Archives for category: Standardized Testing

The Oklahoma Parent Teacher Association voted to urge parents to boycott all state tests that are not federally mandated.

 

Historian and teacher John Thompson writes:

 

Nate Robson reports in Oklahoma Watch that the Oklahoma Parent Teachers Association (PTA) has voted to boycott all non-federally mandated tests “in an attempt to pressure lawmakers to cut back the number of high-stakes tests students take.” The PTA also asked that the state Department of Education not use the test scores to calculate school A-F grades, and called for the exemption of all schools from A-F grading if less than 95 percent of their students are tested.

 

As the Tulsa World’s Andrea Eger reports, the Oklahoma PTA acted in “direct response” to its members’ concerns about the Legislature’s failure to reduce standardized testing. PTA President Jeff Corbett said, “Parents have had enough. Parents want more for their children than for them to be great test takers. The fact of the matter is this: Our children deserve better.”

 

Corbett further explained, “In Oklahoma, we know what it is to respond to disaster — and it is time that we responded to the disaster that high-stakes tests have made of our public education system.”

 

A grassroots Opt Out movement and a bipartisan resistance to bubble-in accountability have demanded a state government response to the testing mania. Parents, students, and teachers rallied at the state Capitol but the legislature did not listen. So, Corbett promised, “Together, we will take our classrooms out of the wallets of the testing companies and turn them back over to our teachers.”

 

I was in Oklahoma last month to speak to superintendents from across the state, and I got the distinct impression that they too are fed up with the deluge of tests. Many principals were at their meeting and were shaking their heads in assent at every negative reference to tests. They know that the current regime of test-and-punish is wrong. It is bad for kids and bad for education.

 

This is a huge step forward for the Opt Out movement. This movement is growing and can’t be stopped.

 

 

Robson’s story say:

 

Education Superintendent Joy Hofmeister on Wednesday said lawmakers could have avoided the PTA resolution by supporting legislation cutting the number of tests.

It’s not clear whether she supports the resolution.

The Oklahoma Education Association, the state’s largest teachers union, said they want to see testing reduced, but would not say whether they supported the resolution.

The main concern is a testing boycott could hurt schools and teachers. That’s because blank tests count against teachers in evaluations and against schools on their A-F report cards.

The PTA resolution does ask that the state Department of Education not use the test scores to calculate school A-F grades.

John Thompson, a teacher and historian, has watched the heated debate about standardized testing, with some claiming high-stakes testing protects Black and Hispanic children, and others saying it harms these very children. He weighs in with a thoughtful column.

 

Thompson says that the Obama administration education policy boils down to a simple formula: “test, sort, and punish…Some students may benefit but only at the cost of inflicting harm on other children.”

 

He writes:

 

Its ironic that the market-driven movement – that still pretends it is a civil rights movement – is going out with such an ignominious whimper. Output-driven reform not only damaged poor children of color by treating them as test scores, it has undermined liberals and Democrats who seek a larger agenda of equity and justice. So, a crucial short term battle is the civil war between progressives, with teachers determined to prevent Hillary Clinton (or anyone else) from repeating Arne Duncan’s agenda….

 

He notes that leaders of national civil rights groups have rejected the Senate “Every Child Achieves Act,” thinking that it will lessen the heavy emphasis on testing.

 

That raises the question of why an unwavering commitment to punitive, bubble-in testing is still thought – by some – to be a civil rights value. Why do these civil rights leaders believe they can promote justice by continuing to attack some of their most loyal, long term allies in the battles for equality and fairness?

 

It is the leaders of the civil rights groups who promoted NCLB who still support its high stakes testing. Another 38 civil rights groups have joined 175 organizations in opposing high stakes tests…

 

I sure don’t see support for No Child Left Untested by rank-in-file civil rights supporters. I see black, brown, and white parents recoiling from the way that bubble-in malpractice has robbed their children of respectful and engaging instruction. I see persons of all races torn between our original support for the ultimate goals of the Duncan administration and our sadness regarding the disappointing and destructive outcomes of the Obama administration’s policies. I sure haven’t met black, brown and white persons committed to civil rights who still believe high stakes standardized testing can enhance equity.

 

But, then again, in my tens of thousands of interactions with stakeholders, I have almost never met a person who wasn’t quickly disillusioned by NCLB testing. The only people who still seem to support stakes attached to its testing are politicos who are personally invested in the law they promoted.

 

The continued assault on teachers and unions by the Obama administration will not lead to better schools. Thompson no longer believes that Arne Duncan and his few remaining allies “are just fighting for poor children of color. Their obsessive support for reward and punish seems to also be due to a desire to exact a pound of flesh from educators for opposing their punitive approach to school reform.”

 

 

Joseph Herbert teaches math at Wilson High School in the District of Columbia. In this post, he explains how PARCC, the Common Core test, hurt his students. He supports the Common Core but not the tests.

He writes that the current “reforms” are deeply flawed.

“The problem is two-fold: (1) the data collected do not reliably give us the information that reformers claim they do, and (2) the over-emphasis on testing is sucking the life and joy out of school, interfering significantly with actual teaching and learning, and narrowing the curriculum.”

VAM, he says, is unreliable and invalid, as is the data it produces.

Students lost many weeks of instructional time because of testing:

“Our freshmen and sophomores took over seven hours worth of PARCC tests in the month of March alone. Furthermore, they had a second round of PARCC tests in May followed shortly thereafter by final exams in June. Ultimately, these children had three out of the last four months of school dominated by tests.

“Previously, all students took the paper-and-pencil DC-CAS standardized test at the same time, and instruction was disrupted for about a week. With the new PARCC test, there was a much more protracted disruption to instruction. The PARCC test is administered online, but Wilson simply does not have the technological infrastructure to test large numbers of students simultaneously. Without the necessary IT infrastructure we were forced to test small groups of students on a rotating basis.

“As a result, we spent over three weeks administering the first round of PARCC tests alone. Students were forced to miss class to test while their classes went on, causing them to lose valuable instructional time.”

He does not blame the Common Core standards. He blames PARCC. To those who think we need annual testing, he points out that NAEP reports the gaps every two years, without the intrusiveness of PARCC.

He writes:

“Ultimately, we have to ask ourselves what kind of experience we want our children to have in school. I believe that kids learn more when they’re excited to come to school. I believe they learn more when they have meaningful and thoughtful questions to ask and answer. I believe math can and should be fun.

“I believe that if we want to stem the tide of DC’s dropout crisis, school should be a worthwhile place to attend, not a miserable experience of test taking.

“I believe that if we want to close the achievement gap, we need to have an open and honest conversation about what students need from school, what they want from school, and how we can get data on student performance without perversely affecting their school experience.

“Most of all, I believe that school is a place for profound growth and learning. Anything that detracts from or actively impedes that must go.”

Jeff Bryant, Director of the Education Opportunity Network, faults Lyndsey Layton’s sympathetic portrayal of Arne Duncan. She portrays him as someone who is a good listener, a big-hearted fellow who won wide acceptance for charter schools, test-based evaluation of teachers, and the Common Core. Bryant says she got the story wrong. He says that reporters for the big national newspapers think that if they interview people in think tanks inside the Beltway, they have the real story. In fact, people inside the Beltway think tanks live in an echo chamber, almost completely detached from the rest of America and the consequences of the policies they promote.

Bryant says Layton got it wrong: Arne is not a good listener; in fact, he never listens to anyone unless they agree with him. Most Americans still don’t know what charter schools are. Test-based teacher evaluation has been a flop, and increasing numbers of states are dropping the Common Core and/or the tests that Arne paid $360 million for.

The most notable result of Arne’s stewardship of the U.S. Department of Education is that both parties have agreed to legislation that would neuter future Secretaries of Education and strip them of the power to punish schools, districts, and states. This is not exactly a resounding endorsement of his leadership. You might say that it is a bipartisan repudiation of it.

Bryant is quietly furious. He cites Arne’s “white suburban moms” quote about the anti-testing revolt in New York. He did not mention Arne’s infamous claim that Hurricane Katrina was the best thing that ever happened to New Orleans’ public schools: It wiped out the public schools, created a pretext to fire 7,500 mostly African American teachers, eliminated the teachers’ union, and turned New Orleans into a privatized district. Nor did he mention Arne’s other memorable quote, that he wants to be able to look into the eyes of a second-grader and know that he or she is college-bound. When you see the kind of absurd comments that he is apt to make off-the-cuff, you can understand why he sticks with talking points and a tight script.

Duncan’s policies failed because he never listened to critics. He listened, or appeared to, then ignored whatever he may have heard. As Bryant writes, “Every time experienced educators challenged Duncan to question his agenda and reconsider policy directions, he responded by … continuing down the same course.”

The worst legacy of Duncan’s tenure is that Congress is determined to limit the role of the federal government in the future and to forfeit the good things that the federal government has done in the past.

He writes:

What’s particularly unfortunate about that policy direction is that the federal government historically has had a mostly positive influence in public schools. As the article reminds us, what we now call NCLB was “initially passed in 1965 as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act,” a law that “was originally designed to protect the nation’s neediest students, and that the federal government must play a significant enforcement role to ensure that poor students, racial minorities and students with disabilities all receive an equal education.”

Because of that act, millions upon millions of impoverished children have had resources funneled to their schools through programs like Title I. Students who do not speak English as their first language have had funds sent to their schools to pay for specialists. Students who have physical disabilities, social-emotional problems and trouble with their learning and intellectual development have had more access to education opportunities and better supports in their schools. More girls and young women have been provided opportunities to play sports and experience a full curriculum.

Sure, this federal mission has not always been fully funded or adequately implemented. But that was the goal, and it was the goal NCLB took our attention away from and the goal this blundering oaf of a secretary refused to take up as his primary job, even though everyone outside his inner circle clamored he do so.

So the biggest tragedy of Arne Duncan is not only the millions of students and families ill-served under his tenure but the millions that will likely be ill-served in the future because it looks like his self-righteous, narrow-minded zeal will leave the federal government’s role in education marginalized for the immediate and foreseeable future.

When Bernie Sanders responded to the candidate questionnaire of the American Federation of Teachers, he explained his views on a wide range of issues.

To those on this blog who are adamantly opposed to the Senate’s “Every Child Achieves Act,” please note that Bernie voted for it and sees it as an improvement over the current high-stakes testing environment.

His views are similar to those of the Network for Public Education. We support the ECAA with qualifications because we oppose annual testing and federal support for charter schools.

 

The American Federation of Teachers invited all candidates to respond to their questionnaire. Three responded: Hillary Clinton, Martin O’Malley, and Bernie Sanders.

 

 

Candidate questionnaire: Bernie Sanders

 
Today, almost 50 million students attend our nation’s public schools. Along with their parents, communities, teachers, paraprofessionals and other school employees, these students have been forced to live under test—and-punish policies that include sanctions and school closings, high-stakes assessments, and federalized teacher evaluations that are counterproductive and have taken the joy out of teaching and learning.

 

Q. What is your view of the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (also
known as the No Child Left Behind Act)? What changes, if any, would you make to the law, and
why? Please include positions on:
• The federal government’s role in ensuring equity and access to resources for all children;
• The role of standards, assessments and accountability in public education;
• Ensuring that all students have access to a broad curriculum that includes art and music,
as well as science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM);
• Professional development for school staff; and
• Community schools.

 

BS: I voted against No Child Left Behind in 2001, and continue to oppose the bill’s reliance on high-stakes standardized testing to direct draconian interventions. In my view, No Child Left Behind ignores several important factors in a student’s academic performance, specifically the impact of poverty, access to adequate health care, mental health, nutrition, and a wide variety of supports that children in poverty should have access to. By placing so much emphasis on standardized testing, No Child Left Behind ignores many of the skills and qualities that are vitally important in our 21st century economy, like problem solving, critical thinking, and teamwork, in favor of test preparation that provides no benefit to students after they leave school.

In my home state of Vermont, almost every school is identified as “failing” under the requirements of No Child Left Behind, despite the fact that we have one of the highest graduation rates in the country, and students from Vermont continually score among the highest in the country on annual NAEP assessments.

As a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, I have worked to reform No Child Left Behind. My top priorities during the most recent iteration of the bill have been:
• Reducing the high-stakes nature of standardized tests by basing accountability on multiple measures of a school’s effectiveness.
• Including a pilot program that allows states to implement innovative systems of assessment that do not rely on standardized tests. Instead, new innovative assessments will empower educators by providing actionable information during the school year that can inform instructional practice.
• Maintaining federal support for afterschool programs provided through the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.
• The inclusion of wrap-around support services like health, mental health, nutrition and family supports.

I believe guaranteeing resource equity is a core tenet of the federal government’s role in education policy, and if elected, I will work reduce the resource disparities that currently exist between schools in wealthy and low-income areas.

In addition, I strongly support increased emphasis on a well-rounded curriculum. No Child Left Behind’s narrow focus on math and literacy has deprived children, especially low-income children, from critical opportunities in the arts, music, physical education, civics and STEM fields.

I also believe that not enough emphasis has been placed on effective professional development for educators and school leaders. Districts and schools must provide more time and support for educators to pursue highly effective professional development. We should be encouraging innovation in professional development, and ensuring that teachers will be able to incorporate professional development into their classroom practice. Finally, we must provide the resources necessary to provide effective professional development for all teachers, and have consistently supported efforts to increase Title II funding.

Q. Do you support any of the current reauthorization proposals under consideration in the 114th
Congress?

BS: I believe the Alexander-Murray compromise on No Child Left Behind reauthorization represents a step in the right direction, and voted for the bill in Committee. While this legislation could go much further to provide adequate resources to our lowest-income students, I believe it is an important step forward. I strongly oppose the Student Success Act because it would gut the core provisions of federal law that direct education funding toward the low-income students who need it most.

Q. What role do you think the federal government can play in providing access to early childhood education? What specific policy proposals would your administration pursue?

BS: Every child in the United States should have access to high quality early childhood education programs, and that the federal government has a critical role to play. If elected, I would pursue a federal program to guarantee access for every child, and ensure early-childhood educators receive compensation that is commensurate with elementary school teachers.

Q. What are your views on private school vouchers, tuition tax credits, and charter school accountability and transparency?

BS: I am strongly opposed to any voucher system that would re-direct public education dollars to private schools, including through the use of tax credits. In addition, I believe charter schools should be held to the same standards of transparency as public schools, and that these standards should also apply to the non-profit and for-profit entities that organize charter schools.

Q. Escalating tuition and fees are leading to a growing number of students leaving college with overwhelming debt from student loans. This burden of rising costs and rising debt makes access to higher education increasingly difficult for many students and their families. What is the role of the federal government in ensuring that higher education is affordable and accessible?

BS: Skyrocketing college tuition has left college out of reach for hundreds of thousands of students, and left millions more deeply in debt. In an increasingly global economy, I believe it is unfair and bad economic policy to force our young people to compete with workers from other countries who can pursue a higher education at little or no cost. This is why I introduced the College for All Act which would create a federal-state partnership to eliminate undergraduate tuition at public colleges and universities. In addition, this legislation would slash student loan interest rates, and allow borrowers to refinance their loans. If elected, I would continue my work to eliminate tuition at public colleges and to alleviate the burden of student debt.

Q. There has been a nationwide pattern of disinvestment in public higher education such that per-student funding dropped 26.1 percent between 1990 and 2010. What would your administration do to remedy this?

BS: State disinvestment has unquestionably been a prime driver of skyrocketing tuition costs. I strongly support the creation of a federal-state partnership that will incentivize states to re-invest in their public higher education systems.

Q. Career and technical education programs help ensure that postsecondary credentials and skills are accessible to all—a necessity in today’s economy. In your view, what is the role of the federal government in supporting high-quality CTE programs?

BS: Career and Technical Education programs are vital pathways to middle-class, family-supporting jobs. I believe it is in our national and economic interest to ensure quality CTE programs are available to every American, and effectively aligned with the needs of the 21st century workforce. Accordingly, I strongly support fully-funding the Perkins CTE program. In addition, if elected, I would work to revolutionize our nation’s approach to workforce development and technical education to build effective, attainable pathways for young people to pursue middle class careers.

Q. What is the federal government’s role in requiring appropriate transparency and accountability of for-profit institutions?

BS: In my view, for-profit colleges and career programs have perpetrated a massive fraud at the expense of American taxpayers, and hundreds of thousands of students who are now saddled with worthless degrees and massive amounts of student debt. As the gatekeeper to financial aid programs, the federal government must be far more vigilant, and do a much more effective job in protecting students and taxpayers from low-quality and fraudulent programs. I support efforts to implement gainful employment regulations, and regulations requiring that no institution receives more than 85% of its revenue from federal sources. In addition, I support efforts to increase transparency in the sector, so students and policymakers have a clearer understanding of institutions’ activities and quality.

Q. What are your views of the Affordable Care Act? What changes would you make, if any, to the ACA, including the excise tax on high-cost plans and the provisions on shared responsibility for employers?

BS: I start my approach to healthcare from a very basic point: healthcare should be a right and not a privilege. Our healthcare system is broken, and the Affordable Care Act was an important first step. It has done a lot of good things that have improved the health and economic security of millions of Americans, including closing the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors, allowing young adults to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans, and preventing insurance companies from discriminating based on pre-existing conditions. But the ACA was not perfect, and there are some improvements we can make. Although millions more Americans have insurance now, the ACA will still leave some 30 million Americans without health coverage. Families will still face plans that have high deductibles and copays, or do not cover the medications or doctors they need.

Beyond those larger improvements, any specific changes to the ACA must be done thoughtfully and with a few key principles in mind–namely, the impact any changes will have on the rest of the healthcare system. Changes to the employer shared responsibility provision should not be done in a way that leads to higher premiums for employees or reduced revenues for the government. As for the excise tax on high-cost health plans, it is important to preserve the savings Congress intended from that provision, but I want to be certain that workers who have traded lower wages for better benefits over the years are not penalized.

Q. Do you support initiatives designed to move health insurance coverage away from an employer-based model? If so, what would you propose as an alternative to the current system for covering working adults?

BS: As I said above, the Affordable Care Act was a good first step towards fixing our broken healthcare system–but it also heavily relies on continuing the employer-based model of health coverage. There is no reason employers should be in the insurance business, unless they actually happen to run an insurance company! I believe the best strategy is to move to universal coverage under a Medicare-for-all single payer system. Your health coverage and your level of benefits should not depend on your employer.

Q. Many licensed healthcare professionals, particularly RNs, are leaving hospital service because of difficult working conditions, including excessive and unsafe workloads, understaffing and mandatory overtime. What would you do to address these problems and to improve recruitment and retention of nurses and other healthcare professionals?

BS: I believe that health care is a right, not a privilege and every American should have access to the health care services they need, regardless of their income. I also believe improved access to primary care will keep people healthier and reduce reliance on emergency rooms as a first site of care. These changes in our health care system will improve the lives of patients but also of health care providers, including RNs working in hospitals, who are often the ones who bear the brunt of our flawed system. Until these types of changes can be made, we need to protect this critical workforce by ensuring they have the equipment and resources they need to provide world class health care without risking personal injury. I have long supported programs and policies, including the National Health Service Corps, designed to encourage caring and dedicated individuals to go into the health care field and serve in areas of greatest need.

Q. Merger and acquisition activity continues to consolidate the U.S. healthcare system into the hands of a few corporations, many of which are for-profit. What would you do to ensure competition in the healthcare industry is fair and protects the American consumer?

BS: Consolidation and concentration of power is occurring throughout every sector of our economy and it must stop. We must not allow a few companies and a few families to control every industry in this country. This is a problem in the health care industry where only a select number companies control the system and focus more on their shareholders’ profits than the health of their customers. For example, prescription medications in this country are not only made by a limited number of companies but are distributed by only a few companies with the ability to set prices however they want and can limit the supply however they choose. America desperately needs a reinvigorated anti-trust system aimed at dismantling the growing concentration in many sectors of our economy.

Q. What would you do to ensure that communities have access to public health services?

BS: Access to public health services has been a substantial focus of my time in Congress. As Chairman of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee in the Senate I worked tirelessly to make sure that every eligible veteran in this country had access to high-quality, timely care through the VA. And as Chairman of the Health Education Labor and Pension’s subcommittee on Primary Health and Aging I led the efforts to reauthorize the Older Americans Act, which helps guarantee access to critical health programs for seniors throughout the country and fought hard to extend funding for three key public service programs: Federally Qualified Health Centers, Teaching Health Center Graduate Medical Education, and the National Health Service Corps. I am a huge supporter of community health centers as I believe they help all Americans, regardless of income, access the preventive care that keeps them healthy and well. I would like to expand these centers, making sure even more Americans can benefit. I have also fought hard to include dental care in more public health programs so more Americans aren’t forced to ignore dangerous, even life-threatening oral health problems because they don’t have coverage.

Q. What are your priorities for revitalizing the economy, strengthening the middle class, creating jobs and ensuring fair taxation? How would your plan help restore funding for education, healthcare, transportation, public safety and many other services provided to our citizens?

BS:. Creating Millions of jobs. If we are truly serious about reversing the decline of the middle class and putting millions of people back to work, we need a major federal jobs program. The most effective way to do that is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure. That’s why I’ve introduced legislation which would invest $1 trillion over 5 years to modernize our country’s physical infrastructure. My bill would create and maintain at least 13 million good-paying jobs, while making our country more productive, efficient and safe.

Raising Wages and Benefits. The current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. The minimum wage must become a living wage — which means raising it to $15 an hour over the next few years. My goal is to ensure that no full-time worker lives in poverty. We must also bring about pay equity. It’s unconscionable for women to earn 78 cents on the dollar compared to men who perform the same work. Overtime protections must be strengthened for millions of workers. It is absurd that “supervisors” earning $25,000 a year — and who may in fact supervise no one — are currently forced to work 50 or 60 hours a week with no overtime pay. We also need paid sick leave and vacation time for all.

Progressive Taxation. In order to reverse the massive transfer of wealth and income from the middle class to the very rich we’ve seen in recent years, we need real tax reform which makes wealthy individuals and profitable corporations begin to pay their fair share of taxes. It is fiscally irresponsible for the U.S. Treasury to lose about $100 billion a year because corporations and the rich stash their profits in the Cayman Islands, Bermuda and other tax havens. I have introduced legislation which would end this legalized tax fraud.

College for All. The United States must join Germany and many other countries in understanding that investing in our young people’s education is investing in the future of our nation. I have introduced legislation to make tuition in public colleges and universities free, as well as substantially lower interest rates on student loans.

Tax on Wall Street Speculation. At a time of massive income and wealth inequality, at a time when trillions of dollars in wealth have left the pockets of the middle class and have gone to the top one-tenth of one percent, at a time when the wealthiest people in this country have made huge amounts of money from risky derivative transactions and the soaring value of the stock market, I would impose a speculation fee on Wall Street investment houses and hedge funds.

Medicare for All. The United States remains the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care for all as a right. Despite the modest gains of the Affordable Care Act, 35million Americans continue to lack health insurance and many more are under-insured. Yet, we continue paying far more per capita for health care than any other nation. The United States must move toward a Medicare-for-All single-payer system.

Q. The United States has a $3.2 trillion infrastructure deficit according to the American Society of Civil Engineers—and that’s just for repairs. What are the mechanisms (e.g., public, private, infrastructure bank) through which we can fund the rebuilding of this country, including the necessary renovation and modernization of our public schools, hospitals and public buildings?

BS:. For years, we have significantly underfunded the maintenance and improvement of the physical infrastructure on which our economy depends. That has to change, and that is why I have introduced the Rebuild America Act, which would invest $1 trillion over five years to modernize our infrastructure. I introduced a similar, but scaled down $476 billion measure as a floor amendment to the Senate Budget Resolution. Both efforts would be paid for by closing tax loopholes that allow profitable American corporations to stash their profits in tax haven countries like the Cayman Islands.
The Rebuild America would go a long way toward closing the national infrastructure deficit identified by the American Society of Civil Engineers. In fact, I worked closely with ASCE in drafting the Rebuild America, and I am proud they endorsed the bill and participated in its rollout.

The Rebuild America Act would invest in roads, bridges and transit; intercity passenger and freight rail; airports; seaports and inland waterways; drinking water and waste water plants; dams and levees; electric transmission and distribution; and broadband.

Importantly, at a time when the real unemployment is more than 11%, the Rebuild America Act would create 13 million jobs that can’t be outsources or off-shored.

In terms of 21′ century infrastructure technology, the Rebuild America Act would make a $25 billion investment in broadband technology over five years. There is no question this investment is needed: the U.S. ranks 16th in the world in terms of broadband access (OECD) and 12th in the world for broadband speed (Akamai). It simply isn’t acceptable that businesses, schools and families in Bucharest, Romania have access to much faster internet than most of the United States.

Q. What would your administration do to build and strengthen retirement security for all working men and women, including protecting employees’ pensions? What is your plan for sustaining and strengthening Social Security and Medicare?

BS: Expand Social Security. Today, we have a retirement crisis in this country. Only one in five American workers have a defined benefit pension plan that guarantees income in retirement. Over half of the American people have less than $10,000 in savings and have no idea how they will ever be able to retire in dignity. More than one-third of senior citizens depend on Social Security for virtually all of their income. And, twenty percent of the elderly are trying to live on an average income of just $7,600 a year.

Given this reality, our job is not to cut Social Security, our job is to expand Social Security.

In the Senate, I have proposed legislation to increase Social Security benefits by an average of $65 a month; expand cost-of-living-adjustments so that seniors can afford the increased prices of prescription drugs and other healthcare expenses; and lift millions of seniors out of poverty by expanding the minimum Social Security benefits that seniors receive in retirement.

This legislation would be paid for by eliminating the cap on taxable income subject to the Social Security payroll tax. Right now, a Wall Street CEO making $20 million a year pays the same amount of money into the Social Security system as someone making $118,500. That is unfair. My legislation would change that.

If we scrapped the cap, and applied the Social Security payroll tax on all income above $250,000, not only would we be able to expand benefits, we would also ensure that Social Security can pay every benefit owed to every eligible American for the next 50 years.

Stop Pension Cuts. I would reverse the provision included in last year’s appropriations bill that allows the pensions of millions of workers and retirees in multi-employer pension plans to be slashed.

Expand Unions. The most important thing we can do to both preserve and expand defined benefit pension plans is to make it easier for workers to join unions. One of the most significant reasons for the decline in defined benefit pension plans is that the rights of workers to join together and bargain for better wages, benefits, and working conditions have been severely undermined.

Today, corporate executives are routinely negotiating obscenely high compensation packages for themselves, but then they deny their own employees the ability to bargain for a better life. That is wrong. We have got to turn this around.

That’s why I support allowing workers to join unions when a majority sign valid authorization cards stating that they want a union as their bargaining representative.

Today, about 68 percent of union workers have a guaranteed pension through a defined benefit plan; while less than 14 percent of nonunion workers do. Expanding union membership in this country would be the best way to protect and expand defined benefit pensions.

Q. What are your views on the privatization and contracting out of public services, including school services and state and local government services?

BS: I am strongly opposed to the outsourcing and privatization of public services. The reality is that many private contractors provide jobs with low pay and no benefits with little or no training. It is not a surprise that initially these private contractors out-bid their government competitors because the federal government provides better pay, health care, pension benefits and quality training to their employees. But, in the long-term, in most instances, privatization leads to poor service, high turnover, and an overall increase in taxpayer dollars.

For example, on the state government level, the State of New Jersey thought they were going to save taxpayer dollars by privatizing their vehicle inspection program. What happened? According to a 2002 report, this program turned into a “mammoth boondoggle” that ended up costing taxpayers $247 million more than it would have cost if it were run by the state.

As President, I would do everything I could to reverse the privatization of public services and support the creation of more good-paying public sector jobs.

Q. Current federal laws and policies encourage and promote collective bargaining through the National Labor Relations Act. What are your views on collective bargaining for the private and public sectors? What is your view regarding agency fee and so-called right-to-work laws?

BS: I am strongly supportive of collective bargaining for private and public sector workers. I am strongly opposed to agency fee and right-to-work laws.

I will fight to make sure that workers are allowed to join unions when a majority sign valid authorization cards stating that they want a union as their bargaining representative. This is not a radical idea. Card check recognition was the law of the land from 1941-1966.

Today, we have more wealth and income inequality in our country than at any time since 1928. There are lots of reasons for this.

The failure to raise the minimum wage is an obvious example. Unfettered free trade that forces American workers to compete against desperate workers in China, Mexico, and Vietnam is another.

But perhaps one of the most significant reasons for the decline in the middle class is that the rights of workers to join together and bargain collectively for better wages, benefits, and working conditions have been severely undermined. That will change under my Administration.

Q. As president, what would you do to: (a) prevent employers from intimidating and harassing workers who support union representation, (b) ensure that workers are free to organize and bargain in the workplace, and (c) protect the rights of American workers?

BS: I would strongly penalize employers that illegally fire or discriminate against workers for their union activity during an organizing or first contract drive.
Perhaps most importantly, we have got to make it easier for workers who win union elections to negotiate a first contract.
We also need to address the overtime scandal in this country in which millions of Americans are working 50 or 60 hours a week but fail to get time-and-a-half for their efforts. Four decades ago, more than 65 percent of the workforce qualified for time-and-a-half pay for every hour worked over 40 hours a week. Today, that figure is down to just 11 percent. The threshold for overtime pay is now so low that it fails to cover middle class employees. Only workers who earn $23,660 a year currently qualify for overtime, which is below the poverty line for a family of four.
I would make sure that all workers who make up to $1,090 a week are allowed to receive time-and-a-half pay for working overtime. This would increase the take-home pay of millions of workers who are now making less than $57,000 a year.
Further, we need pay equity in this country so that women do not make 78 cents on the dollar compared to what a man makes for doing the same work. I am a proud co-sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act that would close the pay gap by empowering women to negotiate for equal pay, eliminate loopholes courts have created in the law, and create strong incentives for employers to obey the laws.

Q. The federal government has direct responsibility for setting labor standards. There has been a growing call for changes to those standards, including paid sick days, paid family leave and higher minimum wages. What changes, if any, would you prioritize?

BS: I would raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour over a period of years and index it to inflation. I would fight for paid sick leave, paid family leave, and paid sick days.
It is unacceptable that the out of 185 countries, the U.S. is one of only three that does not grant paid maternity leave.
It is unacceptable that the U.S. is one out of only 13 countries in the entire world that does not guarantee paid vacation.
That would change if I was elected President.

Q. More than 8 million public employees in 25 states currently have no OSHA protection or entitlement to a safe and healthful workplace. Do you support universal OSHA coverage for all public employees?

BS: Of course, I support universal OSHA coverage for all public employees. Every workers should have the right to a safe and healthy work environment. It is a disgrace that millions of public sector employees do not have these fundamental rights in 25 states.

Q. What policies would your administration pursue to ensure that all people—regardless of who they are, where they live or where they come from—are able to climb the ladder of opportunity and participate fully in our economy and democracy?

BS: We need to make a 4-year education at every public college and university in this country free. If Germany, Sweden and Denmark can afford to do this, then so can we.

We need to make health care a basic right in our society, and we need to move beyond the rhetoric about growth and prosperity and recommit to the principles of the Full Employment Act of 1946.
If we are going to rely on an economy that requires people to work in order to survive, then we must make certain that work is available to every American who needs a job. By guaranteeing the right to employment, we can ensure a minimum level of economic security to all.
This is an ambitious program that would lift millions of families out of poverty and provide a pathway to greater economic security for all Americans. Free college, free health care and a guaranteed right to employment. It will not heal all wounds or relieve all tensions, but it would go beyond anything we have tried before, and it would send a clear signal that the lives of all Americans matter.

Q. In your opinion, what are the elements of comprehensive immigration reform? How would your administration’s stance on immigration reform fight back against inequality, promote economic justice and increase wages for all workers?

BS: Our immigration system is broken, and it is long past time to fit it. Comprehensive immigration reform must begin with implementing a responsible path to citizenship for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. They should be given the opportunity to come out of the shadows, have the full protection of the law — including workplace safety and wage and hours protections — pay into Social Security and Medicare, and contribute to the American economy.
Comprehensive immigration must hold unscrupulous employers accountable that exploit immigrant workers. Immigration reform must not be structured such that an employer has the effective power to have a person’s legal status revoked. This has the potential to lead to too many abuses.
At a time when the real unemployment rate exceeds 11%, it makes little sense to increase temporary work visas in high skill fields like science, technology, engineering and math. More often than not, these visas are used to lower wages and cover the fact that we are doing too little to education and retrain workers — both native born and immigrant alike — who already here.
We must pass the DREAM Act. If young people who were brought to the U.S. as children are willing serve in our armed forces, earn a U.S. high school diploma or attend college, and if they do not have a criminal record, I believe they should be eligible for permanent residency.
Instead of demonizing unaccompanied minors from Central America, we must make sure these children are humanely cared for while in U.S. custody. And, we must address the root causes of the crisis, including the fact that these children are fleeing economic despair, criminal violence, and false rumors of amnesty spread by the very people who profit by trafficking children.
We must provide adequate federal support for schools and communities that have large immigrant populations, by significantly increasing funding for Title III language instruction for limited English proficient and immigrant students. And we must reward and support communities that have agreed to resettle refugees, by significantly increasing funding for the HHS’ Office of Refugee Resettlement grant programs.
Comprehensive immigration reform will be very complex, and yes, it will have to address border security. But my top priorities will be focusing on reducing income inequality by increasing wages and legal protections for all workers.

Q. What are your views on campaign finance reform? Do you support a constitutional amendment overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision?

BS: In my view, Citizens United is one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history, and I have introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn it. We need to fix our broken campaign finance system by placing limits on contributions and expenditures, requiring more stringent disclosure, and eventually instituting a system of public financing. We cannot allow billionaires and millionaires to buy our elections.

Q. What would your administration do to ensure that voting in elections is free, fair and available to all Americans? Do you oppose policies that restrict access to voting and voter registration?

BS: We must be doing everything we can to make it easier, not harder, for people to vote. Instead, what is happening now is that Republican governors and Republican legislators are going out of their way to put up barriers to voting. They are using unfounded scare tactics and unproven cases of voter fraud to keep people from the polls. Over two years ago, I asked the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) to look into voter fraud and the effects of voter ID laws. The GAO found that while there were very few, if any, cases of voter fraud, the ID laws were working to suppress legitimate voters. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court turned back the clock on equality when it struck down part of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark civil rights law. But the Court also challenged Congress to act, and even though this law was reauthorized unanimously only nine years ago, we still have not managed to fix this incredibly important law.
Last March, I, with many others, traveled to Selma to mark the 50th anniversary of the historic march that lead to the Voting Rights Act. Those incredibly brave men and women literally put their lives on the line and stood up for what they believed in, that all Americans, regardless of color, should have the right to vote. We must honor their legacy and continue their fight.
I have introduced legislation to make Election Day a national holiday. Although this is not a cure-all, it is a first step to show that participating in elections is an important part of Americans society. At a time when less than 40 percent of eligible voters turned out to the polls in November 2014, we must do everything we can to emphasize the importance of participating in democracy.

Conclusion

Q. What do you think this nation’s priorities should be during the next decade? How would your presidency advance those priorities?

BS: 1. Reversing Income and Wealth Inequality
The great moral, economic and political issue of our time is the growing level of income and wealth inequality in our nation. It goes against everything this country is supposed to stand for when the top one-tenth of 1 percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, and when 95 percent of all new income generated since the Wall Street crash goes to the top 1 percent. Addressing income and wealth inequality would be my top priority, and would include:
• Ending corporate tax loopholes that allow profitable corporations and the wealthy to stash their profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens.
• Demanding that the wealthy and special interests begin paying their fair share of taxes. It is a disgrace that the top 25 hedge managers last year not only made more than the nation’s 158,000 kindergarten teachers combined, but also that they generally pay a lower effective tax rate than most of those teachers.
• Improving and investing in early childhood education as well as K-12, by hiring more teachers and giving them the resources they need to succeed.
• Addressing the crisis of college affordability by expanding Pell grants, allowing high school juniors and seniors to take college-level classes and earn credit, letting college graduates refinance their loans, capping student loan payments, and making community colleges free.
• Rejecting austerity policies that hurt the elderly, children, the poor and working families.
• Strengthening Social Security and Medicare: When the average Social Security benefit is $1,328 a month, and more than one-third of our senior citizens rely on Social Security for virtually all of their income, our job is to expand benefits, not cut them
• Raising the minimum wage to $15 to put more money into the pockets of workers in underpaid jobs and strengthen the economy.
• Creating 13 million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure (roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater plants, rail, airports, and schools), by investing $1 trillion over five years.
• Supporting working women and families by expanding affordable childcare and promoting pay equity.
• Developing a new policy on trade, rather than continue with the free trade agreements that have been unrelentingly bad for American workers and are a major reason why 60,000 American factories have closed and 4.7 million manufacturing jobs have disappeared since 2001.
These are some, but certainly not all of the components of a comprehensive approach to addressing income and wealth inequality.
2. Overturning Citizens United, campaign finance reform and reviving democracy
Another priority would be campaign finance reform. If we don’t do this, we will have no hope at implementing any of the items I just listed above.
In particular, we must reverse two disastrous Supreme Court decisions that have opened the floodgates of almost unrestricted campaign spending: the 2010 Citizens United decision and the more recent McCutcheon decision. These decisions hinge on the absurd notion that giving large sums of money to a politician in exchange for influence and access does not constitute corruption.
These decisions undermine the democratic foundations of our country and have shifted political power to huge corporations and the wealthiest people in the United States. According to recent reports, the billionaire Koch brothers plan to spend $889 million in the 2016 elections, twice what their network spent in 2012, and nearly the amount spent by Obama and Romney. When one family can raise and spend as much as a major party candidate for president, the system is
broken. That is oligarchy, not democracy.
We must overturn these Supreme Court decisions, to make it clear that the ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures – just like the right to vote – belongs only to real people. We must also move toward publicly funded elections.
I recently had the honor of joining Rep. John Lewis and other civil rights leaders on the 50th anniversary of the “Bloody Sunday” civil rights march in Selma. While that historic march led to the Voting Rights Act — which for decades protected voters from discrimination — the Supreme Court two years ago invalidated a key portion of the landmark law. We must undo that misguided court decision. What happened on that bridge that day was a huge step forward for democracy in America. But what is happening right now — not just in the South but all over this country — are voter suppression efforts by Republican governors and Republican legislatures to make it harder for African-Americans, for low-income people and for senior citizens to vote.
Lastly, we must do everything possible to make it easier for people to participate in the political process, including making Election Day a national holiday so that everyone has the time and opportunity to vote. While this would not be a cure-all, it would indicate a national commitment to create a more vibrant democracy.
In last November’s election, turnout was only 37 percent, and turnout was even lower among minorities and young people. Voters 18- to 29-years-old made up only 13 percent of those who went to the polls, according to exit polls. The same survey found that only 8 percent of Tuesday’s voters were Latinos, far less than the Latino share of the population.
3. Dealing with Climate Change
Climate change is perhaps the single greatest threat facing our planet. We are already seeing its effects, including more super storms, severe droughts, forest fires, flooding, and rising sea
levels. Virtually the entire scientific community agrees that human activity is a significant driver of global warming, and that if we don’t drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, it will get much worse by mid-century— including crop failures, increasing hunger and illness, and more extreme weather.
We need a bold vision to address climate change, and that begins with dramatically reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. That is why in last Congress, I introduced the Climate Protection Act, which would have taxed carbon and methane emissions from coal, oil, and natural gas production, and used the revenue to make historic investments in energy efficiency and sustainable energy. It would have also tripled funding for advanced energy research,
and made huge investments in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, plug-in electric vehicles and other clean technologies.
There are many other steps we must take right now to curb greenhouse gas emissions, including using existing authority under the Clean Air Act to significantly improve fuel economy standards for cars and trucks, and reducing harmful pollution from power plants and industrial facilities.
As we accelerate investments in energy efficiency and make the transition to clean energy, I believe we can create millions of decent paying jobs. I was one of the authors of the Green Jobs Act, which created a green jobs workforce training program through the economic stimulus
bill. Moreover, the Climate Protection Act alone would weatherize one million homes every year, reducing family energy bills and creating millions of good-paying jobs. Replacing old power plants with new solar, wind and other sustainable energy facilities will also create hundreds of thousands of “green” jobs.
Unless we take bold action to reverse climate change, our children and grandchildren are going to look back on this period in history and ask: “Where were they? Why didn’t they listen to the scientists when they had a chance? Why did they allow this planet to become so damaged?” We have a short window of opportunity. We must act now.

– See more at: http://www.aft.org/election2016/candidate-questionnaire-bernie-sanders#sthash.lWfXopVO.dpuf

This letter was forwarded to me by Long Island Opt Out. It is a model for other parents who object to high-stakes testing.

Dear Dr. Lonergan,

I received your letter dated June 22, 2015 regarding the NYS Assessments that was sent home with my third grader and was disheartened by its message. So much so, that I felt obligated to write a response.

Going into this 2015-16 school year, I will have three children enrolled in the Longwood Central School District. One in fourth grade, one in second grade and one in the universal pre-kindergarten program. I have been extremely pleased with their performance thus far. All of the teachers and staff that we have interacted with have been welcoming, encouraging and helpful both to myself and my children.

It was upsetting to receive a letter such as yours at the end of the school year. A letter that was not commending the staff of your district on a job well done or wishing parents and children a happy and productive summer, nor was it to thank the community for consistently approving the school budget or to show excitement about the new programs and staff that are being added because of passing that budget. Instead, this letter was a threat to parents that if they continued the opt out process, they would be hurting the district that we had just shown our collective support.

Opting out of assessments has not proven to hurt any district and to state otherwise to parents is to promote threatening propaganda. Opting out has proven to be an effective boycott, which has forced our elected representatives to hear the message we are trying to send. If I allowed my children to be involved in something that I do not feel has a place in their lives, I would not be doing my job as a parent.

My children have accomplished great things while attending school in the Longwood Central District. To state that a flawed assessment process is a necessary tool to show that growth is an insult. I have the utmost confidence in the highly qualified staff of Longwood.

By opting my children out of the state assessments, I believe that I am showing Governor Cuomo that I not only feel these exams have no place in my child’s learning, but that I wholeheartedly support the teachers that work with my children everyday. By opting my children out, I am clearly stating that:

• I will not support exams that look to punish those teachers.

• I will not support exams that will make up 50% of a teacher’s yearly evaluation.

• I will not support exams that require my child to sit for three consecutive days reading texts that are designed to be more challenging than their readability level.

• I will not support exams that require my child to sit for three consecutive days involved in math skills that they have not had the time to master.

• I will continue to opt my children out of these assessments and encourage others to do so if they believe it is the right choice for their child, regardless of what type of letter they receive from district administration.

I believe that changes will come. I don’t believe that I have to be forced to subject my children to a faulty system in order to change the as you stated, the “next generation of assessment.” I believe that the people with experience and knowledge of the educational field can get together and make the changes needed without subjecting current students to something developed to rank and dismiss hard working educators.

I sincerely hope that the district’s message at the beginning of the 2015-16 school year is a more positive and encouraging one than the message that was put out at the close of this school year

Sincerely,

Susan Sclafani

After much debate among the board members, the Network for Public Education decided to offer its qualified endorsement to the Every Child Achieves Act. We recognize that the bill has drawbacks. We oppose annual testing. And we oppose federal funding of privately managed charter schools. But in the end, we agreed that this bill would end some of the worst features of No Child Left Behind and the Race to the Top. As the bill moves through the Senate and the House, we will watch closely to see how it evolves.

 

NPE Statement on the Every Child Achieves Act

 

July 10, 2015 Charter Schools, Civil Rights, Every Child Achieves Act, NCLB, Race To the Top, Reauthorization of NCLB, Testing / Opting Out

 
There is much we applaud in the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA). Although the bill is far from perfect, it is better than the status quo. ECAA represents a critical step forward, placing an absolute ban on the federal government intervening in how states evaluate schools and teachers. It bars the US Department of Education from either requiring or incentivizing states to adopt any particular set of standards, as Arne Duncan did through Race to the Top grants and NCLB waivers.

 

The Every Child Achieves Act would prohibit the federal government from requiring that teachers be judged by student test scores and would prevent the federal government from withholding funds from states that allow parents to opt out of testing, which Duncan most recently threatened to do to the state of Oregon.

 

And it would take the federal “high-stakes” from annual testing—the consequences of which have a disparate negative impact on students of color and those of highest need.

 

ECAA does not “lock in” the Common Core, but rather allows the states to set their own standards without having to meet a litmus test set by the federal government. States could thoughtfully design and revise standards and their teacher evaluation systems with stakeholders, without fear of losing a waiver that protects their schools from being labeled as failing.

 

Below is the relevant language that expressly prohibits the federal government from exerting influence on standards, curriculum and teacher evaluation, followed by the language that prohibits the federal government from interfering in parental decisions to opt out of state tests:

 

“(a) Prohibition Against Federal Mandates, Direction, Or Control.—Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize the Secretary or any other officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s—

“(1) instructional content or materials, curriculum, program of instruction, academic standards, or academic assessments;

“(2) teacher, principal, or other school leader evaluation system;

“(3) specific definition of teacher, principal, or other school leader effectiveness; or

“(4) teacher, principal, or other school leader professional standards, certification, or licensing

“(K) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION ON PARENT AND GUARDIAN RIGHTS.—Nothing in this part shall be construed as preempting a State or local law regarding the decision of a parent or guardian to not have the parent or guardian’s child participate in the statewide academic assessments under this paragraph.
Even as we support the above, we disapprove that the bill does not go far enough to meet the justified concerns of those who support our public schools. The federal government should cease providing financial support for privately managed charter schools that drain much needed resources from the public schools that enroll the vast majority of our students–caring for all and turning none away.

 

We are also dismayed that the bill maintains an annual testing mandate–which enriches testing companies while distracting us from the needed work to be done to improve our public schools.

 

We will continue to fight to restore ESEA to its original purpose of providing equity for the most disadvantaged children. We support the concerns raised by the coalition of Civil Rights groups who do not see testing as the answer to improving our schools. We will also continue to fight for charter school accountability and the elimination of annual tests. And we will carefully watch the bill as it progresses through Congress.

 

With all of its limitations, however, the end of NCLB, NCLB waivers and Race to the Top is a cause worth supporting. Therefore, NPE gives its qualified endorsement to ECAA.

 

Washington State officials acknowledged that 53% of high school juniors opted out of the Smarter Balanced Assessment. Yesterday early estimates predicted the number was 27-28%. Obviously a gross underestimate.

Participation rates in 3-8 were high.

A few days ago, I posted a statement by a teacher-candidate of Hispanic origin who was trying to get certification as a teacher of special education. She had a high grade point average, she took and passed several state-required tests, at great expense, but she could not pass the edTPA. And she could not afford to pay Pearson again. As a result of the post here, she was contacted by someone in the Néw York State Education Department (I supplied her contact information). Several readers offered to pay the cost of taking an alternate assessment. Someone helped her.

 

The woman who wrote the post sent me this email:

 

“I cannot thank you enough for providing me with a platform to express myself freely and share it with the public! After that post, I shortly received a voucher to take the safety net test. None of this would have been possible without your help. I was just trying to raise awareness of the exploitative practices and fees from Pearson. I think the amount of tests and the prices were exaggerated. If teacher candidates are expected to pass more challenging exams at expensive rates while obtaining a Master’s Degree then they should be paid accordingly. Again, thank you for your time and efforts! It will never be forgotten.”

The Pioneer Institute is a conservative think tank in Boston. Unlike most conservative think tanks, it opposes the Common Core and the associated testing. This week, Pioneer called on State Commissioner if Education Mitchell Chester to recuse himself from deciding whether Massachusetts should keep its MCAS state tests or drop them for PARCC. Chester is chairman of the PARCC board. Pioneer says he has a conflict of interest. Seems obvious, no?

Here is Pioneer’s statement:

“Education Commissioner Mitchell Chester Should Recuse Himself from the Upcoming Decision on PARCC and MCAS

“BOSTON – Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education Mitchell Chester, who later this year will make a recommendation to the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (the board) about whether to replace MCAS tests with those developed by the Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), chairs PARCC’s governing board.

“Pioneer Institute calls on Chester to recuse himself from the MCAS/PARCC decision process for the following reasons:

“1. As commissioner of the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (the department), Chester serves as secretary to the board of education and oversees the state agency and hearing process for choosing between MCAS and PARCC. The agency he heads gathers the information on which the policy decision will be made and conducts the internal evaluation. Commissioner Chester ultimately makes a recommendation to the board about which test to choose.

“This is clearly a conflict of interest. Taking this matter out of the context of education makes the point perhaps more evident. Imagine that the general manager of the MBTA also chaired the board of Keolis or Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad when the two companies were competing for the $2.6 billion contract to operate the T’s commuter rail system. Such a conflict of interest would never have been tolerated, yet this is precisely the situation given the commissioner’s leadership role at the PARCC.

“2. In its role managing a series of five statewide public hearings that are currently underway on whether the board should officially adopt PARCC and abandon MCAS, the department chooses who to invite to deliver expert testimony. The invited experts speak first and are allowed more time than members of the general public. Thus far, in the first four hearings, a strong majority of the invited experts have been supporters of PARCC.

“3. Commissioner Chester has also formed a team of Massachusetts/PARCC Educator Leader Fellows within the department. According to a memo Chester sent to district and charter school leaders, the PARCC fellows, who receive a stipend, should be “excited about the content of the Common Core State Standards” and “already engaged in leadership work around them.” The department has no MCAS fellows.

“4. The commissioner’s interactions with local education leaders have led many to believe that the decision to abandon MCAS has already been made. Brookline Superintendent and Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents President William Lupini, in a 2014 letter to the town’s school committee, flatly stated that “MCAS will be phased out in favor of either PARCC or another new ‘next generation’ assessment after the 2015 test administration.” (No other “next generation” test or MCAS 2.0 is under development or consideration.)

“5. Given that the PARCC consortium originally included 26 participating states and Washington, DC, but now includes only seven and DC, there is enormous pressure on the commissioner, as the chairman of PARCC, to ensure that the testing consortium does not lose any more states. This is especially so after a spring during which numerous states declined further participation in PARCC; just last week one of the few large states remaining in the consortium (Ohio) left the consortium.

“The financial viability of PARCC is in great part a function of the number of students it services. When PARCC included 26 states and DC, it could plan its pricing strategy on the basis of serving over 25 million (of the over 31 million) public school students enrolled in those jurisdictions. With the loss of Ohio, PARCC has been reduced to serving just over 5 million. Additional consortium states, most immediately Arkansas, are actively working toward similar departures. Massachusetts’ almost one million public school students are of considerable concern to the consortium’s financial viability, therefore creating an untenable ethical position for the Commissioner.

“Sadly, the larger process of choosing between Massachusetts’ previous academic standards and Common Core, which led to the current MCAS/PARCC issue, is already one that has been rife with at least the appearance of conflict of interest. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has invested hundreds of millions of dollars to develop and then to market Common Core. Oddly, Commissioner Chester relied on three studies conducted by Gates-funded entities, directly or indirectly, to inform his 2010 recommendation that the board of education adopt Common Core. A 2010 WCVB-TV 5 investigation found that Chester and other department personnel accepted $15,000 in luxury travel and accommodations from Common Core supporters prior to the board’s adoption of the Common Core.

“As a gubernatorial candidate in 2010, Governor Baker opposed Common Core and PARCC. In March of this year, he criticized the MCAS/PARCC process and earlier procedures that resulted in the adoption of Common Core, telling the State House News Service, “I think it’s an embarrassment that a state that spent two years giving educators, families, parents, administrators and others an opportunity to comment and engage around the assessment system that eventually became MCAS basically gave nobody a voice or an opportunity to engage in a discussion at all before we went ahead and executed on Common Core and PARCC.”

“Such practices need to end, and the public’s trust in the department’s ability to manage a publicly impartial, transparent and accountable process needs to be restored. The first step is for Commissioner Chester, who chairs PARCC’s governing board, to recuse himself from the upcoming policy decision about whether to replace MCAS with the PARCC test.

“In cases where there are several apparent conflicts of interest, recusals are an appropriate administrative response meant to uphold the public trust.”