Archives for category: New York
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

New York Releases Tests, Six Months After Students Took Them

By dianeravitch
September 26, 2018 //
34

The New York Board of Regents and the New York State Education Department remain firmly committed to the testing regime that has aroused so much parent rebellion and produced no gains on NAEP for 20 years. The state always finds good news in the test scores, but NAEP has been consistently flat.

Opt outs declined by a percentage point, but still nearly one of every five eligible students did not take the tests.

Long Island continues to be the epicenter of the opt out movement. About 50% of the students in Nassau and Suffolk counties did not take the tests.

Federal law (the “Every Student Succeeds Act”) says that parents have the right to opt out if their state permits it, but at the same time requires that every school must have a 95% participation rate or face sanctions–a flat contradiction.

New York has not yet clarified how it intends to punish the high-performing schools on Long Island where half the students didn’t take the tests.

This article appeared in Newsday, the main newspaper on Long Island.

The number of students boycotting state tests has declined slightly statewide, but Long Island remains a stronghold of the opt-out movement, state officials announced Wednesday.

The state Education Department, in a media advisory, said the percentage of students in grades three through eight opting out of exams last spring dipped to 18 percent, down from 19 percent in 2017 and 21 percent in 2016. Tests, which are mandated by federal law, cover English Language Arts and mathematics.

The advisory provided no specific percentage for Nassau and Suffolk counties, but did note that the bicounty region “remains the geographic area with the highest percentage of test refusals in both mathematics and ELA.” Newsday’s own surveys of Island districts last spring found boycott rates of nearly 50 percent.

Among students who took the tests statewide, 45.2 percent scored at the proficient level in English, and 44.5 percent in math, the education department reported. Agency officials said results could not be compared with those from prior years because the format of last spring’s tests was sharply revised.

Total testing days in the spring were reduced to four, down from six in prior years, in an effort to provide some relief for parents and teachers who had complained the assessments were too stressful.

New York’s opt-out movement has proved the biggest and most enduring in the nation. The movement first appeared on Long Island in 2013, then exploded statewide two years later, and has remained especially strong in Nassau and Suffolk, and in some suburbs of Westchester County and the Buffalo area.

On the Island, more than 90,000 students in grades three through eight refused to take the state English Language Arts exam in April, representing nearly 50 percent of those eligible, according to Newsday’s survey of Island districts at the time.

Across New York, the number of students boycotting the state tests from 2015 through 2017 has hovered near 200,000 of 1 million eligible pupils in each of the past three years.

Categories Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), New York, Opt Out, Parents, Standardized Testing, Students

Who Is Hakeem Jeffries?

By dianeravitch
September 23, 2018 //
82

Hakeem Jeffries is a Democratic Congressman from Brooklyn. He is part of the Democratic leadership team. Some people believe he might be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives, the successor to Nancy Pelosi. He is a favorite of hedge fund managers and the charter school industry. He recently was honored by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools as an African American charter school leader (why the organization established a racially segregated award is unclear, as it is unclear why Congressman Jeffries would accept it).

It is not “progressive” to support privatization of public services. It is not progressive to support schools staffed by non-union teachers. It is not progressive to support a “movement” that ignores racial segregation and even celebrates it. It is not progressive to support a movement financed by the anti-union Waltons, the DeVos family, the Koch brothers, and ALEC.

Progressives support public schools.

Dorothy Siegel, a longtime activist in the Working Families Party, wrote this comment about Congressman Jeffries:

“I know Hakeem well. I worked very hard to get him elected, first, to the NYS Assembly, and then to Congress, in order to defeat the even worse Democrat Ed Towns. I even raised a bunch of money for him. Then I saw him slip over to the dark side. But, make no mistake, I believe that his embrace of privatization is NOT (as he claims) primarily about wanting poor black and brown kids to get a good education, but about the fact that there is more money and power on that side than on the side of public education. That money, the hedge funders who provide it, and the corporatist establishment Democrats, were the drivers of Hakeem’s political rise. Money and power have totally corrupted him. Hakeem, like Cuomo and Booker, has and will continue to sell out our public schools when they are in the inner sanctum of their party leadership positions. Hakeem’s rise within Congressional Dem leadership is helping him to thwart ALL our efforts to reign in Congressional support for privatization. On education issues, he wis arguably more powerful than all the new progressive congresspeople we will elect in 2018, combined.

“Sad to say, we must recognize that Hakeem is THE ENEMY. He can not be defeated in his very safe Brooklyn seat, so we must all ORGANIZE to EXPOSE him as the corporate shill that he is. We must tell our progressive Congressional friends that it is NOT ok to go along with Dem leadership (Hakeem) on charters and privatization. Believe me, Hakim will have the tools he needs to fight harder for his corporate friends than anyone on our side will have, so we need to be loud and clear. We also have to insist that, for politicians to gain our support, it’s NOT ok to be “progressive” on reproductive choice and Medicare for All, etc, etc, but anything less than TOTALLY AGAINST corporatism and privatization. Time to take a stand!

“BTW, Hakeem was a key supporter of Zellnor Myrie, the victor in one of the races against the IDC traitors we defeated in the NYS Dem primary. We need to watch what Zellnor does in Albany to make sure he doesn’t pay back his mentor by supporting Hakeem’s education agenda. I’m not at all worried about the other five IDC-slayers. They are solidly and deeply pro-public education. Zellnor may be, too, but he will certainly get pressured by Hakeem and that ilk. So we need to let him know that “progressive” means 100% pro-public education.”

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Democrats, Democrats for Education Reform, Education Industry, New York, Privatization

New York: Commissioner Elia’s Misleading Description of State Tests

By dianeravitch
September 14, 2018 //
17

New York State Commissioner of Educatuon MaryEllen Elia defended the state tests in a letter to the editor of an upstate newspaper.

What was interesting was what she did not say.

She wrote:

Your recent editorial “Benefits of Regents testing still unclear” (“Another View,” Adirondack Daily Enterprise, Aug. 28) is riddled with inaccurate information about New York’s student testing requirements. For the benefit of your readers, I am writing to set the record straight.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Education approved New York’s Every Student Succeeds Act plan. It reflects more than a year of collaboration with a comprehensive group of stakeholders throughout the state. Approval of our plan by USDE ensures that New York will continue to receive about $1.6 billion annually in federal funding to support elementary and secondary education in New York’s schools. Had we not received federal approval, that money would have been left on the table, to the great detriment of our students and teachers.

Over the past three years, I have communicated frequently with the USDE about test participation rates and the importance of not penalizing schools, students or anyone else when a district’s participation rate falls below the federally required level.

The editorial states that in June the Board of Regents adopted regulations to implement the state’s ESSA plan — leading your readers to believe, erroneously, that these regulations are now final. In fact, the implementing regulations are temporary. We continue to make changes to the regulations based on the many public comments received.

We anticipate the Board of Regents will discuss these comments and proposed modifications to the draft regulations at its September meeting. The revised regulations will again go out for comment before they are permanently adopted. We hope your readers will participate in this ongoing public comment process.

Your editorial also is misleading in its claim that releasing state test results in September “makes the testing data nearly useless for school districts.” Here are the facts. In early June, schools and school districts were able to access instructional reports for the 2018 state assessments. At the same time, the department released about 75 percent of the test questions that contribute to student scores. The instructional reports, together with the released test questions, are used by schools and districts for summer curriculum-writing and professional development activities. Additionally, while statewide test results are not yet publicly available, we have already provided districts with their students’ score information. Districts can — and should — use this information to help inform instructional decisions for the upcoming school year.

The state Education Department’s stance remains unchanged: There should be no financial penalties for schools with high opt out rates. We continue to review the public comments on this and other proposed regulations, and those comments will be carefully considered as we finalize the state’s ESSA regulations.

Ultimately, it is for parents to decide whether their child should participate in the state assessments. In making that decision, though, they should have accurate information. I hope this letter gives them a better understanding of the facts.

MaryEllen Elia
Albany
The writer is state commissioner of education.

I checked with teachers, and this is what they said.

The test scores are released long after the student has left his or her teacher and moved to a different teacher.

Most of the questions are released, but the teacher never learns which questions individual students got right or wrong.

The tests have NO DIAGNOSTIC VALUE.

The tests have NO INSTRUCTIONAL VALUE.

Apparently, it means a lot to Commissioner Elia to compare the scores of different districts, but that comparison is of no value to teachers, principals, or parents.

One middle school teacher said this to me:

“…the whole exercise is meaningless at the classroom level. Admins might look at the data when it comes to certain skills/content areas, but without looking at the questions/answers, it is not helpful for us in the trenches.”

Another teacher told me:

“…we do not get student-specific results for each question, we are supposed to look at statewide results and then somehow extrapolate that back to our classrooms, the following year, with different kids. So this is a BLUNT tool at best and students get no individual diagnostic benefit.”

The state tests are pointless and meaningless. They have no diagnostic value whatever for individual students.

Every parent in New York should understand that their children are subjected to hours of testing for no reason, other than to allow the Commissioner to compare districts. Their children receive no benefit from the testing. No teacher learns anything about their students, other than their scores.

The state tests are pointless and meaningless. They have no diagnostic value for students—or teachers.

OPT OUT.

OPT OUT.

OPT OUT.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, New York, Opt Out, Parents, Standardized Testing, Students, Testing

New York: Cuomo Campaign Smears Cynthia Nixon as an Anti-Semite, Which is Demonstrably False

By dianeravitch
September 10, 2018 //
42

Andrew Cuomo is a disgusting politician. His campaign distributed flyers calling his underfunded opponent Cynthia Nixon an ant-Semite. This is absurd on many levels, since Nixon and her wife are raising their children as Jews.

Cuomo is currying favor with the Orthodox Jews, who are a powerful voting bloc. He already made a deal with them not to investigate the abysmal policies of yeshivas that don’t teach in English and don’t teach science or other modern subjects. Torah study is just fine, but it is not a preparation for 21st century life.

The New York Times has already endorsed Cuomo’s re-election, based on his experience. Strangely, on the day after it endorsed him, it published an editorial about the sewer of corruption in Albany, swirling around the ethically challenged Governor Cuomo, whose top aides have been convicted of taking large bribes.

Years ago, when Andrew’s father Mario ran for Mayor against Ed Koch in New York City, mysterious posters appeared in the conservative neighborhoods of Queens, reading “Vote for Cuomo, not the Homo,” a slur against Koch’s unacknowledged sexuality. No one accepted responsibility but at the time it was assumed that it was the work of son Andrew.

Now Cynthia Nixon has laughingly turned that nasty slogan around and said, “Vote for the Homo, not the Cuomo.”

The latest campaign finance reports show Cuomo with $35 million, mostly from hedge funders, Wall Street, and big corporate names. Nixon has $2 million in individual contributions.

Here is today’s New York Times editorial about Cuomo’s latest smear, for which he of course takes no responsibility:

This is dirty politics, nearly as sleazy as it gets.

Days before Mr. Cuomo’s primary race for re-election on Thursday, the New York State Democratic Committee has sent voters a campaign mailer falsely accusing his challenger, Cynthia Nixon, of being “silent on the rise of anti-Semitism.”

It says she supports the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions movement against Israel over its treatment of Palestinians. She does not. It accuses Ms. Nixon of opposing funding yeshivas, private religious schools attended by many of the city’s Orthodox Jews. She has never said that.

“With anti-Semitism and bigotry on the rise, we can’t take a chance,” the mailer reads. “Re-Elect Governor Andrew Cuomo.”

This is the lowest form of politics, and the most dangerous, exploiting the festering wounds and fears along ethnic and religious lines.

“I didn’t know about the mailer,” Mr. Cuomo said at a news conference Sunday in Manhattan. “I haven’t seen the mailer.”

Sorry, Mr. Cuomo, but that strains credulity.

Mr. Cuomo dominates the state Democratic Party. It acts ethically or abominably at his direction, or at the very least, with his campaign’s blessing.

The committee no doubt sent this garbage in the cynical hope that it would prove effective with Orthodox Jews, who generally vote as a bloc, making them a sought-after constituency for New York politicians.

Geoff Berman, executive director of the state Democrats, said Saturday on Twitter that the mailer was “a mistake and is inappropriate and is not the tone the Democratic Party should set,” saying it wouldn’t happen again. Sunday, he went further, saying the party would “work with the Nixon campaign to send out a mailing of their choosing to the same universe of people.”

Even if that were possible so late in the campaign, it’s not enough.

Mr. Cuomo has an obligation to personally apologize and condemn these outrageous attacks. Voters deserve to hear Mr. Cuomo describe Ms. Nixon as a worthy opponent who abhors anti-Semitism. He should make sure that message gets to Orthodox voters ahead of Thursday’s elections. And he should fire the party official who came up with the idea for the flier.

While Mr. Cuomo is at it, he might also mention that Ms. Nixon attends a Manhattan synagogue. Saturday night, her rabbi, Sharon Kleinbaum, issued a joint statement with her wife, the teachers’ union leader Randi Weingarten, on Facebook, calling the charges in the mailer a “baseless lie.” Other Democrats have also condemned Mr. Cuomo and the Democratic Party for the flier.

State Sen. Liz Krueger, a Democrat who hasn’t endorsed a candidate in the primary, said in a statement released by the Nixon campaign on Sunday: “I am doubly offended and aghast that my party organization would produce and mail such a false, damaging attack on Ms. Nixon and then watch the Governor and key staff act surprised they had done this. Shameful.”

Given all the ethical lapses in Mr. Cuomo’s administration, of which he has also pleaded ignorance, this smear is appalling. It is the kind of cynical behavior that detracts from Mr. Cuomo’s often-impressive ability to govern. If he is not careful, it could make voters feel they have no choice but to vote for someone else.

Mr. Cuomo deserves a third term because of his potential to lead. He should stop squandering that potential now. To be sure of it, New York Democrats need to turn out in large numbers on Thursday to support every reform-driven candidate possible — for the Legislature, for attorney general, even for party committees. They can teach Albany a lesson it won’t soon forget.

What matters more? Experience or character? Cuomo has none of the latter and deserves to go down to defeat.

Categories Cuomo, Andrew, New York

New York Plans to Punish Students and Schools if Parents Opt Out: A Terrible Idea!

By dianeravitch
September 8, 2018 //
39

Gary Stern of the Lohud newspaper in the Lower Hudson Valley, a region where parents are passionate about their public schools, describes New York’s intention to punish students and schools if the opt rate is high.

The state insists that every child take the tests, no matter how invalid and unreliable they are. The children must be measured and labeled!

Stern writes:

“The school year just opened, so the annual state tests in math and ELA seem like a long way off. Testing for grades 3-8 begins in early April, when the Yanks and Mets will be starting next season.

“And yet, the state Board of Regents may soon pass new rules for holding school districts and individual schools accountable if too many families “opt out” of tests. One such rule would allow the state education commissioner to direct a district to spend a portion of its federal Title I funds on “activities” to increase student participation on state tests.

“This is a terrible idea. The Regents should balk.

“Schools use Title I funds on staff and programs to help disadvantaged students — targeting everything from math and reading intervention to supports for homeless children. Taking money away from such efforts for a parent-targeted p.r. campaign? Hardly smart education funding.”

This is a very mean-spirited, stupid idea. Why would the state take money away from the neediest kids to re-educate parents?

Note to the Regents and Commissioner Elia: The children belong to their parents, not to you. Read the Pierce decision (1925).

Categories New York, Opt Out, Parents, Students, Stupid, Testing

Fred Smith and Robin Jacobowitz: The Common Core-Aligned Tests Are Destroying Education and our Students

By dianeravitch
August 25, 2018 //
14

Fred Smith and Robin Jacobowitz published a paper analyzing the tests that students in New York are required to take. Their conclusion is devastating.

They examine the quality of the tests, not just the scores of the students. And they conclude that the tests are inaccurate, unintelligible, and indechipherable.

Taxpayers are spending millions of dollars for flawed instruments that harm students and corrupt education.

Questions are not only flawed but developmentally inappropriate for the children to whom they are administered.

Expanding the testing time did not fix the inherent problems.

Smith and Jacobowitz conclude:

Our boldest conclusions tie together important aspects of the testing story: children upset and dumbstruck
by the exams, especially the youngest ones; unhappy parents whose views were disparaged; SED’s suppression of data needed by the public, especially parents to stay informed and make intelligent decisions about their children’s education; the surge in zero scores and omissions that this study uncovered; ill-conceived tests and their perpetuation; the strong case parents have for opting out; the overriding need for transparency, timely data and unfettered review by analysts. These rest most solidly on findings for grades 3 and 4, and for ELLs, students with disabilities, and minority students.

In the final analysis, we are dealing with children here at a formative time in their lives, when education matters most. For every discussion and news story about the increase or decrease in test scores, we must remember that behind each statistic is a child—a young child— who lives each day with the decisions that we make about testing. The 3rd graders who took the first CCLS-linked test in 2013 are taking the 8th grade test this spring. Everything that has been wrong with the core-aligned tests has framed the education of these young people.

It’s time to create a legitimate assessment process, unified with standards and curricula that work in harmony to foster the development of every child’s intellect, abilities, and dreams. Federal education law, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), dictates that we test our young students in math and ELA each year.

We must determine how to do that in a way that serves children and the educational goals we value.

Message to parents:

The testing corporations have never been held accountable.

The New York State Education Department has never been held accountable.

Nothing has been fixed.

Opt out.

Do not allow your children to take these tests.

They harm your child and corrupt what we value most in education.

Categories Accountability, Education Industry, Failure, New York, Testing

New York State Allies for Public Education to State Leaders: Don’t Punish Schools and Kids for Opting Out from Senseless Testing

By dianeravitch
August 17, 2018 //
22

New York State Allies for Public Education is an organization that represents 50 parent and educator groups across the state. It has led the opt-out movement in the state. This letter was written in response to punish schools where the “participation” rate in mandated testing fell too low. The very best response to the state’s threats and warnings would be to opt out; the more that parents opt out, the less likely it is that the state can “punish” them for exercising their constitutional rights.

Dear Board of Regents, Chancellor Rosa, Commissioner Elia and Dr. Lisa Long,

We find it reprehensible that under the guise of ESSA, NYSED is seeking to punish schools when parents exercise their legal right to opt their child out of the grades 3-8 state tests and is overreaching by requiring the collection of confidential student data. These proposed provisions of the New York State ESSA regulations show a blatant disregard for the amount of public outrage over the last several years regarding the flawed New York State testing system, unproven revised common core standards, and the unnecessary collection of personally identifiable student information.

Strong opposition to the grades 3-8 common core state tests has been evidenced by 20%- 22% of eligible students throughout New York opting out of these state exams over the past three years, despite threats from the state and individual districts and a one-sided state-initiated persuasion campaign (the Commissioner’s “Toolkit”).

Only 8% of school districts in New York met the 95% testing participation rate in 2017, and while the state has not yet released the opt out figures for the 2018 grades 3-8 tests, several news accounts reveal that the opt out number will remain high, and that the majority of school districts will not have met the 95% participation rate as a result.

In addition, it took a legislative act to stop NYSED and then-Commissioner John King from collecting personally identifiable student data in the name of inBloom, a $50 million database that was going to be used for corporate data mining purposes without parental consent.

The proposed New York ESSA regulations will allow the Commissioner to mislabel schools with opt out rates over 5% — including highly effective schools — as needing Comprehensive or Targeted Support and Improvement, with the potential of wrongfully identifying schools as needing these interventions. These proposed regulations allow the Commissioner to require schools to misuse Title I funds in an effort to increase test participation rates. Moreover, the proposed regulations allow the Commissioner to close these schools, and/or convert them to charter schools. This is a dangerous path for NYS to take.

The mere suggestion of using Title I funds for ‘marketing’ of these tests is a misuse of authority that results in the revictimization and intimidation of communities that have a long history of being underserved and disempowered. Furthermore, it should be regarded as a civil rights issue as these actions will disproportionately aim to quiet the voices of schools with high populations of students from low-income households which tend to correlate with families of color.

None of these proposed provisions are required by ESSA law, none of them will improve learning conditions or outcomes for our children, and all of them contradict earlier statements from the Board of Regents and NYSED officials that schools with high opt out rates would not be punished or otherwise targeted, and/or wrongfully labeled for interventions, etc. The intention of the 95% participation rate in the ESSA law is to deter institutional/systematic exclusion by schools not to usurp parental rights.

We strongly request that NYSED remove these provisions from the proposed regulations and refrain from punishing schools when parents assert their legal right to opt out of the state tests. Moreover, under no circumstances, should NYSED collect confidential, personally identifiable student data. The ESSA law does not require punishing schools for opt out; rather, it fortifies a parent’s right to opt out. Furthermore, the ESSA law does not require collecting individual student data for the purposes of accountability, nor should the Commissioner and NYSED.

Until NYSED embraces teaching our children through the lens of whole-child education and stop test-driven classrooms, we will continue to squander opportunities to truly help all children reach their full potential. It’s time we give the children of New York a meaningful, well-rounded education, and create a nourishing environment where children flourish because they genuinely love to learn.

Respectfully,

Lisa Rudley, Executive Director

Categories New York, Opt Out, Parent Groups, Parents, Standardized Testing, Students

New York: Who Is Illegally Funding the “Democrats” Who Vote with the Republicans FOR Charter Schools and AGAINST Raising Taxes on the Rich?

By dianeravitch
August 16, 2018 //
16

Here is a useful diagram of the sources of funding for the group called the “Independent Democrats” who use their votes in the State Senate of New York to keep Republicans in control.

You will see some familiar names there, including former Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City and billionaire hedge fund manager Daniel Loeb, who was chairman of Eva Moskowitz’s Success Academy charter chain.

A judge ruled the committees and their campaign contributions were illegal. A New York State Board of Elections official ordered the candidates to return the illegal contributions. But the candidates won’t do it.

Eight former members of the Republican-aligned Independent Democratic Conference (IDC) have benefited from nearly $1.6 million in fund transfers and expenditures from two IDC-affiliated committees since 2011, which together raised over $4.6 million, excluding a transfer from one to the other, a Sludge analysis of state elections board data found. After breaking campaign finance rules and paying a $27,400 fine in 2016 for missing numerous reporting deadlines, the senators disbanded The IDC Initiative and formed a new committee, the Senate Independence Campaign Committee (SICC). Most of this spending has since been ruled illegal.

These eight New York State Senate Democrats were part of the IDC, which until recently aligned with Republicans in the chamber, giving the GOP a narrow majority. Formed in 2011, the IDC used its campaign committees to take in money—mostly from corporations, LLCs and political action committees—and to fund their campaigns and make elections expenditures in their favor.

Another committee, SICC Housekeeping, which funded the operations of the IDC, accepted nearly $700,000 from The IDC Initiative and roughly $1.2 million in almost exclusively corporate contributions.

Even after the committees were ruled illegal on June 5, a newly constituted version of SICC continued to funnel funds it had illegally raised to the campaigns of ex-IDC incumbents, including $121,000 to Jeff Klein (NY-34), $66,000 to Marisol Alcantara (NY-31) and $60,000 to Jesse Hamilton (NY-20).

As all eight incumbents face progressive primary challengers, they’re digging in their heels, defying a directive from their own state elections board in order to hold onto the illegal funds. As Sludge previously reported, the challengers have received far more individual contributions, and their average donation amount is a fraction of that of the ex-IDC members.

“Campaign finance laws aren’t suggestions—they are designed to keep our democracy healthy and honest,” Zellnor Myrie, who is challenging Hamilton, said in a press release. “The ‘former’ IDC members have shown their blatant disregard for our democratic safeguards by keeping these campaign contributions…By refusing to return this money, the IDC is showing us yet again that their real interests lie with their donors instead of their constituents.”

Special interests provided the bulk of the contributions to the three IDC-aligned committees. Lax campaign finance laws in New York allow corporations to donate large amounts of campaign cash and treat opaque LLCs as individual donors, even if the LLCs are connected to corporations that have already given the maximum allowed amount. This effectively allows LLC owners to donate unlimited amounts of money.

Jessica Ramos, who hopes to unseat ex-IDC member Jose Peralta in Senate District 13, told Sludge, “These numbers make clear what we’ve known all along: Jose Peralta empowered Republicans because he is funded by Republicans. Our public schools are underfunded and our rents are skyrocketing, but Peralta would rather take cash from charter school billionaires and real estate lobbyists than deliver for his community.”

Strangely, NYSUT (New York State United Teachers) endorsed IDC member Marisol Alcantara, who is running against Robert Jackson; Jackson was the city council member who sued the state for billions of dollars in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity. He is a champion for public schools and equitable funding. If you live in Robert Jackson’s district, please vote for him, not Alcantara, who supports charters and votes against raising taxes on the richest New Yorkers. If you are a teacher or a parent or a concerned citizen, vote for Robert Jackson for State Senate in District 31.

Never forget: Dark money never sleeps.

Categories Billionaires, Charter Schools, Dark Money, New York, Privatization

Harold Meyerson: Shame on Andrew Cuomo!

By dianeravitch
August 8, 2018 //
7

Harold Meyerson, editor of The American Prospect, sent out this commentary on New York’s gubernatorial race. Control of New York’s State Senate hangs in the balance in this election, as well as several seats in Congress. By putting his name on the Independence Party line. Cuomo aids former members of the so-called IDC (the independent Democratic Conference), legislators who were elected as Democrats but caucus with and vote with the Republicans. The members of the IDC collect huge donations from hedge fund managers and charter school advocates, including Daniel Loeb, who until recently was chair of the board of Eva’s Success Academy.

Campaign cash is rolling in for the turncoat Democrats, who vote with the Republicans and support charters. Look at this eye-popping graph. The average contribution to former IDC members was $1,093. The average contribution to their challenger was $80.


Meyerson on TAP

Andrew’s Ego, Amok Again. In recent weeks, the three published polls of New York voters have shown that Governor Andrew Cuomo leads his primary challenger, Cynthia Nixon, by at least 30 percentage points, and his may-as-well-be-nameless Republican opponent in the November runoff, once he dispatches Nixon, by a similar margin. In other words, Cuomo doesn’t need to boost his totals by a few thousand votes more through a maneuver that might just cost the Democrats one or more of the state’s closely fought U.S. House or state Senate seats. Why would he do something as cynical as that?

Because he’s Andrew Cuomo, that’s why.

Yesterday, The New York Times reported that Cuomo has agreed to appear not just on the Democrats’ ballot line in November (assuming he beats Nixon in the party’s September primary), but also on the ballot line of something called the Independence Party. New York, you may recall, allows for fusion voting, in which a candidate can appear on the November ballot as the nominee of more than one party, provided, of course, that the party and the candidate agree to that. The candidate’s final vote total tallies his or her votes on every party line where his or her name appears.

Since the American Labor Party first began co-endorsing the Democrats it liked in the mid-1930s, New York’s many and varied third (and fourth) parties have each had a distinct ideology. In the past couple decades, the state has seen the social democratic Working Families Party run lefties on its line, most of whom are also Democratic nominees, while the Conservative Party has done the same with right-wingers, most of whom are also Republican nominees.

What the Independence Party is independent of, by contrast, is a coherent ideology. Its candidates in past elections have included conservative Republicans and such certain-to-win-anyway Democrats as the state’s U.S. senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. At least some of the party’s finances have been known to come from politicians who’ve mysteriously ended up as the party’s designated candidates.

Whatever the motivations of Democrats who’ve also been on the Independence line in elections past, November’s upcoming election is unlike any other New York election in recent decades. Half a dozen U.S. House seats and a like number of state Senate seats are up for grabs, which is to say that Democrats’ prospects for taking the House and winning New York’s Senate (where Republicans have clung to a very narrow majority, thanks to gerrymandering and assorted other mischief, for many years) very much depend on the outcome of a number of closely fought New York races. And though the Independence Party has placed Cuomo atop its slate, it has also decided to endorse the Republicans in almost every one of those House and state Senate contests.

In the opinion of New York electionologists, the fact that Cuomo will head the Independence ticket will likely mean that the party’s down-ticket nominees will win anywhere from a few hundred to a few thousand votes more than they otherwise would. In most years, this wouldn’t make that much difference. This year, with so much at stake, it could make a world of difference—most importantly, on the question of whether the Democrats will capture the House and at last be able to thwart some of the policies, impulses, and outright crimes (if crimes they be) of President Trump.

And yet, in full knowledge of that possibility, and for no apparent reason save the demands of his vote-getting ego, Cuomo has consented to head the Independence ticket. If Republicans still control the Congress next January, and still are in position to doom progressive initiatives in Albany through their control of the Senate, Cuomo will have some ‘splainin to do. Indeed, he has some ‘splainin to do right now. ~ HAROLD MEYERSON

Copyright (C) 2018 The American Prospect All rights reserved.
American Prospect
1225 Eye Street, NW
Suite 600
Washington DC 20005 United States
If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe.

Categories Charter Schools, Cuomo, Andrew, Education Industry, New York, Privatization

DFER Will Spend Millions to Support Pro-Charter, Pro-High-Stakes Testing Candidates

By dianeravitch
August 7, 2018 //
25

If you like high-stakes testing and charter schools, you will love “Democrats for Education Reform.”

DFER, as it is known, was condemned by resolution by the Democratic party conferences in Colorado and California for using the word “Democrat” to promote a corporate agenda that is hostile to public schools. DFER is also hostile to public school teachers and unions, but loves TFA and merit pay. All the usual Corporate Reform failures. Real Democrats, like the parties in Colorado and California think that DFERs are Republicans pretending to be Democrats.

Democrats for Education Reform is a group funded by Wall Street hedge fund managers who despise public schools. They never support candidates who are opposed to privatization or those who are fully committed to public schools. They only support candidates who want to siphon money away from public schools to support charter schools. They support candidates who love high-stakes testing. They never look at evidence that shows the damage that charters do to public schools or the evidence that shows the total failure of high-stakes testing to make any difference other than demoralizing students and teachers. They don’t care that a decade of their policies driven by the U.S. Department of Education has led to stagnation of NAEP scores.

In New York State, hedge funders supporting charter schools are pouring millions of dollars into races for the State Senate, both to support the charter school industry and to make sure that Republicans retain control of the State Senate, thus fending off higher taxes and protecting charter schools. Another DFERite dumping big money into New York State campaigns is Paul Tudor Jones, who gave $150,000 to something called “Parents Vote,” which seems to be controlled by StudentsFirst (hard to tell the Astroturf organizations apart). The treasurer of “Parents Vote” is the attorney for StudentsFirst. Jones may be a parent, but he lives in Connecticut, not New York, and you can bet your bottom dollar that he does not send his own children to public schools or charter schools. This outpouring of money is meant to keep the State Senate firmly under GOP management, to make sure that charters continue to operate without oversight and do their own thing.

You may or may not remember that Paul Tudor Jones is one of the nine billionaires who determined that it was up to them to remake the public schools of New York, although no one elected them to do so.

Just five years ago, Forbes ran a big article about Paul Tudor Jones and his plan to “save American education.” While busy saving American education, Jones also served on the board of Harvey Weinstein’s company and fought to save Harvey’s battered reputation.

Please note that the following story misidentifies DFER and treats them as a legitimate “reform” group when DFER acts only in the interest of Corporate Reform, high-stakes testing and privatization. The story also errs in not acknowledging that many DFER members are not Democrats.

From Politico:


FIRST LOOK: EDUCATION REFORM GROUP BETS BIG ON GOVERNOR’S RACES: Democrats for Education Reform plans to spend $4 million on campaign contributions and advertising this election cycle, boosting Democratic candidates who want to support public schools but are open to reform-minded ways of improving them.

— The organization — which advocates for a host of school reform policies nationwide like strong test-based accountability and high-quality public charter schools — through its political action committee is prioritizing gubernatorial races in Colorado, Connecticut and New York, in addition to the California state superintendent’s race and some state legislative races. DFER exclusively detailed its spending and campaign plans with Morning Education in an interview late last month. Asked the source of the $4 million, a spokeswoman the figure comes from their “supporters” and “contributors.”

— In Colorado’s battle for governor, DFER is backing Rep. Jared Polis, a House education committee Democrat who’s running against state Treasurer Walker Stapleton, a Republican.

— The race to replace term-limited Gov. John Hickenlooper has proven divisive for Colorado Democrats — the state teachers union backed another Democrat, Cary Kennedy, during the primary. Allies of Kennedy sought to tie Polis to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos and her support for private school vouchers. Polis founded two charter schools, but hasn’t shown support for vouchers or federally funded private schools in Congress. When Kennedy lost to Polis, the state teachers union released a statement that didn’t even mention Polis’ name.

— In Connecticut, DFER is supporting Ned Lamont, the Democratic hopeful looking to replace Gov. Dannel Malloy, who’s not seeking reelection. And the organization is pushing for Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s reelection in New York.

— In California, DFER wants to lift Marshall Tuck to victory as state schools superintendent. Tuck is an education reform advocate who has run both charter schools and district schools in Los Angeles. In 2014, he narrowly lost a bid for state schools chief to Tom Torlakson, the current superintendent, who had the support of teachers unions. Tuck will face another Democrat, state Assemblyman Tony Thurmond, in the general election this fall.

— DFER in addition is launching a social media campaignon what it means to be an “education progressive.” The group defines that term as fighting to spend more money on public education while embracing “new ideas” to bring about faster improvement. Some of those ideas, like stronger test-based accountability measures, have faced staunch opposition from progressive groups like teachers unions. But DFER is pushing new polling results that President Shavar Jeffries says illustrate strong support. More on that polling here.

— Jeffries, who recently sat down with Morning Education, stressed that more than half of Democratic primary voters, African American voters and Hispanic voters don’t think public schools are changing or improving fast enough. The poll also found broad support for public school choice — a divisive issue for the Democratic Party — and more equitable funding for public schools, particularly disadvantaged ones. The results stem from two nationwide phone polls of more than 1,000 voters each between May and July of this year. The poll was conducted by consulting firms Benenson Strategy Group and 270 Strategies.

Would it be asking too much to hope that Caitlin Emma and the crack reporters on the Politico team might consider interviewing a critic of billionaire “Reformers.” Maybe a teacher? Say, someone like Steven Singer or Peter Greene or Mark Weber, or other well-informed critics of the intrusion of billionaire know-nothings into education policymaking? Maybe Carol Burris of the Network for Public Education?

Categories Charter Schools, Colorado, Corporate Reformers, Democrats for Education Reform, Education Industry, New York, Privatization, School Choice, Teacher Evaluations, Testing, Unions
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »