Sunday, May 26, 2013

Video and news from NYC parents' explosive Town Hall meeting on inBloom's invasion of student privacy

The parents, rising in resistance to inBloom invasion of student privacy.
InBloom is being used in several states to accomodate Race to the Top obligations for data collection and management.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS follow the April 30 post.
The April 30 news from the NYC Public School Parents blog:
Tuesday, April 30, 2013: Video and news from our explosive Town Hall meeting on student privacy Yesterday we held a Town hall meeting at Brooklyn Borough Hall about the state and city plan to share personally identifiable student information with a corporation called inBloom inc. and other third party vendors.

About 150 people showed up, including two Regents (Regent Kathleen Cashin of Brooklyn and Regent Betty Rosa of the Bronx), and two representatives from the State Education Department (Dennis Tompkins, Chief of External Affairs and Nicolas Storelli-Castro, Director of Governmental Relations), who listened to the presentations and the passionate objections of parents. Adina Lopatin, Deputy Chief Academic Officer of NYC DOE spoke and answered questions. I also gave a presentation about inBloom and DOE provided a FAQ here. Unfortunately, inBloom and the Gates Foundation refused our invitation to attend.

Some of the disturbing revelations from Adina: The city and state have already shared confidential student data with inBloom. They don't know how much they will have to pay for inBloom's "services" starting in 2015. If there is a data breach from inBloom (as many people believe is nearly inevitable) the state will be legally and financially liable, since the Gates Foundation has insulated itself and inBloom from responsibility.

If this highly sensitive information leaks out, it could lead to class action suits against the state for many millions of dollars. Just yesterday, it was reported that LivingSocial suffered a massive breach from a data cloud. Living Social is partially owned by Amazon, which will host the inBloom data cloud. Why is NY State -- the only inBloom participant currently committed to sharing student data from throughout the state -- insisting on gambling with millions of children's privacy and security along with all these financial risks? I am left wondering, even more than before.

Here are some newsclips that capture the intense anger expressed by many parents: Village Voice: NYC Parents Grill Department of Education Over Private Student Data Cloud ; EdSurge: NYC Parents Raise Questions About InBloom; The Indypendent: How Murdoch, Bill Gates and Big Corporations Are Data Mining Our Schools; WINS radio/CBS: Parents Irate Over NYC DOE Plan To Give Student Data To Nonprofit Organization ; Brooklyn Daily Eagle: Parents eye city plan to give individual student records to private biz

Below is the video of Part II of the evening, with passionate statements and questions from the audience. Video of Part I starts with some parent outbursts, followed by introductory remarks from Margaret Kelley of the Brooklyn Borough President's office and Stephen Boese of the Learning Disabilities Association, and Adina's presentation and mine. It is still on the Livestream site, but will be posted here soon.

I have also sent follow-up questions to Adina and I will post her answers when I receive them. Thank you to all the co-sponsoring organizations and individuals, those you who came and Brooklyn BP Markowitz for hosting. Now please contact your legislators and urge them to support the Student Privacy bill!
May 27: Comptroller John Lui's letter to the Commissioner and Regents about inBloom
Liu asked New York State Education Commissioner John King to halt the sharing of personally identifiable student data with inBloom.
May 22: City Council Members Brewer, Jackson & Lander introduce resolution to protect student privacy
May 21: Western New York state parents enraged against standardized testing and sharing of student's private data:
Parents in Western NYS outraged about testing and confidential data sharing; with news video link --see at right. May 18: Video of Mayoral forum, moderated by Diane Ravitch; and will Bill Thompson ask Merryl Tisch to stop the sharing of students' personal data with inBloom?

Beginning of May 11 post, As even more states withdraw from inBloom, NY remains, and all parents should remain vigilant!
Yesterday we learned from the twitter feed of the invaluable Reuters investigative reporter Stephanie Simon that "there are no plans" for Delaware, Georgia or Kentucky to share their confidential, personally identifiable student data with the Gates-funded corporation called inBloom Inc. Moreover, Bob Swiggum, Chief Information Officer at the Georgia Department of Education has said that the furor over student privacy makes states wary of this insecure database: "I don't know how inBloom will survive this."

So, let's make a quick review of where the states and districts now stand that inBloom still claims as "partners":

*John White, the Louisiana State Superintendent announced a few weeks ago he was pulling all student data out of the inBloom cloud because of protests and privacy concerns of parents.

*Georgia, Delaware and Kentucky, all three states listed on the inBloom website as "Phase II" states, due to start piloting the system in 2013, have now said that they too are not planning to participate.

*A high-ranking Massachusetts education official recently wrote that they reconsidering their plan to share the data from their one "pilot" district, Everett, until they reassess "the security risks."

*Another pilot district, Guilford NC, has said that "the pilot program was still very much in the conceptual stage and that GCS had not even seen as much of a product demonstration at this early point in the process.”

*Officials from Jefferson County in Colorado have told parents that though they still intend to go through with this risky plan, "we have not shared any data at this point. The sharing of data would occur about a year from now....approximately January-March of 2014 (in that time frame).”

*Illinois officials have revealed that Unit 5 in Normal is not sharing its data with inBloom, though District 87 in Bloomington is still apparently participating.

So now it appears that the only current participants in the inBloom cloud that admit to sharing data at this point appear to be New York state, with its 2.7 million public school students, and (perhaps) Bloomington, Illinois, a town with a total enrollment of 5,414 students. [If anyone knows parents in either Bloomington or Normal, please let me know. Illinois is the only inBloom state where there is not yet an active contingent of parents protesting their state's involvement.]
Click to the original post for the rest of the original post

Tuesday, May 21, 2013

UFT Does Have New Contract: It's Danielson and VAM-Based Evaluations

2007 CONTRACT 2.0, THE POST-2009 EVALUATIVE CHANGES AS THE DE FACTO NEW DOE-UFT CONTRACT

There has been much discussion of how New York City teachers, under representation by the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), have not had a new contract in the nearly four years since 2009, that is, not since outgoing president Randi Weingarten installed Micheal Mulgrew as her replacement, ratified by the UFT executive board. (How interesting it would be to see what a roll call vote would have looked like. Did the New Action members dissent from Weingarten's hand-picked choice?) The no contract angle even made a front page notice in the Chief, in the context of Mulgrew's getting re-elected in spite of producing no contract during his tenure.

Yet, teachers need to keep in mind that we do have a new contract. It exists in the extra-contractual give-backs that the UFT under Unity/Mulgrew's leadership.
Along with these points, we must note: it is a mistake to slip into the dichotomy of saying that Mulgrew is strong whereas Weingarten was weaker for us. When we look at the severity of the give-backs, we must ask, on what grounds are people asserting that Mulgrew better?

Weingarten set the cast for the current era UFT. She perennially said that new times called for teachers to concede and for unions to collaborate. She has always couched this position in language saying that teachers have to find ways to work together and so on. So, Mulgrew has followed in this position. He has only avoided clearly enunciating the collaborationist position. Whereas Weingarten would wrap her surrenders in statements calling for professionalism and cooperation, Mulgrew just concedes, without the rationale. The buzz-cut hairdo and portly physique has conned us to ignore that he has made giant concessions out-side of proper contractual procedure.

Let's look at the record, at the points by which Mulgrew has created a new contract. It must be noted that none of these items was ever presented to the membership for a ratification vote. These are priority matters to overturn, to protect our working conditions.

OBSERVATIONS
Teaching in New York has experienced a sea change in recent years. Unannounced observations are routine. Informal observations are treated with the weight of formal observations. Practices that would have been rejected out of hand in the past are routinely tolerated, with no systematic UFT fact-finding and push-back. Teams of network observers enter and disrupt classrooms with intrusive poking in and interrupting teacher-student interaction with questions.

DANIELSON FRAMEWORKS
As I've argued elsewhere at greater length, the union promoted this back in 2011, promoting this as helpful to teachers. Yet, as practiced in New York City, this is a nit-picking tool that can assail any but the super-human, hyper-organized teacher. In use, expect it to be used in a subjective manner, with sympathetic supervisors being fairer and biased principals to separate their friends from the pariahs. It will be rolled out officially in fall, 2013, a contract-quality change in our evaluative process, but it never faced a membership-wide discussion or vote.

VAM EVALUATIONS
It has been roundly documented: value added modeling is junk science. (For example, see here and here; test results correlate with school district poverty indices.) Again, supervisor bias can creep in. The low-totem pole teacher could get the challenging assignment; the favored teacher could get the easier classes. Last fall, the MORE caucus campaigned for a membership vote on the evaluation process. The UFT leadership (Unity) resolutely squashed the motions for a membership vote.
[UPDATE: This May 27 post at NYC Educator shows that already principals are using VAM against teachers, in one known instance, to deny tenure.]


Arguably tangential to a contract-quality job concession, but extremely influential upon teachers' working conditions, in a detrimental way, has been the Race to the Top. It has triggered many of the evaluative changes:
* Mulgrew conceded to Race to the Top. He joined in with New York City and State to endorse the state's application for Race to the Top. The stipulations of RTTT have brought forth increased numbers of school closures, an expanded number of charter schools, and test-based teacher-evaluation systems. Yet, the California Teachers Association has denounced it as hurting students; and at least 80 Ohio districts have rejected it, recognizing that the administrative costs out-weigh the benefits.

DIFFICULT TO REVERSE PRECEDENT
There is so much that Mulgrew has given away between 2009 and now. Strategically, in coming contract negotiations, this year or next, it will be very difficult for the union to reverse the practices. The city will be unlikely to give back on colossal encroachments it has made in the recent past.

Let's not kid ourselves. This is a terrible we find ourselves in: a de facto new contract, reached outside of proper protocols of what should happen in a union workplace. This is backroom deal-making with no membership vote. This must be challenged.

Thursday, May 16, 2013

The Tale of Two New York Teacher Unions and the Significance of Mulgrew/UFT's Ignoring of NYSUT's 6/8 Rally

The city union and the state union, the tale of two New York teachers' unions.

When we look at the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT, the state federation of teachers' unions) and the United Federation of Teachers (the union of New York City teachers) we see very different unions.

Centerpiece graphic from NYSUT's website.
The state union is holding a rally on Saturday, June 8 in Albany, at Empire State Plaza, which symbolically abuts both the NYSED building and the New York State Legislature, touching on many specific issues that address patterns of the worsening conditions that teachers are facing. (Special resources page for rally with leaflets and social media links such as Facebook and Twitter.) Furthermore, the timing will be important --we anticipate that one week prior, at or around June 1, Governor Andrew Cuomo and Education Commissioner John King will impose a teacher evaluation system on New York City teachers.
Of course, we can, and should, point out that the leadership of this same state federation have appeared with state officials, collaborating with some of the policies that teachers are chafing under --for example, see the cooperation with the New York State Race to the Top application. Obviously, if you support the wrong-headed policies, working conditions will deteriorate and learning conditions will deteriorate. (He signed onto not just RTTT but also its controversial components such as evaluations based on students' test scores; and he was aware of other parts that likewise could portent trouble. See this 2011 interview at Education Next.) And we would be greatly remiss if we did not recall that NYSUT President Richard Iannuzzi performed the misdeed of sending a letter warning (or threatening?) teachers that followed their conscience and were active in opposing cooperation with the high-stakes tests. (See my post a month ago, "NYSUT's Iannuzzi as Discipliner, Warns Teachers on Opt-Out Advocacy; Ignores Great Anxiety Tests Can Create.")

The out-of-New York City teachers union locals are making a lot of the critiques that MORE and its allied bloggers have been making on their sites. (Find your hard copy, inserted in the latest NY Teacher or go to NYSUT's site.) True, the next step, the identification of national and state politicians, Barack Obama, Arne Duncan, Andrew Cuomo, John King, is missing but, the critiques are there, nearly reaching that point. It is instructive to note that the kind of searing critique that arises from statements published on the NYSUT site and in the NYSUT paper are far beyond the limited criticisms that appear on the UFT site and paper.

Nonetheless, the state level union is waking up. OK, so there's no mea culpa, acknowledging the mistakes of collaboration that engendered this present crisis across the state, we applaud the state union for the way that it is focusing on the worsening conditions. Maybe it was the booing at President Iannuzzi by some of the troops at the state's Representatives Assembly a few weeks back that woke up NYSUT's leadership. And yes, the rhetoric of NYSUT's literature and the statements it is printing in its newspaper could be viewed as a preventive co-optation of the percolating of radical dissidence across New York State.

We must fault Michael Mulgrew and the United Federation of Teachers for its silence/black-out of the June 8 Albany rally. (Nowhere to be found on the UFT site, not even on its calendar for June.) Moreover, the UFT's June 12 rally has been poorly publicized as of yet. At the June 12 rally we can expect simplistic signs, leaflets that are not text-rich, but whining, short soundbytes; and also, look for noise-makers which will drown out the potential for rank and file chants. Additionally, the contract rally is one which does not at all replicate the issues that the Albany rally raises. Instead, look for criticisms of Bloomberg that do not engage in the holistic analysis that the NYSUT literature has. By having an all unions contracts rally, a specific analysis of the ruinous education policies will get lost.

NYSUT's rally includes important focus on the terrible patterns. Now, don't get me wrong. The NYSUT literature is incomplete-- it stops short of the properly far reaching connection-making analysis that we would see in Chicago Teachers Union or Movement of Rank and File Educators (MORE Caucus-UFT). But the fact remains that this is more of what we would like than the UFT says.

NYSUT (SORT OF) CHANNELING MORE AND CORE? Onto the close reading of the NYSUT literature. Exhibit A, NYSUT's general community oriented flyer. It criticizes the tests for crowding out quality instruction. Parts of it parallel the kinds of critiques that the UFT's dissident MORE caucus has been making. Granted, it does echo American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten's call for a moratorium on the high-stakes use of the high-stakes tests until the problems can be worked out. Preferable would be an out-right rejection. Yet, it is worth noting that Weingarten's limited critique is still far beyond anything Mulgrew has called for. Note that he has made no statement echoing her moratorium call. Again, the UFT's ignoring of the NYSUT rally speaks volumes. For Mulgrew to give attention to the NYSUT rally and its literature would inherently concede the legitimacy of the MORE caucus' critiques, as well as the points that MORE activists such as Julie Cavanagh and Brian Jones have been making since before the formation of MORE.
From the flyer:
End the over-reliance on expensive corporate-developed tests!
* Rethink the use of high stakes assessments and the negative impact on students and entire school community. Call for a moratorium on high stakes consequences for testing until the state can get it right!
* These tests put too much stress on students and reduce real learning time.
* Sensible and meaningful assessments are needed that align with instruction and accurately measure student progress.
Recall how MORE has been making parallel calls for a more holistic, comprehensive curriculum, as the Chicago Teachers Union (under the leadership of the CORE caucus) has made, in contrast to the UFT's comparative reticence on the excessive test prep focus on English Language Arts (ELA) and math to the exclusion of other subjects? Well, the next topical demand on the flyer has parts from MORE's mission statement or election platform:
Demand fair and equitable funding of our schools!
* Restore the programs that are being eliminated across the state and which research shows improve academic performance, especially in communities in need, including pre-kindergarten programs, pre- and after-school programs, art, music, foreign languages, advanced placement, etc.
Remember mayoral control? Mulgrew and the Unity-controlled UFT brazenly called for the extension of it under slight modifications. With the prospect of Christine Quinn as mayor can we really afford to gamble on more mayoral control?
What is the NYSUT position? Note how the flyer pitches to communities' desires for community input (dare I say community control?) and democratic yearnings.
Progressive unionists must say clearly that the institution of mayoral control as implemented in urban cities with majority minority populations is the exercise of a separate but equal standard.
Progressives that assert to support democracy and oppose racism should support the complete elimination of mayoral control and the complete restoration of elected school-boards. There is the grandest of double standards whereby public discourse points to instances of corruption in the old Board of Education, yet turns a blind eye to how corruption can and does happen in white, more affluent communities. Witness the suspected municipal corruption that engendered a Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) lockdown Wednesday of Ramapo, Rockland County, New York Town Hall offices. It was no man gone wild, no threat of terrorism; no, it was the securing of records that could implicate people in acts of political corruption, with 40 (!) FBI agents wheeling out documents. See the media buzz the FBI raid has raised.
Restore local control of our public schools! Fix the tax cap!
* We need to restore our democratic principle of majority rule and local control in educational decision-making.
* Our parents, teachers and local communities know better than Albany does
Goodness gracious, democratic principle of majority rule and local control, --shudders!-- what wild radical ideas! What would Mulgrew, Mendel or Barr say???
Finally, we have demands that reach beyond the school teachers, to immigrant communities and to health care workers. Wow! More radical social justice talk! What would Mulgrew, Mendel or Barr say???
Invest in public higher education!
* Make higher education available and affordable for all students!
* Pass the DREAM Act; renew the opportunity for all students to pursue higher education!
* Save SUNY Downstate! New York State public teaching hospitals provide quality community care and avenues for low-income students to become doctors and other health care professionals.
Exhibit B: NYSUT's more simply worded flyer. It has a reduced version of the above discussed flyer. With this added part: slogan against corporate control of education. OK, so it doesn't mention Pearson, but this isn't Uncle Mike's UFT.
* Against corporate control of public education!
Next, we have the latest editions of NYSUT's newspaper, NYSUT United and the UFT's New York Teacher to compare and contrast.
NYSUT United UFT and New York Teacher
Common Core implicit, critical mention apologies to the CCSS, the message: just let us get it right next time
High-stakes tests tests causing near anguish weaker commentary
Group's stance as early as 2011, NYSUT challenged the new evaluation system in court endorse VAM/ test-based evaluations, then gripe over the results
RallyJune 8, dealing with wider range of issues, reaching to the wider community; major push; literature already released, latest issue of paper has stories emphasizing issues attending to in rally promo leafletssilence on June 8 rally, diversionary June 12 rally*, narrower, dealing with a contract-oriented focus; weaker promotion so far --watch for bland, top-heavy announcements
*It is valid to have a contract rally, but the timing is conveniently distracting from the June 8 rally. Anyway, as The Chief reported in its latest issue this week, contract arbitration is expected to drag into the summer. And Mulgrew and company are essentially on record as saying that they will not seek a new contract until Bloomberg is out of office.

NYSUT United's May issue includes an article giving the overall rationale for the rally; an article with various (non-NYC) NYSUT local leaders speaking critically of the tests and for the students, "At testing forums, educators stand up for their students," in which teachers speak up to Regents Chancellor Merryl Tisch and referencing the Common Cause in a critical manner. Also, note the tone of this language:
"We torture our students with assessments that do not take into account learning styles," said Malone FT's Angela Spahr. "It's a free, appropriate public education we're supposed to be providing. This isn't appropriate."
By contrast, the UFT paper's editors and or writers made sure to couch any criticisms of the Common Core with praising comments. NYSUT printed a pitch by the Averill Park Teachers' Association president for the rally that skewered Pearson, inBloom, high-stakes tests, points we rarely see made in the UFT paper:
TOP TEN reasons to March on Albany in the Rally for Public Education:
10. You have realized public education is being hi-jacked by for profit organizations.
9. You are tired of reading about how ineffective you are at your own profession by people who know nothing about education.
8. You believe high stakes testing is out of control in NY.
7. You believe you have not had enough time to learn the Common Core yourself, let alone have your students tested on it!
6. You believe your students’ personal information, including their state assessment results and their IEPs and other personal data should be kept confidential.
5. You believe your effectiveness rating should be kept confidential, and don’t want a link on the district web page to this information or directions given to get this information.
4. You believe that NYS should report to the public the amount of tax payer money spent on developing, administering, grading and reviewing state assessments.
3. The word PEARSON makes your skin crawl.
2. You work in Averill Park (Insert your own school district.) and have lost about a quarter of your faculty due to unfair state budget cuts!
AND THE NUMBER ONE REASON….
1. You are a caring professional who wants the BEST public education for your own students, children, and grandchildren and you know this isn't it!
NYSUT has also prominently reprinted an impassioned poem by a teacher worn-out by the test-prep focused routine that teaching has become. See Samantha Kucerak's poem, "I am a teacher, and I am tired," reprinted from the NYSUT website, on the side-bar at the right. While she writes from Homer, New York, she speaks for what thousands of New York City teachers are feeling.
In closing, the June 8 rally is an opportunity for progressive New York City teacher activists to make common cause with and to meet teachers from AFT locals across the state that are kindred spirits. Would Michael Mulgrew and his allied masters of ossified, bureaucratic unionism was to expose UFT rank and filers to the sort of leaflets, slogans and conversations that are closer to those expressed by MORE activists or their favorite national columnists, Diane Ravitch, Valerie Strauss or Susan Ohanian? (Not to mention the potential of meeting members of parent-teacher alliances from Long Island or Western New York that have been active in building test opt-out movements.) Of course not.
Let's defy Mulgrew's cynical move to ignore the June 8 Albany rally of our upstate and Long Island brothers and sisters.
Let's rally at Albany, the source of so much our working condition woes, from the state's Race to the Top application to the evaluation system that Cuomo will impose on New York City teachers just a week before.

Seattle Teachers Win Campaign Against Standardized MAP Test

Seattle Teachers Win Campaign Against Standardized MAP Test
May 15, 2013, from Democracy Now:

Following months of protest, high schools in Seattle, Washington, will no longer have to issue standardized reading and math tests. Superintendent José Banda said the Measures of Academic Progress, or MAP, test is now optional for high schools, but those refusing the test must find another way to gauge student performance. In January, teachers at Garfield High School began a boycott of the test, saying it was wasteful and being used unfairly to assess their performance. The boycott spread to other schools, with hundreds of teachers, students and parents participating.


Seattle Test Boycott Victory: One Step in the Struggle for Quality Education Jesse Hagopian, May 15, 2013, from Common Dreams:

“High schools may opt out of MAP in 2013-14."

This message was sent in an all-district communication blast, sent at 2:06 PM on Monday May 13th by Seattle Public School Superintendent Jose Banda, and led to spontaneous end of the day celebrations of teachers and students around Garfield High School. Students fist-bumping teachers. Teachers high-fiving each other. Spontaneous assemblies in the hallway to congratulate each other.

Until now, the “Measures of Academic Progress” (or MAP) tests were required by the Seattle School District for students in all grades (K-12). A unified group of Garfield teachers announced in January, 2013, they were no longer going to administer the tests to students at Garfield. Other Seattle schools followed suit, and the bravery of these teachers led to a national movement.
What this test told educators: "If we stand for what’s right for students, teachers can win."
Why were Garfield teachers’ celebrating the discontinuing of the MAP for our students next year?
We celebrated because we know hundreds of hours of student time will no longer be wasted on a test the district has now acknowledged is inappropriate for our students.
We celebrated because our English Language Learner students will no longer be humiliated by taking a test that is not culturally or linguistically appropriate and they will now have more hours to spend on the additional instructional time they need.
We celebrated because our special education students will not have to fidget in their chairs when they strike a computer key for the MAP test that never accounted for the student's individualized education plans.
We celebrated because our students will no longer have to stare at the dull glow of a computer screen as they contemplate what possible answers they could give to questions on material that was never part of their state-mandated curriculum.
We celebrated because our evaluations would not be tied to test scores generated by bored students who have no motivation to perform well on possibly their fifth standardized test of the year. Annoyed students have been known to select “C” for each and every answer on that silly test.
We celebrated because we still have jobs we love, and because our superintendent had to back off of his original threat to suspend teachers for ten days without pay for refusing to administer an ill-conceived test (for which the district spends hundreds of thousands of dollars each year).
We celebrated because teaches, parents, and students across the country (from Austin to Boston) and around the world (from New Zealand to England) have been inspired by our resistance and are waging their own battles for quality assessment.
Perhaps most of all, we were celebrating because we are building a collaborative spirit of faculty and student solidarity at Garfield. Our students know we have their best interests at heart, and that the power of our commitment to truth can overcome the powerful.
Yet while teachers at five of Seattle’s high schools (Chief Sealth, Center School, Ballard, Ingraham, and Garfield) who joined the MAP boycott are elated by the news of this victory, Superintendent Banda’s e-mail also warned that students in grades Kindergarten through 8th grade will still be required to take the test next year.
The key to the victory over the high school MAP test was solidarity and widespread public support, and we intend to carry these lessons forward to change policy for K-8 schools as well.
Our victory, then, remains incomplete. Faculty at ORCA (K-5) and Thornton Creek Elementary have raised equally powerful arguments about the flawed use of the test at the primary grade levels. Moreover, the Department of Education released results from its 2012 study, showing the MAP to be ineffective at improving reading levels for students in the 4th and 5th grades. Similarly, the Chicago school district recently announced it was suspending the MAP for grades K-5—a clear indication the MAP isn’t serving the youngest pupils either.
For these reasons, Seattle’s high school teachers will continue to join with our K-8 colleagues to call on the Seattle School District terminate its contract with the MAP test company at the end of this school year (when the agreement expires). The key to the victory over the high school MAP test was solidarity and widespread public support, and we intend to carry these lessons forward to change policy for K-8 schools as well.
As we both continue to build the movement to scrap the MAP and celebrate our huge victory, we shouldn't forget the answer to this year's end of semester exam: if we stand for what’s right for students, teachers can win.

Saturday, May 11, 2013

32BJ Reports: Falling Further Apart: Decaying Schools in New York City’s Poorest Neighborhoods

The 32BJ union's reports of New York City School segregation echo reports, posted last year at my previous blog address, on how New York City Schools are some of the most segregated in the nation, the third most segregated, behind Chicago's schools and Dallas' schools, according to the New York Times.
Additionally, the neglect in New York City's failure to replace toxic window fixtures and lighting (the latter having received wide attention as of late) in New York's schools is just the tip of the iceberg of many environmental toxins in the schools.

From the 32BJ union: "Falling Further Apart: Decaying Schools in New York City’s Poorest Neighborhoods"
The New York City public school system, among the most diverse in the nation, has long been a stepping stone to the American Dream. But that stepping stone and the pathway it represents are crumbling. Years of deferred maintenance and inadequate facilities funding have taken a toll on public school buildings, with serious consequences for some of New York City’s most vulnerable populations. Students from the poorest families and neighborhoods attend some of the most neglected school buildings in the city. Because poorer students are generally nonwhite, this disparity in building conditions predominantly affects Black, Latino and other nonwhite schoolchildren. The U.S. Green Building Council has linked the condition of school facilities with academic performance; hence, a disparity in building conditions could contribute to widening the achievement gap.

FINDINGS:

* NEW YORK CITY STUDENTS: RACIALLY SEGREGATED AND ECONOMICALLY UNEQUAL
* STUDENTS FROM THE POOREST FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS ATTEND WORSE SCHOOL BUILDINGS
* TOXIC PCBs DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT POORER AND NONWHITE SCHOOLS
* INSUFFICIENT FUNDING HAS LED TO INADEQUATE SCHOOL FACILITIES
* MEET NEW YORK CITY’S WORST SCHOOL BUILDINGS
* THE CITY CAN INVEST IN CHILDREN’S FUTURES – FULLY AND EQUALLY

Download the report here

NEW YORK CITY STUDENTS: RACIALLY SEGREGATED AND ECONOMICALLY UNEQUAL

The New York City public school student population is one of the most diverse in the country. Thousands of students are immigrants or come from immigrant families, seeking the American Dream. But that dream is far from reality – New York City’s public schools are some of the most racially segregated in the country and a greater percentage of students qualify for free or reduced price meals than the national average.

NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE AMONG THE MOST SEGREGATED IN THE COUNTRY

New York City schools are among the most segregated in the nation. More than 60 percent of New York City public school students attend schools where the population is more than 90 percent nonwhite, and more than half of schools have student populations that are at least 90 percent black or Hispanic



NEW YORK CITY PUBLIC SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE POORER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE

Almost 80 percent of New York City public school students qualify for free or reduced price meals – significantly higher than the national average of 48 percent



Download the report here

STUDENTS FROM THE POOREST FAMILIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS ATTEND WORSE SCHOOL BUILDINGS

New York City public schools located in the most impoverished Census tracts, on the average, are in the worst physical condition. As the percentage of students who qualify for free or reduced price meals increases, average school facility quality worsens.

Studies have linked the condition of school facilities with academic performance. Because students from the poorest families and neighborhoods attend some of the most neglected school buildings in the City, and poorer students are generally nonwhite, this disparity in building conditions could be contributing to the widening achievement gap.

POOREST STUDENTS ATTEND WORST SCHOOL FACILITIES

As the percentage of students qualifying for free or reduced price meals increases, the SchoolStat score decreases. (A SchoolStat is a measure of a school building’s maintenance and cleanliness; SchoolStat scores range from “5=Good” to “1=Poor.”)



Download the report here

TOXIC PCBs DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT POORER AND NONWHITE SCHOOLS

Although the U.S. Congress banned polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”) in 1977, many New York City public schools still use light fixtures that contain these toxic compounds, which are known to cause cancer as well as hinder cognitive and neurological development. The City removed these toxic light fixtures from over 160 schools, but schools still awaiting light fixture replacement are poorer and have a greater percentage of nonwhite students than the schools where light fixtures were replaced.



Download the report here

INSUFFICIENT FUNDING HAS LED TO INADEQUATE SCHOOL FACILITIES
New York City public school facilities and capital budgets have been cut significantly. The City spends a smaller percentage of its total education budget on maintenance and operations than six of the seven largest school districts in the country. New York City reports less than two percent of school buildings to be in “good” condition and the majority to be in only “fair” condition. The City is forced to triage a growing list of building deficiencies while hundreds of schools fail to meet accessibility, environmental, and building code criteria.

SCHOOL FACILITIES AND CONSTRUCTION BUDGETS CUT SIGNIFICANTLY
The percentage of the City’s education budget dedicated to facilities decreased almost every year during the past nine years. This includes cuts of almost $50 million to budgets for the Custodial Engineers who are responsible for the maintenance and repair of the vast majority of public schools.



NEW YORK CITY SPENDS SMALLER PERCENTAGE ON MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS THAN SIX OF THE SEVEN LARGEST SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN THE COUNTRY
A school district’s maintenance and operations (“M&O”) budget includes allocations for custodial and maintenance payroll, energy and utilities, as well as equipment and supplies. New York City’s M&O budgeted spending, as a percentage of its total education spending in fiscal year 2013, was six percent – the second lowest of any of the nation’s seven largest school districts, next to Los Angeles.



Download the report here

MEET NEW YORK CITY’S WORST SCHOOL BUILDINGS

Many of the schools with worst BCAS and SchoolStat scores also have dozens of building code violations and most still have PCB-contaminated light fixtures – a stark reality for hundreds of schoolchildren across New York City who lack access to quality school facilities.





Download the report here

THE CITY CAN INVEST IN CHILDREN’S FUTURES — FULLY AND EQUALLY

The City must invest in public school facilities to protect student safety and improve educational outcomes:

Seek new revenue streams and prioritize school facilities funding. Close tax loopholes that benefit the wealthiest New Yorkers and examine additional revenue options, including charging a fair and appropriate rent from charter schools that are co-located with traditional public schools.

Remove toxic PCBs from schools immediately. They can cause cancer and hinder neurological development, potentially setting back future economic opportunity for thousands of children across the City.

Green school buildings and train staff to operate and maintain buildings more efficiently. The City can achieve much-needed energy savings, while creating a safer and healthier learning environment for our children.

Provide all staff with adequate resources. While the cost of living continues to rise, school workers’ wage levels have been frozen for six years. Workers affected by budget cuts are working harder than ever, even during times of crisis. During Hurricane Sandy, many school maintenance workers spent the night in their schools and others worked longer shifts, assisting displaced families seeking shelter and repairing storm damage.

To ensure excellence in its schools, New York City must exercise fairness in its treatment of the men and women who work in the schools. Earning the wages and benefits they deserve, workers can focus all of their energies on creating and maintaining healthy, safe schools where our children can thrive and learn.

Tuesday, May 7, 2013

P.L. Thomas, Citing Common Core, and VAM Evaluations: "A Call for Non-Cooperation: So that Teachers Are Not Foreigners in Their Own Profession"

A Call for Non-Cooperation: So that Teachers Are Not Foreigners in Their Own Profession Posted on May 7, 2013 by plthomasedd
Gandhi’s views on enhancing the vernaculars…so that Indians are “not foreigners in their own land” are directly tied to his opinions on developing communities (for “the poorest of the poor” ) and making community service an integral part of any education. (Ramanathan, 2006, pp. 235-236)
Standing in the middle of the road offers some statistical advantage to avoiding being run over since you aren’t in the prescribed lanes of traffic, but standing in the middle of the road can never assure the safety that refusing to walk into the road to begin with does.

Writing about a call for a moratorium on implementing and testing Common Core State Standards (CCSS) from union leadership, Anthony Cody ends his blog post with three questions:
What do you think? Should we join Randi Weingarten in pushing for one year’s delay in the harsh consequences attached to Common Core assessments? Will this year put the project on sound footing?
These questions about CCSS have been joined by two other calls for compromise and civility—Matthew Di Carlo challenging [at the Shanker blog, May 6, 2013, "About Value-Added And “Junk Science”] charges that value-added methods (VAM) of teacher evaluation are “junk science” and Jennifer Jennings penning an apology to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan for protests at his 2013 talk at American Educational Research Association (AERA). [1]

Weingarten, Di Carlo [2], and Jennings share a call for standing in the middle of the road, a quest for ways to compromise, and these all appear reasonable positions. Ultimately, however, moratoriums, compromise, and civility are all concessions to the current education reform movement and the policies at the center of those reforms, specifically CCSS and VAM.

Teachers as Foreigners in Their Own Profession

Briefly, I want to identify how arguments about a CCSS moratorium, implementing VAM properly and cautiously, and the need for civility are concessions that render teachers foreigners in their own profession.

As long as the debate about CCSS and VAM remain how best to implement them, the essential questions remain unasked, and the agenda behind both are assured success. While I want to address the civility argument next, let me note here that calls for CCSS and VAM are inherently civil and derogatory, exposing the myopic concern for the civility of those rejecting Duncan’s discourse and policies.

The implied and stated messages of calls for CCSS and more high-stakes testing include the following: (1) Teachers do not know what to teach, or how, and (2) teachers are unlikely to perform at the needed levels of effort in their profession unless they are held accountable by external and bureaucratic means.

The implied and stated messages of calls for VAM and merit pay include the following: (1) The most urgent problem at the core of educational outcomes is teacher quality, and (2) teachers are unlikely to perform at the needed levels of effort in their profession unless they are held accountable by external and bureaucratic means.

Calls for CCSS and VAM also share another implied and stated message: Failed educational outcomes are the result of in-school deficiencies; in effect, out-of-school factors are irrelevant in the pursuit of education reform.

These messages are factually false and, despite the civility of the language, irrevocably offensive.

Standing in the middle of the road of bureaucratic, accountability-based school reform, then, may decrease the likelihood of being run over, but it concedes the road itself to those who have built it, to those who govern the laws of transportation.

To answer Cody’s second and third questions, then, No. And now to his first.

Civility: Standing in the Middle of the Road of Accountability

The call for civility exposes a foundational problem with the current education reform debate because, for all practical purposes, there is no debate.

Civility, CCSS, and VAM may all have some appeal in theory, but all of them fall apart in reality, in their implementation.

Civility is the last recourse of the powerful, those who can afford to appear civil because they hold all the power.

Through the lens of history, we must recognize that CCSS will become ”what is testing is what is taught,” as all standards movements have shown.

VAM also sits in a long history of the corrosive consequences of stack ranking, merit pay, and competition.

And this brings us back to standing in the middle of someone else’s road.

Education reform and policy have been historically and are currently under the control of political and corporate leadership who are not educators—many of whom did not even attend public schools, many of whom send their own children to schools unlike the environments they promote and implement.

The locus of power in education is catastrophically inverted; thus, we do not need more or different mechanisms for accountability-based education reform, but we do need a new era of non-cooperation.

The goal of non-cooperation must include seeking ways in which to shift the priorities of the locus of power:

* First, the central locus of power in education is the student, situated in her/his home and community.
* Next in importance is the locus of power afforded the teacher in her/his unique classrooms.
* These must then merge for a locus of power generated within the community of the school.
* Finally, the locus of power in this school-based community must radiate outward.

A Call for Non-Cooperation

Non-cooperation, as found in the philosophy and actions of Gandhi, represents another inversion—away from in-school only education reform and toward, as Ramanathan explains, “communal and educational change”:
As is evident, the take on “education” presented here is not the usual one—of teaching and learning in formal contexts of classrooms and institutions—but one that is intended to move us toward becoming collectively open to realizing that very valuable “education” often goes on outside the constraints of classrooms: in ashrams, in madrassas, in extracurricular programs, by local, politically minded youth, all drawing on local vernacular ways of healing rifts. Indeed, “education” in both these institutions is civic and community education that seems to assume Gandhian ideals of “Non-Cooperation” (and nonformal education) and that is aimed at primarily effecting changes in the community, sometimes before addressing issues relevant to formal education. (p. 230)
Non-cooperation, then, moves beyond a call for teacher autonomy; instead, non-cooperation is the act of the autonomy by “people directly involved” (Ramanathan, p. 231):
Not only do they have Gandhi’s larger philosophy of Non-Cooperation against political hegemonies [emphasis added] at their core…, but they also opened up for me a way of understanding both how Gandhianism is situated and how particular dimensions of the identities of participants (Kanno, 2003; Menard-Warwick, 2005; Norton, 2000; Pavlenko & Blackledge, 2004) get laminated. I was able to see how Gandhianism is first collaboratively interpreted in workshops, then applied and translated on the ground in most local of contexts, and then recast and reinterpreted by individuals and groups as they regroup. (Ramanathan, p. 232)
Non-cooperation is a new paradigm that begins with those most directly impacted by the institution (here, education)—parents, students, teachers. In other words, the people most directly impacted ask the foundational questions: Do we need formal education? And if so, what does that include and how should that be implemented?

This is not about seeking compromise at someone else’s table, not about standing still in the middle of someone else’s road.

The purposes of universal public education, then, is refocused in the ways that address the needs of the least among us, as Gandhi envisioned:
[Nonformal education] … will check the progressive decay of our villages and lay the foundation for a juster social order in which there is no unnatural division between the “haves” and the “have nots” and everybody is assured a living wage and the rights to freedom.…It will provide a healthy and a moral basis of relationship between the city and village and will go a long way towards eradicating some of the worst evils of the present social insecurity and poisoned relationship between the classes. (Harijan, 9-10-37, cited in Prasad, 1924…). (qtd. in Ramanathan, p. 236)
Bureaucratic accountability-based reform is ill equipped to address inequity, mismatched with goals of social justice since the paradigm is authoritarian, the locus of power exclusively with the “haves.”

Non-cooperation seeks instead, as Ramanathan explains:
[an orientation] toward viewing education in broader, community-oriented terms to draw out “the best in children,” to build a “healthy and moral” base for both “the city and the village,” to be entirely secular in its orientation (with “no room … for sectional religious training,” and to eventually transform the “homes of the pupils”[)]. (p. 237)
As well, this call for non-cooperation reframes the civility debate, as Gandhi recognized: “We must welcome them to our political platforms [emphasis added] as honoured guests. We must meet them on neutral platforms as comrades” (qtd. in Ramanathan, p. 237). Civility then follows the re-imagining of the locus of power: “Non-Cooperation…emerges as a deeply historicized awareness committed to doing the opposite of repressive, silencing ills. The quiet way in which both projects bridge perceived gulfs are reminiscent of Gandhi’s insistence on responding to tyranny by searching for nonviolent, quiet alternatives that tap the moral instincts of humans” (Ramanathan, p. 238).

Currently, since calls for CCSS, VAM, and civility all work as “repressive,” “silencing,” and “tyranny,” non-cooperation is the only alternative remaining.

The results must be “interpreting all education as ‘civic education’ and on attending to the most basic of human needs—food, clothing, shelter—before addressing any issues related to formal learning” (Ramanathan, pp. 241-242) as direct action refusing to compromise on in-school only education reform that drives arguments for how best to implement CCSS and VAM:
This close attention to “educating oneself,” of figuring out and questioning one’s own default assumptions, has echoes of Gandhi’s Non-Cooperation, and finds interesting articulation in the idea that we each need to “not cooperate” with our default views but attempt to step outside them by “educating ourselves” by learning from others. (Ramanathan, pp. 244)
In the West, specifically in the United States, we are deeply entrenched in our “default views,” most of which are tinted by commitments to competition, authoritarian structures, and the sanctity of the individual. This call, however, is a call to recognize the importance of community and social justice in our national pursuit of democracy.

Arundhati Roy confronts the tensions at the core of why compromise, moratoriums, and civility fail the narrow education debate as well as the broader democracy:
Fascism is about the slow, steady infiltration of all the instruments of state power. It’s about the slow erosion of civil liberties, about unspectacular, day-to-day injustices.…It means keeping an eagle eye on public institutions and demanding accountability. It means putting your ear to the ground and listening to the whispering of the truly powerless. It means giving a forum to the myriad voices from the hundreds of resistance movements across the country that are speaking about real issues….It means fighting displacement and dispossession and the relentless, every violence of abject poverty. (Roy, 2002; qtd. Ramanathan, pp. 246)
Now is the time for non-cooperation, not moratoriums, not compromise, and not civility on other people’s terms.

Now is the time for non-cooperation so that teachers are not foreigners in their own profession and students are not foreigners in their own classrooms.

[1] See also Jeff Bryant["Education Opportunity Network, May 7, 2013, "Why We Need A Moratorium On The High-Stakes Of Common Core Testing".

[2] Of the three calls for moderation, I do not place Di Carlo’s position as essentially equal to those by Weingarten and Jennings. Di Carlo’s nuanced and detailed discussion of VAM contributes a credible position that I find compelling to a point (such as Di Carlo conceding: “Now, I personally am not opposed to using these estimates in evaluations and other personnel policies”); however, Weingarten and Jennings present far more problems and suffer from a much greater degree of lacking credibility.

Monday, May 6, 2013

NYS Tests and Related Effects Drive Principal to Announce Early Retirement

The current test regimen and the effects that they are having on teaching and learning are driving teachers from the field that they used to love. Teachers are driven to be in a round the clock, year-round prep for test-prep mode, driven by fear. In some cases, such as the principal in the accompanying letter, principals are feeling that they can no longer work in the system.
The principal is from Lancaster, New York, a suburb of Buffalo in western New York. This is a principal of high principle: her critique also singles out New York State's new evaluation systems that it has been imposing across the state. Essentially all my days were spent typing at the computer writing up teacher observations and evaluations. Note that this comes right after the conclusion of the latest round of state tests this April. Implicitly, as the tests stem from the Common Core State Standards, this is an indictment of the Common Core as well. As these tests and evaluation systems are unequivocably pushed by President Barack Obama, U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Governor Andrew Cuomo, N.Y.S. Education Commissioner John King, this statement is implicitly an indictment on their policies as well. We should also note that too many union leaders, such as the New York City United Federation of Teachers' Michael Mulgrew are complicit with these changes, only making complaints about the manner of implementation of these changes, not the changes themselves. Unions and their representatives should be the voice of conscience.
(Reposted from Chris Cerrone: AtTheChalkFace, April 30, 2013)
April 26, 2013

Dear Parents,
With much sadness, I will be taking an early retirement effective June 28, 2013. There are two main reasons. My philosophy of education and what I deem to be important for children are in conflict with the educational reforms implemented this year. Please allow me to explain the two reasons why, although they are actually interconnected.
During this school year, as your child’s elementary principal, there was little time to interact with your children, problem-solve, assist teachers and visit classrooms (authentic observations of teaching and learning). Essentially all my days were spent typing at the computer writing up teacher observations and evaluations. This was the first year for a complex new system. I knew it would be difficult for me, yet I still wanted to give it a try. I tried. I watched. I typed. We have always evaluated teachers in the Lancaster Central School District. I did not expect that this new system would impose such a drastic change in the job description, and did not expect that it would be so all consuming.
New York State is directing us to test and test your children, now starting in Kindergarten and continuing every year after. It is excessive. Along with the more frequent testing, the rigors of the New York State assessments have also increased making me quite concerned for our children with special needs and/or high anxiety. In addition, some of the students who typically perform well academically are quite upset because they were not able to finish many of the sections of the tests in the allotted time. The State Education Department is telling us to expect fewer higher end scores on the tests, even with all of the teacher focus on the test and the extensive test prep.
The students’ scores are used to measure teacher growth and effectiveness and to help plan instruction. The State claims that we need these tests to determine if students are on the path to college and careers. The students get a number that impacts the teacher’s number and impacts the principal’s number. This is not the purpose of public education and I believe this practice is destructive in many ways to the children and to the teachers, and to education as a whole.
I have been so proud of the Lancaster Central School District and the community for the past ten years. The new teacher evaluation system and the increased student testing were not created by the Lancaster Central School District but imposed at the national and state levels. Lancaster has had an effective and thorough evaluation system for years.
The greatest blessing for the children and me has been the fabulous teachers at Hillview and throughout the district. It is my hope that they remain grounded and centered knowing the difference they make each day. Teachers are so much more than a number and so are the children.
I have truly enjoyed serving as the principal of Hillview Elementary School. My goals for parents were to be visible and easily approachable. Another goal was to resolve any and all concerns you had in a timely and effective manner. I hope I met your expectations.
Thank you for sending me children who are simply adorable, mannerly, and ready to learn. I will miss their hugs and their humor. I will especially miss their pure innocence. Whenever I needed a lift, there was a fix right outside my door. It was as simple as looking into the eyes of a child. The past years have been filled with great memories and many laughs. This Dr. Seuss quote will guide me the next few weeks, “Don’t cry because it’s over, smile because it happened.”
Thank you for all of your support and the opportunity to be the principal of such a great school!

With warm regards,
Kathleen Carroll Knauth
The response to Principal Knauth's early retirement announcement has received some sympathetic attention in the western New York media. From Your News Now-Buffalo, N.Y. edition, May 3, 2013, by Katie Cummings, "Principal's symbolic stand applauded by some who say there's too much testing":
LANCASTER, N.Y. — "To see them tested over and over again, and the level of the rigor of the assessments is disturbing," said Kathleen Knauth. Knauth spent ten of her 36 years in education as principal of Hillview Elementary in Lancaster.

However, she submitted her notice to retire last Friday after getting fed up with all the paperwork she had to do as part of teacher evaluations and student testing. Knauth says it kept her away from checking in on classrooms.

"I felt like I was focusing on typing and data instead of focusing on what's truly important," Knauth said. "The social worker came in and asked what she should work on with children and with parents and families. I couldn’t tell her."

Western New Yorkers for Public Education is against some of the standardized testing required by the state and commended her decision. Member Eric Mihelbergel says the tests are designed for a narrow segment of students.

"If we focus our curriculum teaching to just math, teaching to just English language arts, we’re missing a whole other set of skills," Mihelbergel said.
. . . .
Knauth’s time in education is not completely over, as she plans to work on education reform and getting the word out about the testing.

"I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any testing. There should be, but leave it to the teachers. I think my message the most is let the children learn and play, let the teachers teach," Knauth said.