Archives for category: New York

One of the model laws circulated and advocated by the rightwing group ALEC is a voucher program for students with special needs.

ALEC, you may know, represents many of our nation’s major corporations. It has about 2,000 conservative state legislators as members and a few hundred corporate sponsors. ALEC crafted the “Stand Your Ground” law that the shooter invoked when he killed Trayvon Martin last spring in Florida. ALEC also crafted model legislation for voter ID laws that are characterized by its critics as voter suppression laws.

In education, ALEC has written draft legislation for vouchers for all, vouchers for special needs, charters, alternative certification, test-based teacher evaluation, and anything else they could think of to transfer public money to private hands and to undermine the teaching profession.

Ohio recently expanded its statewide voucher program, which was written originally for students with autism; now it is for students with disabilities of other kinds. This is part of the ALEC game plan to erode public support for public education. Read the article from Ohio. It says that the private schools are not accepting the students with the greatest need, and that some students who never attended public schools are now getting public subsidy. All combine to reduce public funding to public schools.

The Florida voucher plan for students with disabilities is called the McKay Scholarship program. It was embroiled in controversy when an investigative reporter discovered that the program was unsupervised, that some participating schools had no curriculum, no educational program and were run by unqualified people. Which raises the question of whether the point of the program is to help the children or to dismantle public education.

New York state has a similar program for pre-K special education students. Although it is not called a voucher program, it is almost completely privatized (and it predates ALEC’s agenda). The New York State Comptroller recently released an audit showing the program to be rife with fraud, inflated enrollments, corruption, etc.  It is also the most expensive program for pre-K special education in the nation.

The private sector does not have all the answers. Neither does the public sector. Any program using public money should be carefully, rigorously supervised and regulated, especially when children are involved.

 

Jennifer Borgioli, whom I met via Twitter and know as DataDiva, has sent me a post about performance assessments in New York. She is responding to an earlier post about the New York Performance Standards Consortium, which has thus far not gotten permission form the state to add 19 schools to its group. The Consortium many years ago won an exemption from all state standardized testing (except for the Regents ELA exam) and relies instead of performance assessments judged by teachers and others. The article cited in the earlier post indicated that the state was reluctant to allow other schools to escape the state testing regime, which Jennifer does not contest. She believes that the state is open to performance assessment within its testing regime.

In your blog, your last paragraph seemed to suggest that NYS wants to discourage the use of performance-based tasks when in fact, I don’t think that’s the case. I cannot speak to the reasons why there is hesitation to approve more schools for performance-based alternatives to Regents but I do know there is room for performance-based tasks for all schools in New York.  In effect, there are two types of performance tasks. The large-scale, long-term tasks as you described (portfolio assessments, etc.) that are used for exit criteria and reflect a deep understanding of the content and skills in a given domain or topic and then there are small-scale, shorter on-demand performance tasks that require students to follow a series of steps or tasks in order to generate a product or engage in a performance.

The NYS APPR guidance documents reference performance-tasks at least twice:

F5. We want to use locally‐developed performance tasks for a variety of grades and subjects that would be assessed using a rubric. Is that allowable?

Subject to local negotiation, locally‐developed performance tasks scored by a rubric could be used as a district, regional, or BOCES developed assessment wherever locally developed assessments are allowed as either a comparable growth measure or a locally selected measure provided that such assessments are rigorous and comparable as described above.

G4. Does vested interest rule apply to pre‐tests given to establish a baseline for a SLO?

To the extent practicable, districts or BOCES should ensure that any assessments or measures, including those used for performance‐based or performance task assessments that are used to establish a baseline for student growth are not disseminated to students before administration and that teachers and principals do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the assessments they score

In a number of regions across the state, teachers are working together to design performance-tasks that get to the most critical learning of their content area or course as determined by the New York State Learning Standards in a way that is authentic as possible. These are not large scale tasks full of student choice and authentic assessment but neither are they traditional, multiple choice tests. Their use reflects a commitment by the participating schools to minimize the impact of APPR regulations on students. These assessments are designed by classroom teachers and will be scored by them using rubrics they create. Though we do not have evidence of reliability yet, that will come after the administration of the pre-assessments and inter-rater reliability analysis this fall, there is every reason to believe that these assessments will generate results as consistent as those generated by a machine-scored, publisher-created multiple choice test.  

It’s a small move but it’s a start.

Educators of New York state. Make time to attend a meeting of the Cuomo Commission. As reported here, the meetings in New York City and Buffalo were stacked with charter school advocates, TFA, and StudentsFirst. But as principal Carol Burris notes below, it is important that you are there. Sign up to speak. Who knows, you might be called to testify. Be there to witness. The future of the education profession and public education in New York is on the table.

Carol Burris writes:

Please attend future hearings. Although they provide the opportunity to testify, I cannot tell you based on my experience, that the selection process is fair.  I can tell you, however, it is worth the try AND it is worth being present.  Even if you do not speak, be there.  If you are allowed to testify, speak up for the profession that means so much to you and to the schools that mean so much to your children. 
 
Here is the schedule
 

 

 

 

A group of principals in Long Island, New York, went to training sessions about the state’s evolving educator evaluation plan. When they realized that teachers would be graded on a curve and that half would be rated ineffective by design, they were horrified. When they realized that teachers who didn’t produce higher test scores would be rated ineffective no matter how highly they were rated by their principal, they were outraged.

And they wrote a petition to the State Education Department asking for a trial of this potentially injurious system.

Please sign their petition, no matter where you live:

1508 NY principals …over 1/3 of NYS, signed a letter, a detailed research based letter, against evaluating teachers by test scores. A few thousand teachers signed too. How about 1/3 of NY teachers signing?
Www.Newyorkprincipals.org

The Cuomo Commission held a “hearing” in Buffalo too.

And once again, pride of place went to charter school leaders and their supporters.

Charters enroll about 5% of the students in New York state.

Why does Governor Cuomo think they should own the agenda?

Why not  listen to public school principals and teachers?

Principal Carol Burris is one of the co-founders of the Long Island principals’ revolt against high-stakes testing. When she heard that Governor Cuomo’s commission would be holding hearings in New York City, she joined up with fellow principal Harry Leonardatos and they headed for the hearings.

Read their gripping account of the proceedings, where the deck was stacked in favor of the corporate agenda.

They were among the first to register, but soon discovered that they would not be allowed to speak.

Who was allowed to speak? Campbell Brown, an ex-anchor for CNN who spoke about sex abuse in the schools (her husband is on the board of Rhee’s StudentsFirst, which she did not disclose); the TFA executive director for New York City; someone from the New Teacher Project (founded by Michelle Rhee); an 18-month-veteran of teaching who is now heading a Gates-funded group of young teachers who oppose tenure and seniority. “…they all represented organizations that embraced the governor’s policies, and they all advocated for the following three policies: state imposition of teacher evaluation systems if local negotiations are not successful, elimination of contractually guaranteed pay increases, and the use of test scores in educator evaluations.”

Although the two principals were told that the last 30 minutes would be reserved for those who signed up first–which they had–they were not allowed to testify. Instead the commission heard from the leader of Rhee’s StudentsFirst in New York. They thought they would be allowed to testify against the NY system of grading teachers on a bell curve, which guarantees that half will be found “ineffective.”

Please read this article. It is alarming. Governor Cuomo and his commission have aligned themselves with the enemies of public education.

I hesitate to inflict this interview on my readers. You trust me to inform you and even on occasion to make you laugh with a good satire or parody. I try to shield you from pain and double-speak.

But I must share this with you.

Here is the latest interview with the Secretary of Education. It begins with a stomach-turning but accurate admission that education is the one thing that President Obama and the teacher-bashing governor of New Jersey Chris Christie agree on. How’s that for a reassuring opening?

When asked why the evidence for the reforms he is pushing seems weak, Duncan replies it is because they are new and therefore don’t have a 50-year track record. Oh, please, they don’t have any track record at all, yet he is pushing these untested, invalid measures on schools across the nation. Of course, everyone wants great teachers and great principals and great schools, but nothing he is doing is producing those results.

The questioner gently asks why there were no “dramatic” improvements in New York City or Washington, D.C. or Chicago, where Duncan was in charge for eight years. The answer is so vague as to be indecipherable. Ten years of Duncan-style reform in New York City, six years in D.C., twelve years in Chicago, and nothing to show for it. Just have faith! Believe!

I can’t go on.

Maybe you can.

But isn’t it nice to know that Arne Duncan and Chris Christie and all the rightwing governors are on the same page about how to deal with teachers and principals and schools and education?

 

 

The principals of New York State have been up in arms in opposition to the “educator evaluation” system that the New York State  Education Department has designed. More than one-third of the principals across the state have bravely signed a petition in protest.

The reason for the evaluation system is that New York had the misfortune to “win” Race to the Top. The $700 million did not go to schools for urgent needs, but to meet the mandates imposed by the U.S. Department of Education. One costly mandate requires the state to evaluate principals and teachers, based in part on test scores. Despite the fact that no state or district has figured out how this will work or how it will improve instruction, New York is plowing ahead.

A reader describes his views of this new system:

Earlier this week, I spent two days along with 60 other school administrators (Superintendents and Principals) from the area districts to learn how to become a “Lead Evaluator” for the implementation of the new APPR (Annual Professional Performance Review).
This new law requires district administrators to conduct multiple evaluations on every teacher (60% of the score), then add the teachers’ students’ results (20%) on flawed state assessments (remember the Pineapple story?), and another 20% on the results from local assessments. This score will give each teacher a score based on a 100-point scale and determine whether or not they are “highly effective, effective, developing, or ineffective”. The state will be providing the scores to the districts because they are “secured tests”. Teachers will not be able to glean significant data from the tests to see how they can improve their instructional practice, because the state will not provide schools with the test questions to allow for detailed and accurate item analysis.
It is not difficult to see where this train is going. Teachers will be vying for students that would be considered to have a positive impact on their APPR score and praying that students deemed to have a negative impact will be placed in one of their colleague’s classes. When the scores of individual teachers are made public (parents will be allowed access to their child’s teacher’s score and will assuredly end up on Facebook before they hit the parking lot), they will be demanding that their child be placed with the teacher with the highest score. Teachers will be pitted against other teachers, students, and parents.
This system was put in place allegedly to make it easier to fire ineffective teachers. However, if one looks at the law, it is now much more onerous to terminate an ineffective teacher than it was previously. The law was also put in place in order to be a contender for the infamous Race To the Top (RTtT) money. NYSUT supported the initiative assuming it would infuse more money into a system that desperately needs it. However, the money did not go to school districts to offset the massive decreases in state aid, but rather to the BOCES across the state in order to implement the new APPR.
Mr. Cuomo and Dr. King have cited many “facts” leading up to these massive changes. One example they have used is: New York schools are “Number 1 in spending but 34 in terms of results”. However, this statistic has been discredited. Education Week, which publishes the annual “Quality Counts” guide, ranked New York State No. 2 in the nation in a comprehensive analysis of policy and performance. Other statistics used for US schools in comparison to other industrialized nations have us ranked quite low. For example, scores from the 2009 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) show that US students ranked 14th in reading, 17th in science and 25th in math out of 34 countries. However, when one digs deeper, the “facts” change. Dr. Gerald N. Tirozzi, Executive Director from the National Association of Secondary School Principals dug deeper and found that in order to get a more accurate assessment of the performance of U.S. students would be to compare the scores of American schools with comparable poverty rates to those of other countries. He found that Schools in the United States with less than a 10% poverty rate had a PISA score of 551. When compared to the ten countries with similar poverty numbers, that score ranked first. That’s right folks, the United States ranked FIRST! Finland was second. As Mark Twain once said, “There are three kinds of lies; lies, damn lies, and statistics.”As an educator for 20 years, I am proud of our schools and our teachers. They work hard and deserve our respect. Teachers and students should never be reduced to a number. It is bad for education and it is bad for our nation. APPR as it now stands should be repealed. For the sake of our children, please contact your state Assemblyman or Assemblywoman to get rid of this law. Our children deserve better.

Carol Burris is the principal of an outstanding public high school on Long Island, in New York State. She often writes about education for The Answer Sheet. Burris has won awards for her leadership and her school has been recognized for its achievements.

Burris just published an article about the Relay Graduate School of Education. This is a masters’ program that was created by three charter school chains to prepare teachers for working in charter schools. It is certainly not a traditional graduate school of education. There do not seem to be courses in cognitive development, child psychology, sociology of education, history of education, or varied pedagogical models and strategies. There is only one pedagogical strategy, and apparently it is the one that is best at raising test scores.

As I read Burris’ description of Relay, I had two questions:

Why did the New York State Board of Regents permit this “school” to call its program a “graduate” program of education with the authority to award masters’ degrees? There is something incestuous about a “graduate” program created by charter schools to give masters’ degrees to their own teachers.

And second, what is it in the psyche of young men and women, most of whom graduated from prestigious secondary schools, private and public, that enables them to impose a boot-camp style of discipline on boys and girls of color that is unlike anything in their own experience?

If you want to know why so many politicians think so highly of charters, there is a basic rule of  politics that explains it all: Follow the money.

The most visible organization promoting corporate reform is called Democrats for Education Reform, known as DFER (commonly pronounced “D-fer”). DFER is the Wall Street hedge fund managers’ group. It always has a few non-hedge funders on the board, especially one or two prominent African-Americans, to burnish its pretentious claim of leading the civil rights movement of our day. Kevin Chavous, a former council member from Washington, D.C., fills that role for now, along with the DFER stalwart, Cory Booker, the mayor of Newark. DFER has its own member of the U.S. Senate, Senator Michael Bennett of Colorado. It has also raised money generously for Congressman George Miller, the senior Democrat on the House Education and Labor Committee.

This group bankrolls politicians, woos them, raises campaign cash for them, and persuades them of the advantages of turning the children of their district over to privately managed schools. Watch their website to see which politician they favor this month and scan those they have recognized in the past.

In New York City, Hakeem Jeffries, DFERs’s candidate for U.S. Congress, announced his support for tax credits for religious schools on the day after he won the election. His support for charter schools was already well known. Unless there is targeted new funding, support for charters and religious schools comes right out of the budget for public schools, which are already stressed by cuts.