Harvard Educational Review, 79(2), 240-246.
• Johnson, D. D., & Johnson, B. (2002). High stakes: Children, testing, and failure in American schools. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Keefe, J. W., & Jenkins, J. M. (2005). Personalized instruction. Phi Delta Kappa Fastbacks, 1-2, 7-49
• Popham,James,W (2001), The Truth about Testing, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development,Alexandria, VA

WHEREAS 5

• The following studies and research briefs caution against using student test scores to evaluate teachers: Peter Schochet and Hanley S. Chiang, Error Rates in Measuring Teacher and School Performance Based on Student Test Score Gains. U.S Department of Education (NCEE 2010-4004), July 2010. Available online: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104004/pdf/20104004.pdf; Tim Sass, “The Stability of Value-Added Measures of Teacher Quality and Implications for Teacher Compensation Policy.” In Brief 4. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, November 2008. Available online:

• A growing body of research documents the role of high-stakes testing in causing teachers to leave the field. See for example, Daniel Sass, Belinda Flores, Lorena Claeys, and Bertha Pérez, “Identifying Personal and Contextual Factors that Contribute to Attrition Rates for Texas Public School Teachers.” Education Policy Analysis Archives 20, no. 15 (2012): 1-25.

• Barksdale-Ladd, M., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5-), 384-97.
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.niagara.edu/ps/retrieve.do?sgHitCountType=None&sort=DA-SORT&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=nysl_we_niagarau&tabID=T002&searchId=R1&resultListType=RESULT_LIST&contentSegment=&searchType=AdvancedSearchForm&currentPosition=1&contentSet=GALE|A66664668&&docId=GALE|A66664668&docType=GALE&role=&docLevel=FULLTEXT

• Baines, L.A., & Stanley, G.K. (2004). High-stakes hustle: Public schools and the new billion dollar accountability. The Educational Forum, 69(1), 8-15.
• Berliner, D. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287.
• Bracey, Gerald,W (2002) ,The War Against America’s Public Schools, Allyn & Bacon A Pearson Company,Boston MA

• Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605-622.
http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.niagara.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=9&hid=126&sid=3abc620f-8a26-4b3f-a827-9efd52fc6e45%40sessionmgr113

• McNeil, L., Coppola, E., Radigan, J., & Heilig, J. (2008). Avoidable Losses: High-Stakes Accountability and the Dropout Crisis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(3), 1-48.

Click to access EJ800872.pdf

Matthew Farmer is a parent in the Chicago public school system. He is an articulate lawyer who understands that the children of Chicago have been shortchanged by the city’s leadership.

He is fearless in defending the teachers, defending the children of Chicago, and standing up for better public schools.

You may recall his outstanding cross-examination of the billionaire member of the Chicago Board of education (in absentia).

Matthew Farmer is a hero of public education.

Farmer took offense when Michelle Rhee inserted herself into the Chicago strike issue and sided with Mayor Rahm Emanuel against the teachers’ union.

The strike gave her a new opportunity to lament the woes of American education and blame it on the teachers and their unions.

Matthew Farmer was having none of it. Who is for the children of Chicago, he asks. Who was fighting for smaller classes? Who was on the side of the children, including Matthew Farmer’s?

Not Michelle Rhee. The real object of her article was to drive a wedge between the Democratic Party and labor unions. She would like nothing better, as she makes clear, than to sever any connection between organized labor and Democrats. Odd that she cares, since most of her campaign efforts and public relations have gone to benefit conservative Republican governors.

Darcie Cimarusti is a hero of public education. As a parent of young children in the fine public schools of New Jersey, she became alarmed when a charter planned to open in her community. She knew that the charter would divide the community and undercut the public schools.

This is her story. She joins the honor roll of heroes.

She became an active crusader to defend public education in New Jersey. She has her own blog “Mother Crusader,” she writes letters to the editor, she testifies at hearings, she organizes other parents. She is a champion. With a mother crusader in every community, we could win the fight about big money.

Several readers, including parents in this district, have sent me a copy of this letter written by Don Sternberg of Wantagh Elementary School in Long Island, New York.

Sternberg wrote a letter to the school’s parents at the start of the school year telling them about how the politicians and bureaucrats at Albany were messing up their child’s education.

He wrote:

What we will be teaching students is to be effective test takers; a skill that does not necessarily translate into critical thinking – a skill set that is necessary at the college level and beyond. This will inevitably conflict with authentic educational practice – true teaching.
Unfortunately, if educators want to survive in the new, Albany-created bureaucratic mess that is standardized assessments to measure teacher performance, paramount to anything else, we must focus on getting kids ready for the state assessments. This is what happens when non-educators like our governor and state legislators, textbook publishing companies (who create the assessments for our state and reap millions of our tax dollars by doing so), our NYS Board of Regents, and a state teachers’ union president get involved in creating what they perceive as desirable educational outcomes and decide how to achieve and measure them. Where were the opinions of teachers, principals, and superintendents? None were asked to participate in the establishment of our new state assessment parameters. Today, statisticians are making educational decisions in New York State that will impact your children for years to come.

Standardized assessment has grown exponentially. For example, last year New York State fourth graders, who are nine or ten years old, were subjected to roughly 675 minutes (over 11 hours) of state assessments which does not include state field testing. This year there will be a state mandated pre-test in September and a second mandated pre-test in January for all kindergarten through fifth grade students in school. In April, kindergarten through fifth grade students will take the last test [assessment] for the year.

Excessive testing is unhealthy. When I went to school I was never over-tested and subsequently labeled with an insidious number that ranked or placed me at a Level 1, Level 2, Level 3 or Level 4 as we do today. Do you want your child to know their assigned ‘Level’? What would the impact be on their self-esteem and self-worth at such a young age?

Inevitably, he said, teachers would look at students as more or less desirable because what the students do will affect the teachers’ evaluation scores.

He urged parents to do their part, but he laid the blame for this massive distortion of educational purpose where it belongs: on the State Commissioner of Education, the Governor, and the Legislature.

The new system is a mess. It is an outrage. It is a crime against education and against children. Parents need to know what the state (and federal government) is doing to their children. They need to know how good schools and good teachers are being demoralized.

Donald Sternberg is a hero of public education. He joins our honor roll.

If every principal explained to the parents what the state is doing to their children and the harm being inflicted on them, we would turn this nation’s failed corporate education policies around and let our educators educate.

When writing about Richard Rothstein, I scarcely know where to begin.

He has written several major books. Anyone who wants to understand the challenge of poverty in our society must read Rothstein’s seminal work, Class and Schools.

He was responsible for drafting the EPI paper that brought together nearly a dozen scholars to explain why value-added assessment–or judging teachers by student test scores–was riddled with problems.

I got to know Richard many years ago when he wrote a regular column for the New York Times. We used to meet and disagree, but he never lost his cool, and he never stopped trying to explain patiently why I was wrong. Over time, I discovered, he was right on almost everything about which we had disagreed.

He understands the importance of public education. He objects when people defame public education, especially when they have no facts. If you want to get a flavor of his careful, thoughtful, judicious approach to issues, read this response to Bill Gates’ claim that educational achievement has been flat for many years. Richard Rothstein refuted what he said with clear and persuasive evidence.

For his courage, for his intelligence, for his dedication to democratic ideals, Richard Rothstein joins our honor roll as a hero of American public education.