Archives for category: New York

A comment on the blog:

I am a parent of a student at one of the state’s 20 “persistently struggling schools” LeBrun mentions in the article. We learned at a meeting earlier this week that because the school has met the state’s goals on many of the metrics used to evaluate these schools entering the receivership game, the school cannot choose those metrics to be evaluated on at the end of the year. Almost all of the metrics that are left to be chosen to be evaluated on are related to the state testing. It is all a game of trying to figure out which population subgroups will be most likely to meet the metrics when the tests are given months from now And you just keep your fingers crossed that you pick the right subgroups. (This is helping the kids how?)

It also appears that the school population as a whole has to have 95% participation in state testing to meet metrics. Is there any district in the state that did that last year? I think our school was about 80% participation last year. This is something that the school has very little control over. (To the administration’s credit, they do not strong arm families to take the test.) How can a school be evaluated on this?

Ideas of what we can do about this? The school’s plan is due Sept 30, so there’s not much we can do to change the procedure prior to plan submission. (We received the metrics from SED earlier this week, so there wasn’t much lead time.) How can we fight this even after our plan is submitted?

I am quite scared about what might happen to the school next year. No one seems to know what the possibilities even are or what rights the school and the parents have.

Fred LeBrun is rapidly emerging as the most astute education writer in New York State. He writes for the Albany Times-Union so there is a good chance that the Governor’s staff and the legislative staff read what he writes. I hope so.

In this article, he skewers Cuomo’s plan to put struggling schools into “receivership.” That’ll fix them. Millions will be burned while the state ignores the root causes of low-performance in school: poverty. It seems that all the schools on the Governor’s list are in poor communities. Black and brown children will be Cuomo’s playthings, as teachers and principals and other staff are fired and new ones brought in, who will also be fired.

It is painful to read. You know that millions of dollars will be spent on consultants, and by the time the money is all gone, there will be more schools to hand over to Cuomo’s hedge fund buddies to turn into low-performing charters.

LeBrun writes:

While New York public education struggles to resolve an idiotic dependence on standardized tests, waiting in the wings is another poorly-thought-out plan threatening more harm than benefit: school receivership.

So far you haven’t heard a great deal about it because the dramatic consequences are a year off, but you will. And, unlike the statewide disgust over Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s testing obsession that affects every school district and has gotten a lot of press, the threat of receivership at the moment hangs over only 144 “struggling” schools — not districts — all of them among the state’s poorest. Of these, 20 are labeled by the state Education Department as “persistently struggling” because of the length of time they’ve been “struggling” and need to turn themselves around in just a year, or else. The rest have two years.

In the Capital Region, only Albany’s William S. Hackett Middle School is on the persistent list, but if a handful of schools in Albany, Troy, Schenectady and Amsterdam, including Albany High School, don’t show appropriate progress, they will join Hackett next year.

What happens now for schools like Hackett is as complicated as directions to Atlantis, and about as reliable.

Albany school Superintendent Marguerite Vanden Wyngaard becomes the acting school receiver, with broad powers, for the next year. A required community engagement team composed of the principal, staff, teachers, parents and even students from Hackett will forward recommendations for improvements to the superintendent, who will use them to help create her intervention plan to turn the school around. The plan is due at State Ed for approval by the end of this month. Over the next year, the community team will look over her shoulder as the intervention plan unfolds.

In the meantime, the school receiver can do pretty much what she wants (with approval from State Ed): change the curriculum, replace teachers and administrators, increase salaries, reallocate the budget, expand the school day or year, turn Hackett into a community school, even convert to a charter school. Although there’s enormous rigmarole attached to much of it, including going charter. Remember, the receiver in this case remains the superintendent for the rest of the district, so she is answerable for any wild and crazy ideas to the voters through the school board.

Anyway, to help start the process, Vanden Wyngaard can apply for a grant from a $75 million pot set up by the state, although she’ll have plenty of competition from other “persistently struggling” school receivers in Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Yonkers, New York City and elsewhere. She has a year to do her turnaround. Or the hammer falls and we are off to Neverland.

Then the state would appoint an independent receiver who is answerable only to State Ed. At which time the process of community involvement, an intervention plan, and the rest are repeated, only now change is apt to be far more radical, with wholesale staff firings. An independent receiver can be a person from an approved list that doesn’t yet exist, or an institution or charter school. Although charter schools upstate have been mostly a bust, as Albany well knows. Middle school charters in Albany could not save themselves, let alone others.

So. If you’re getting the idea that this receivership idea seems like a plan designed to fail and thus prepare the way for school privatizers to make a bundle, move over.

For one thing, the state has yet to give school receivers a clear idea of what would constitute appropriate progress to avoid an independent receiver. Presumably, we’ll know by the end of the month when intervention plans have to be approved. What is expected and how reasonable it is will answer a great deal.

Because just a year to show any marked improvement on any front for a school like Hackett, no matter how thoughtfully considered, broadly accepted by the community, or earnestly pursued, is absurd. Real change needs time for all stakeholders to become invested. Teachers at Hackett today are still complaining that attendance and discipline as major problems, just as it was when I substituted there, oh, a half century ago. These are, after all, manifestations of the poverty and despair underlying most of Hackett’s problems; they don’t go away. They are the community’s problems, not just Hackett’s.

And for any turnaround plan to stand a chance of success, it will need tons of money and sustained financing for years. Curiously, while the law creating school receiverships is rich in the detail of who can be fired and not rehired, on punitive measures, and what extraordinary powers a receiver may exercise, it does not specify who will pay for an independent receiver.

Keeping in mind, always, that the state has an abysmal record in meeting its education commitments. At the moment, the state owes New York City more than $2 billion in aid; Albany more than $37 million; Schenectady nearly $60 million.

So there you have it. A boondoggle in the making. Cuomo forced us to accept a mandate of an independent receiver for certain schools labeled struggling by his cohorts at State Ed, but so far there isn’t a hint of state money to pay for it. Can you imagine what that burden will do for school budgets like Albany’s?

Oh, and it gets better. Amusingly, the concept of “struggling” public schools is defined by the educational establishment as the bottom 5 percent of all state schools based on a host of criteria. Which means no matter how much struggling schools improve, there will always be 5 percent at the bottom who potentially need a receiver.

What a surprise.

flebrun@timesunion.com • 518-454-5453

Bianca Tanis is a public school parent and teacher of special education in the Hudson Valley of New York. In this post, she expresses her disgust and dismay that Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch continues to promote the Cuomo plan to make test scores 50% of educator evaluation, while pretending to make meaningless amendments.

Tisch, who has been a Regent for 20 years, assumes that the Cuomo plan will weed out ineffective teachers in high-poverty schools, but fails to suggest how effective teachers will be drawn to these schools. In the past, she has proposed exempting the affluent white suburbs, where scores are highest, from the Cuomo program. She believes that poor children, minority children will benefit if their teachers and principal live in fear of low test scores, if their school eliminates the arts and physical education and social studies to concentrate in test prep.

Tisch dismisses the statement of the American Statistical Assiciation, which warns against using test scores to judge individual teachers, as if it was the opinion of a few individuals.

Over the three years of Common Cire testing, this approach to evaluation has proven to be unreliable and unstable. It is also deeply demoralizing and has contributed to the growing national teacher shortage. This is Arne Duncan’s legacy. It will also be Cuomo and Tisch’s legacy.

Today, the New York Board of Regents will vote to approve the harsh and punitive educator evaluation plan that Governor Andrew Cuomo rammed through the Legislature last spring as part of a budget bill.

In doing so, the Regents will abandon their Constitutional authority over education policy. The New York State Constitution grants full control over education to the Board of Regents. It grants none to the Governor. The Governor does not appoint a single member of the 17-member Board of Regents. The State Legislature selects them. The Governor does not appoint the state Commissioner of Education. That is the job of the Regents.

Today the Regents will approve Cuomo’s plan to tie 50% of educator evaluations to student test scores. The Governor’s plan was shaped in his office, without benefit of hearings, public discussion, public debate, or expert testimony.

The Regents have the power to reassert their Constitutional authority. But they are weak. They will fold to the will of a Governor whose determination to rule is greater than the Regents’ commitment to the State Constitution. Or to the children, or to the educators, or to the best interests of education in New York.

Parents have been ignored throughout this charade of the Governor flexing his political muscle. They will have a chance to be heard next spring, when the tests are administered. More students will opt out, more than the 220,000 who refused the tests in 2015. Will it be 300,000? 400,000? This is parents’ only means to be heard. They will be heard.

There is a saying in New York that all the state government decisions are made by “three men in a room”: the governor, the speaker of the Assembly, and the speaker of the Senate. The latter two have been indicted by the U.S Attorney on corruption charges. Now it appears that there is trouble ahead for Governor Andrew Cuomo.

The New York Times reported that leaders of the Moreland Commission on government ethics, which Cuomo created and then disbanded less than a year later, have complained that he interfered with their work.

Senior officials of a state anticorruption commission shut down last year by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo have told federal prosecutors that they believed he and his staff intervened in its operations “in a manner that, at times, led them to question the independence” of the panel, the prosecutors said in a recent letter.

The letter, which briefly summarizes the officials’ statements, was attached to court papers filed on Friday night by lawyers for Sheldon Silver, the former Assembly speaker, as he prepares for his corruption case in federal court in Manhattan.

The officials have not spoken publicly about the involvement of the governor’s office in the operation of the panel, which was known as the Moreland Commission. Their statements to prosecutors are in contrast to Mr. Cuomo’s assertions last summer that his office did not inappropriately intervene in the work of the panel, which he created in July 2013 and abruptly disbanded nine months later.

Sheldon Silver, the speaker of the New York State Assembly, left the courthouse on Thursday in Manhattan.Sheldon Silver, Assembly Speaker, Took Millions in Payoffs, U.S. SaysJAN. 22, 2015
In Buffalo to discuss jobs, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Monday was peppered with questions on the Moreland Commission.Defiant, Cuomo Denies Interfering With Ethics CommissionJULY 28, 2014
interactive The Short Life of an Anticorruption CommissionJULY 23, 2014

Now comes a report that Governor Cuomo took $200 million earmarked for school aid and gave it to the New York Racing Association, one of the governor’s major donors.

And, last comes a report from Perdido Street School blogger that Governor Cuomo’s “receivership program” for low-performing schools will be a boondoggle for the charter industry.

What we have here is “stacking ranking” for schools, with the state playing rank and yank every year, adding schools to the privatization, er, receivership list, setting them up to “fail” and then handing them over to the privatizers, profiteers and/or charter operators.

Just as with stack ranking for employees, the program will disempower, demoralize and ultimately destroy the system (this is also the same rationale behind Cuomo’s APPR teacher evaluation system, btw – ranking teachers every year and declaring 7% “ineffective” no matter what.)

Just ask Microsoft, which used stack ranking as its evaluation system for employees, how well that worked for them as Apple was kicking them to the wayside in competition.

But of course if you’re Andrew Cuomo, you want to destroy the system – that’s exactly what he promised to do in 2014 and that’s the plan he’s been carrying out since.

This arrived in my email box. I hope Regent Tilles, a member of the New York Board of Regents, reads it before he votes on the Governor’s flawed and punitive teacher evaluation program.
Dear Regent Tilles,

I am writing to you to share my own experience as a teacher in the hopes that you’ll see how absurd basing teacher evaluations on test scores can be.

Before I reveal my state growth score, let me give you some figures. After all, in any other job in the world, you are judged on performance. And Common Core is supposed to be about getting our students college and career ready, two places where they will be judged on performance. So after my principal gave me my state growth score, I decided to take a look at how my students actually performed on the state ELA test.

I had 31 students take the state ELA test. I am not going to count one student and his Level 1 score based on the fact that on the Part 1, he simply filled in A for each question in column 1 of the answer sheet, B for each question in column 2, C for each question in column 3, and D for each question in column 4 (that alone should be enough to see the flaws in having a test-based evaluation). 14 of my 30 students scored at Level 3. That’s 46.7%. 7 of my 30 scored at Level 4. That’s 23.3%. 70% of my students scored Level 3+4. The percents for the entire grade level in my building were 26% Level 3, 15% Level 4, 41% Level 3+4. In the regional scores given to us by BOCES, 42% of the students on my grade scored on Level 3+4. Other than the SED, anyone would look at my numbers and say not only did I do my job, I did it very well.

Here’s another way to look at the results. My students accounted for 27.5% of those who took the test on my grade level, but they accounted for 48.3% of our Level 3 scores and 43.8% of our Level 4 scores. Let me say that again. My students were a little more than 1/4 of all those on my grade level in my building who took the test and yet I accounted for nearly 1/2 the Level 3 and 4 scores.

Based on that data, the question I have is, “Did I do my job? Was I an effective teacher?” Well if I were a school myself, my percentage of students meeting state standards, 70%, would rank me 8th in all of the county.

So now the big reveal. What was my state growth score based on these fantastic results? A 20 out of 20? At least a 16 out of 20? No, I was a 1 out of 20. Yes, a 1. 70% of my students met state standards, yet based on the ridiculous growth formula SED uses that no one really understands, I was deemed to be an Ineffective teacher. Thankfully, my bosses recognize the job I do and due to my score on my observations and our local 20%, my overall score is enough to rate me Effective (barely).

I hope my situation shows just how deeply flawed a test-based teacher evaluation system is, and that you will do everything possible to make sure we eliminate it. I have no problem being evaluated. Contrary to what the governor may think, he did not create the teacher evaluation system. I have been evaluated every year during my 22-year career. All the governor and our legislators have done is create a system that simply DOES NOT WORK. I’m asking for your help in fixing it.

Sincerely,

A proud teacher beginning his 23rd year

You are surely familiar with Sheri Lederman. She is a fourth-grade teacher in Great Neck, Long Island, New York, whose “growth” scores dropped inexplicably from 14 of 20 to only 1 of 20 in a single year, causing her to be labeled “ineffective” on that measure. The score was assigned by a computer, which compared the growth of students in her class to avatar students in other parts of the state. The assumption is that children are inanimate objects that can be shaped and compelled to increase their standardized test scores. The computer is, in this case, at odds with Sheri’s principal, superintendent, parents, and former students.

Sheri’s husband Bruce Lederman is a lawyer. They decided not to accept this slap in the face to a teacher who had served with distinction for nearly 20 years. Bruce sued and the case was recently heard in state supreme court in Albany.

Here is a video about the case. Meet Sheri and Bruce, who are fighting for teachers across the state and the nation. The best part is the clip where Governor Andrew Cuomo declares his unqualified faith in using test scores to judge teachers and his belief that students will get a better education (or higher test scores) if teachers compete in a market.

This case is of national significance. It is a powerful weapon in the battle to restore humanity to teachers’ workplace.

In 1975, New York City’s government teetered on the verge of bankruptcy. The city’s leaders appealed to the Gerald Ford administration for financial help. President Ford said no.

The New York Daily News published a headline on its front page that was immediately iconic:

FORD TO NYC: DROP DEAD

Today the same newspaper published an editorial with the same sentiment, this time directed at the parents of the 220,000 children who refused the state tests.

The editorial argues that the parents have been manipulated by the teachers’ union, which is not only false but implies that the parents are dupes.

The editorial claims that the state must stand by the Common Core standards, which (they say) were “developed over many years by the nation’s top education experts.” Would the editorial board please tell us how many years they consider “many,” like two? Would the editors please name the nation’s “top educational experts?” David Coleman of McKinsey? Jason Zimba of Bennington College? Representatives of the College Board and ACT? Are these our “nation’s top educational experts”? Who says so?

The editorial argues that the state must support Governor Cuomo’s demand that 50% of teachers’ evaluation be tied to student test scores, ignoring the research and experience showing that this policy has no basis in research or real life.

Has the editorial board read the statement of the American Statistical Association, which found that teachers affect 1-14% of the variation in student scores, while the family and home have a far greater effect?

Is the editorial board aware of the legal battle of Sheri Lederman, an exemplary fourth-grade teacher in Great Neck who was rated “ineffective” on student growth? Sheri received accolades from her superintendent, her principal, parents, and former students. Should respected and successful teachers like Sheri be fired and replaced by new and inexperienced teachers? Why?

The editorial piously says:

“Kids in struggling schools have for years been plagued by low expectations and too many lower-performing teachers.”

So the editorial wants readers to believe that the Common Core tests that failed 96% of English language learners, 94% of children with disabilities, and more than 80% of Black and Hispanic children are in their best interests. Never mind that the same tests, with their absurdly unrealistic passing marks, widened the achievement gaps among groups. Why does the editorial board think that students in “struggling schools” will fare better academically if most of them fail the Common Core tests year after year? How will repeated failure create higher expectations? More likely, it will produce among the children a sense of despair and low self-worth.

It may be comforting to the editors of the Daily News to think that their arch-enemy–the teachers’ union–is pulling the strings, but the reality is that parents across the state are fed up with the excessive emphasis on testing. They know it robs their children of the arts, science, history, even physical education and recess.

The union doesn’t tell them that their children are cheated by the obsessive focus on testing. Parents see it with their own eyes. And parents across America agree with parents in Néw York. A recent Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup poll reported that 67% of public school parents and 64% of the public nationwide think there is too much emphasis on standardized tests in school.

So who should we listen to about education? The politicians or public school parents? The politicians or statistical experts?

This is a battle that the Daily News and Governor Cuomo can’t win. If they keep fighting and demeaning parents, next spring there will be 400,000 students who refuse the tests. They will refuse not because their parents are dupes of the union, but because their parents are defending the best interests of their children.

Stories about the high opt out rates in Néw York state usually focus in Long Island. However, upstate Néw York–near the Canadian border–also had a huge number of students refuse the state’s Common Core tests.

“The average opt-out rate for Franklin County schools in 2014-15 was about 46 percent for the ELA exam and about 51 percent for the math assessment.

“While a high number of test refusals skews the results to some extent, Griffin noted, “we are very proud of those students who did take the exams last spring.

“We are looking forward to showing even more improvement in 2015-16.”

“Saranac Central School Superintendent Jonathan Parks agrees that a high opt-out rate, which Clinton County also experienced in 2014-15, makes it hard to analyze the exam scores.

“With the average test-refusal rates for Clinton County schools at 41 percent for ELA and 46 percent for math, any analyses or comparisons are difficult to make, and perhaps even statistically invalid,” he told the Press-Republican. “I am not a statistician, but it would seem to me that the only way that any determination of overall results would be accurate would be if there were a random sampling technique used, and this was clearly not happening in schools across the region or the state.

“Without a careful look at the ability levels of all students who refused the tests, it’s hard to really say how well our students did on these tests.”

“The statewide refusal rate — about 20 percent — was much lower than that of the county, he added.

“And even that rate calls into question the proficiency levels reported by NYSED (New York State Education Department),” Parks said. ”

These are not affluent districts. They are not suburbs. They are semi-rural and rural. Their elected representatives should take note.

Blogger Perdido Street School reports that 45 percent of the teacher ratings for the public schools of Buffalo, New York, were inaccurate. The ratings were outsourced to a company in Utah that acknowledged its errors. Its miscalculations resulted in 1,089 teachers receiving lower ratings than they should have.

The blogger quotes the story in the Buffalo News:

Lower-than-correct scores were given to educators who teach more than one grade level or subject and are required to meet multiple sets of student learning objectives. The company had rewritten its scoring calculations over the summer to enable it to produce scores more rapidly, Rosenthal said. But in doing so, it inadvertently created the calculation error for this group of teachers.

The district’s data chief, Genelle Morris, said a teacher brought the error to the district’s attention. According to the teacher’s manual calculations, she had met her performance targets, but that was not reflected in the online calculations produced by Truenorthlogic. The district checked her calculations and ran them internally through the district’s Information Technology Department and found it could not replicate Truenorthlogic’s scores.

The company soon uncovered the source of the error and the corrected results were posted online for teachers to view late Thursday morning.

Perdido Street adds this observation about the Governor who insisted on creating the evaluation system (APPR) and who insists it is “scientific” and “objective”:

It will be fun to see Cuomo twist himself into a pretzel to defend APPR even as the Common Core/Endless Testing edifice comes down around him.

Make no mistake – he will do just that.

APPR is his baby – his donors wanted it, he pushed for it, when pushback came, he fought to impose it on the state through the budget.

He will not want to admit it is as flawed and error-riddled as the Common Core implementation (which he can blame on NYSED), the Common Core tests (which he can blame on Pearson) or the Common Core curriculum (which he can blame on NYSED.)

When it comes to APPR, he has no one to blame but himself.