Archives for category: New Jersey

Jersey Jazzman notes that Governor Chris Christie is back with his favorite lines, ridiculing teachers for being overpaid and underworked.

That means, of course, that he is running for re-election and who better to kick around that the state’s teachers?

Here is Christie:

“[NJ Governor Chris] Christie said parents must stand up to organizations who he said care more about pensions, wage increases, generous benefits packages and summers off than about extending quality education to all students.”

And more: “The governor told a friendly Bergenfield crowd Tuesday that Garden State students are in need of more hours in the classroom and longer school years in order to stay competitive. Christie blamed special interests with blocking those changes for purely their own personal interests.

They don’t want a longer school year, they like having the summer off,” said Christie, referring to the adults – not the students – who he accuses of blocking the reforms.
Christie argued longer school days and years are needed to ensure students are educated.”
JJ points out that “Of course, teachers do not get “summers off”: summer is an unpaid, mandatory furlough for teachers, who only get ten-month contracts. Teachers either have to save their money throughout the year to make it through July and August, or they have to get seasonal work, which often pays considerably less than their regular salaries.

Jersey Jazzman is waiting patiently for some industrious reporter to ask the Governor whether he has funding to pay for longer school days and longer school years. Where is the research that shows the benefits of a longer school year? Why does Governor Christie send his own children that has a shorter school year?
Is he serious or does he just want to play the old, stale teacher-as-punching-bag game?
Inquiring minds want to know.

 

Newark Superintendent Cami Anderson has proposed the end of neighborhood schools.

All district schools and charter schools will be part of a pool. Or something.

Reformers don’t like neighborhood schools. They like a free market where everyone chooses and no one has any loyalties.

Michigan has abolished district lines and schools advertise for students. They waste money on radio and TV ads, trying to poach students from each other.

This is the business approach. Typically, what happens is that students apply, but schools choose.

Karran Harper Royal, a parent in New Orleans, said this about the Newark plan:

“No assigned neighborhood school can be restated as no guaranteed right to the school closest to your home if that is indeed your choice. Parents should push back on this plan to ensure that they retain the right of first refusal to the school nearest their home. This is not a positive innovative practice, it is a way to segregate children by ability, income and parental motivation. Despite the claims in the article, this is not successfully implemented in New Orleans. The children with the highest needs now face chronic instability in their school placement.”

About 40,000 children attend public schools in Newark. About 12,000 are in charters. Charters are clearly favored. Parents get that. “Reform” means get rid of public education.

An interesting comment at the end of the article:

“Anderson also said she hopes the district and charter schools can pool their resources and work together to renovate aging district-owned facilities with financing only charter schools can currently access.”

Wait a minute: “financing only charter schools can obtain.” Why are charters co-located in public schools if they have easy access to facilities financing? Why are district-owned facilities “aging”? Couldn’t some of Mark Zuckerberg’s $100 million fixed up the schools?

And by the way, how will it improve education if neighborhood schools are wiped out?

Newark, New Jersey, has been under state control for 18 years, and many residents have sought a return of local control. Their demands have grown louder since the district became a playground for reformers after Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg gave the city $100 million for reform and the state appointed Broad-trained superintendent Cami Anderson.

In a surprise move, State Commissioner Chris Cerf gave the district’s powerless elected board “fiscal control” but no one knows what that means. Can they cut the budget proposed by Anderson? Can they change it? Can they raise or lower her salary? No one knows.

The most important responsibility of a school board is to hire and fire the superintendent, and this power they definitely do not have.

Stan Karp, an experienced teacher who retired and now works for the Education Law Center, here describes the state’s decision to give “fiscal control” to Newark, but not control over instruction, personnel, operations, or governance. What this means is unclear. The board cannot hire or fire the superintendent. What power was transferred? No one knows.

He writes:

Small Step Toward Local Control in Newark

Newark parents and community advocates seeking to end the State’s 18-year takeover of the district’s public schools won a small, but significant victory, this week. At a June 4 court hearing on a legal challenge to the State’s continued control, the Assistant Attorney General representing the State announced that Education Commissioner Chris Cerf would open discussions about restoring district control over fiscal management.

The move is a partial step under the State’s complicated takeover law, which provides for restoring local control in any of five areas monitored by the State’s QSAC (Quality Single Accountability Continuum) review process: governance, fiscal management, operations, personnel, and curriculum & instruction. (Local control of “operations” was nominally returned in 2007.) In 2011, a State review gave the district passing scores in three of the four remaining areas, but Cerf declined to restore local authority in any area, citing the district’s low test scores.

Newark community groups and the locally-elected advisory Board challenged that decision in court, with Education Law Center representing the Coalition for Effective Newark Public Schools and attorney Gregory Stewart representing the Advisory Board.

The Commissioner responded by ordering another “interim” review that produced lower district scores and asking the Court to dismiss the challenge on the basis of the new lower scores. The Court refused. The State then pointed to fluctuations in district scores in multiple reviews to argue that the “sustained progress” required for restoring local control in any area was missing.

However, the district’s scores in fiscal management were consistently high across several reviews. This undercut the State’s case and apparently led to the State’s decision to consider restoring partial control over fiscal matters while retaining control over governance, personnel and curriculum and instruction. Such a step, while a modest victory for Newark advocates and community activists who have long been pressing for an end to the takeover, would have limited impact and falls well short of restoring local control of school policy to an elected Board in the state’s largest district.

Advocates await the court’s ruling as to whether Newark will regain local control over governance – including the ability to hire and fire the superintendent. In the meantime, struggles between the local Advisory Board and State district superintendent continue.

For example, in recent months the local Advisory Board rejected the budget submitted by State-appointed Supt. Cami Anderson. It also unanimously passed a resolution of “no-confidence” in Anderson’s administration. Similarly, the Board, the city council and the county board of freeholders all endorsed a sweeping call for a moratorium on school closings and “reform initiatives” in the district. As long as the State retains control over governance, State-Supt. Anderson can override these decisions despite strong local opposition. (Significantly, while the State cited low test scores as a prime reason for not restoring district control, it gave Supt. Anderson a merit pay bonus for improving student achievement during the 2011-2012 school year—the same year the district’s monitoring scores dropped sharply)

Beyond the long and complicated history of NJ’s takeover law, the struggle for control of the state’s largest district has become part of the larger landscape of polarized education politics. Originally, the takeover law was supposed to create the capacity for effective local governance of schools where the state had determined it was lacking. On that score it has failed for over two decades. But today education policy in the three—soon to be four—state takeover districts (Jersey City, Paterson, Newark & Camden) is driven by political commitments to a market reform agenda of budget cutting, charter expansion, closing neighborhood public schools and retreats from equity. At this point, ending the takeovers is part of a larger effort to change the current direction of education reform policies in NJ and the nation.

See also: The Trouble with Takeovers

Governance and Urban School Improvement

New Jersey has followed the trail blazed by Jeb Bush when he was governor of Florida: competition, data, accountability, choice. It is the classic formula for those who believe that competition and data are the best “drivers” of education.

Thus, New Jersey has created its own report cards to drive competition. Predictably the report cards are heavily weighted by test scores. As we have seen again and again, the pressure to raise scores creates negative consequences, such as teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, gaming the system, and cheating.

Here Julia Sass Rubin explains that the state’s report cards are confusing, inaccurate, and flawed in many ways.

Every policymakers should be familiar with Campbell’s Law:

“The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.”

In plain English, the higher the stakes attached to testing, the more likely it is that the testing will corrupt education by becoming the goal to which all must aspire. Testing is a measure, not the goal of education.

In a sign that informed opposition makes a difference, New Jersey State Commissioner Chris Cerf denied approval to two virtual charter schools.

“A year ago the two charters — a K-12 school in Newark and a high school for dropouts in Monmouth and Ocean Counties — appeared poised to become the state’s first all-online programs. Both had received preliminary approval from the Christie administration.

“But support slowly wilted over the past year, as community and political opposition mounted. And K12 Inc., the nation’s largest online education firm, was connected with both charter applications as well, prompting debate over the for-profit company’s role.”

The proposed K12 charter spokesman was furious. He released a letter expressing his disappointment:

““We now find ourselves in the position of having to tell 850 children, their families, and the teachers your staff insisted we hire as part of the compliance process that, once again, the school will be denied the opportunity to open and prove ourselves,” read the letter from Michael Pallante, chairman of the proposed school’s board.

“Not once during all of the hearings, trainings, demonstration sessions, e-mail, and telephone conversations were we ever told that this was going to happen to us and to these families once again,” he said.

The school noted that it had also hired experts to speak to the legality and effectiveness of the programs. K12 also signed on with the state’s top lobbying firm, Princeton Public Affairs Group.”

The other rejected school, aimed at dropouts, had trouble enrolling students and seemed likely to withdraw.

“This would have been a disaster for taxpayers and a disaster for children, and we are happy that he did the right thing,” said Julia Sass Rubin, a spokeswoman for Save Our Schools New Jersey, a pro-public school group.

Jersey Jazzman is fast on the draw. Here he dissects Rick Hess’s defense of Ben Austin.

JJ wonders how Hess would feel if the parents of Newark and other cities in New Jersey–which have not had local control for two decades– were given a “parent trigger” to eliminate state control of their districts.

Good question:

Why is parent trigger swell when Parent Revolution organizes a parent petition to kick out the staff but not good at all when parents are denied the power to kick out their district superintendent?

Jersey Jazzman has a sharp article about Commissioner Cerf’s decision to turn a local charter school over to a national chain. The chain is expanding thanks to a $9 million federal grant and extra help from Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The chain has fewer students who are special education or English language learners, as compared to the local district. It spends more than district schools.

Is this a sustainable model?

Jersey Jazzman concludes:

“To recap: Democracy Prep’s practices includes more spending per pupil, a rigid “no-excuses” culture, high rates of attrition, and segregation by poverty, special need, and English proficiency.

“This is your future, Camden – imposed on you by state-officials and outside CMOs. Don’t even think about fighting back.”

News from parent activist Mother Crusader:

Wednesday, April 17, 2013

I’ve Opted Out And You Can Too!

This morning I spoke with the Assistant Superintendent of my district, and was told it’s no problem to opt my 1st graders out of the NJPASS. This is not a mandated test, and the results are not reported to the state. It is given mostly to prepare students for taking the NJASK in 3rd grade – so in my estimation, it’s all but useless for my kids and a waste of money for the district.

The OK to opt out this year came with a warning that once my girls hit 3rd grade this would not be such a cake walk. We’ll cross that bridge when we get to it.

For now, I feel an incredible sense of relief.

Relief that my girls won’t lose almost 7 hours (I was told it sucks up 2 hours and 15 minutes on 3 consecutive days – they’re SIX!!) to a standardized test that has next to no meaning for them or their teacher. Relief that my district was accommodating (they can spend the time at home or will be invited into a Kindergarten classroom). Relief that I have taken the first step to giving my daughters a K-12 education without the stress and burden of high-stakes standardized tests.

Here’s a generic version of the letter I sent to my district. I took out identifiers and specifics, so if you are inspired to join me, feel free to cut and paste parts that resonate for you and create your own letter. Or steal the whole thing.

It’s my gift to you for taking the brave step to tell the powers that be, “You can’t sort and label our children! We opt out!!”
I have been informed that first graders will take the NJPASS on May 7, 8 and 9. It is also my understanding that these scores will not be reported to the state, and do not have high stakes attached to them. However, I fail to see the benefit of starting my child(ren) on a standardized testing path that I know is leading to their class being the first group of 3rd graders to take the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Carriers (PARCC) assessments in the 2014/2015 school year.

In the current education reform culture, standardized test scores are used less often to improve outcomes for students by reinforcing skills that have not been mastered, and more to evaluate teachers, schools and districts. Student test data provides the state false justification to take over districts, close schools, and open charters; all “reforms” that have not been shown to significantly improve student outcomes and instead serve to further weaken traditional public schools and the communities they serve.

Starting next year, AchieveNJ will be implemented statewide, and education advocates and legislators are still debating with Education Commissioner Chris Cerf how much of a teacher’s evaluation will be based on their student’s standardized test scores. These tests were never created to evaluate teacher performance, and the use of Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) and similar Value Added Modeling (VAM) to evaluate teachers has proven highly controversial in other states.

This is not the only way student data is being misused. Testing companies have begun collecting student data, including “information about the children’s hobbies, attitudes, and interests” as well as “(d)isciplinary records, attendance records, special-needs records, testing records.” This information is then shared with other testing and educational companies without parental consent. Parents have not been given the opportunity to opt-out of the database, and the data will be used to tailor educational products to parents.

And as you well know, standardized testing creates a financial burden for districts across the state. The infrastructure needed for the coming PARCC assessments is as of yet undetermined for our district, but is anticipated to be quite onerous. As PARCC is administered entirely online, it will require large purchases of technology and increased bandwidth, in addition to the cost of the test itself. Paired with the loss of almost $5 million in state funding our district has suffered since Governor Christie took office, the additional expense could be devastating.

For all these reasons and more (teaching to the test, narrowing of curriculum, cheating scandals, etc.) I am ardently opposed to the testing culture that has been inflicted upon public schools, and the over reliance on data driven instruction in a never ending quest for evidence that students are “college and career ready.” To be clear, I am not implying that our district is engaged in ANY of these practices. These are my observations of the national discussion on standardized testing, and the impact the overreliance on test scores has had on public education nationwide.

I trust my daughters’ teachers to make sound judgments regarding their education, and the district has my full support in administering any teacher or district created assessments as deemed necessary. I whole-heartedly object however to any state-wide standardized tests the district chooses to administer, or must administer according to state mandates.

Therefore, my husband and I respectfully inform you that we have decided to opt our child(ren) out of the NJPASS. We have decided to join the growing number of parents across the state that have similarly decided to opt their children out of high stakes standardized tests.

Ours is a progressive district committed to public education. I would love to see a broad conversation in our schools, purposefully framed to include parents, teachers, administrators and board members, about the effects this nation’s obsession with standardized testing is having on the education of our children.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Respectfully,

Darcie Cimarusti

If you are interested in the opt out movement, reach out to me in the comments. A group of New Jersey parents and educators have already started a supportive Facebook group that you can join, and you can also find information at United Opt Out.

The NJDOE is using our kids’ tests scores as the basis for their attempts to privatize and take over our public schools. Opting out is the best way to tell the state we want nothing to do with the destructive war they’ve waged against our schools, and we won’t allow them to use our kids as a weapon to fire their teachers and close their schools.

Parents and teachers know that standardized tests are antithetical to learning. We need to stand up for what we know.

In solidarity,
Darcie

EduShyster first skewers the new Chief Operating Officer of the Néw York City Department of Education, a young man of 27. After the Cathie Black debacle, nothing from this zany department surprises anymore.

Then treat yourself by watching the video created by the neglected, discounted,derided students of Newark, NJ., which is embedded in the post.