STOP THE INCREASED ANCHORAGE SITES ON THE HUDSON RIVER

While most of the time I focus my rants in writing on the world of public education, the recent proposal to drastically increase anchorage sites for oil barges on the Hudson River have caused great alarm to all of us who call the Hudson River Valley home. 

I was compelled to write a letter to the US Coast Guard.  Until September 7th, you, too, can share your comments at:  https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/06/09/2016-13701/anchorage-grounds-hudson-river-yonkers-ny-to-kingston-ny

The recent proposal to increase anchorage sites on the Hudson River from NYC to Albany for large vessels carrying dangerous cargos is distressing and unsettling.  I've lived in the Hudson River Valley my entire life and have vivid childhood memories of seeing and smelling raw sewage in the river, as well as oil slicks, garbage, and dead fish.  Thanks to the tireless efforts of citizen activists over many decades, the Hudson River today is a healthy, vital river, supporting an abundance of life and providing recreational and scenic pleasure to residents and visitors up and down its shores.

The proposal to increase anchorage sites on the river jeopardizes all the hard work done to heal the Hudson.

No matter where I travel to around the country, when I return I'm struck anew by the unparalleled beauty in my own backyard.  If you've had the good fortune to live or visit here, you too, would readily see what I see every day.  You might understand, too, how a uniquely American School of Art celebrating the beauty of the natural environment was born here in the Hudson Valley in the mid-19th Century.  The views and vistas from New York City all the way up to the Adirondacks provide inspiration and pleasure to residents and visitors alike.

There is no possible advantage to residents and visitors of the River Valley for the proposed nautical parking lots.  The blocking of our vistas and the light pollution caused by the anchored vessels benefits no one who calls this Valley home. The potential for environmental disaster from spilled fuel and other toxins increases in magnitude with the increased vessel traffic the Anchorage proposal would allow.

Only a few private companies stand to profit from permitting large numbers of anchorage sites on the Hudson River.

Millions of residents' quality of life will be jeopardized.

It is imperative that decisions involving the river acknowledge its status as a National Heritage Area stretching from New York City to Albany.

National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are designated by Congress as places where natural, cultural, and historic resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally important landscape.  The goals of NHAs are historic preservation, natural resource conservation, recreation, heritage tourism, and educational projects.

Granting permission to private companies for increased traffic and longterm parking rights ignores the act of Congress intended to forever protect the Hudson River.

I implore you, for the sake of the people of this Valley, and the River itself, do not approve the increase in anchorage sites on the Hudson River.

COMPETENCY-BASED EDUCATION

The new school year is beginning, and so I'm returning to my world of public education that I consciously take a break from during the summer.  Other than showing the film Education, Inc, to a small audience who finally "got it" ("it" being what I so often rant and opine on,) I've steered clear of most reading and conversations related to education for the past 8 weeks.

But then I came across another brilliant piece by UNH professor Thomas Newkirk.  This time on what reformers have labeled "Competency-Based Education."  Who can argue with anything that seeks to make kids competent?

I encourage all to read to find out more.

WHY IS ANYONE IN RUSSIA READING THIS BLOG?

So interesting to me that after posting my thoughts about the GOP candidate's unfitness for political office yesterday, the blog overview that shows where pages are viewed around the globe shows a sudden rise in views from Russia!
Mind you, this is just my little private place to vent. I don't advertise this much even to friends and family.  People mainly find this place through the infrequent postings I make on other's blogs.  Views have been mostly from the US and occasionally from Europe.  But never anywhere else.
Today it's all dark green from Russia.
That strikes me as more than a little odd.

PLEASE HELP CHANGE THE NARRATIVE

Please, if you're reading this, I implore you to help change the narrative on this election.  We all need to do this in our daily conversations with friends, family, co-workers, strangers.

The narrative of this election cannot be about the next insane thing the GOP candidate has done or whether or not his policies can make America “great again.” The only thing we all need to be talking about now is that one of the candidates running for President of the United States has serious mental health issues that make him unfit for any political office, let alone POTUS.

That’s it. Plain and simple.

There are many places to find detailed information on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Below is from the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) 

The narcissist …

• Feels grandiose and self-important (e.g., exaggerates accomplishments, talents, skills, contacts, and personality traits to the point of lying, demands to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
• Is obsessed with fantasies of unlimited success, fame, fearsome power or omnipotence, unequaled brilliance (the cerebral narcissist), bodily beauty or sexual performance (the somatic narcissist), or ideal, everlasting, all-conquering love or passion
• Firmly convinced that he or she is unique and, being special, can only be understood by, should only be treated by, or associate with, other special or unique, or high-status people (or institutions)
• Requires excessive admiration, adulation, attention and affirmation – or, failing that, wishes to be feared and to be notorious (Narcissistic Supply)
• Feels entitled. 
• Demands automatic and full compliance with his or her unreasonable expectations for special and favorable priority treatment
• Is “interpersonally exploitative,” i.e., uses others to achieve his or her own ends
• Devoid of empathy. Is unable or unwilling to identify with, acknowledge, or accept the feelings, needs, preferences, priorities, and choices of others
• Constantly envious of others and seeks to hurt or destroy the objects of his or her frustration. 
• Suffers from persecutory (paranoid) delusions as he or she believes that they feel the same about him or her and are likely to act similarly
• Behaves arrogantly and haughtily. 
• Feels superior, omnipotent, omniscient, invincible, immune, “above the law,” and omnipresent (magical thinking). 
• Rages when frustrated, contradicted, or confronted by people he or she considers inferior to him or her and unworthy

There really is nothing more we need to say.
Just help change the narrative.

The GOP candidate is not just a bad candidate.  He is dangerous to our democracy. 

He is mentally unfit for the office.
For many reasons.
Period.

A MOMENT WITH JOHN KING

I recently had the unusual opportunity to hear John King as a guest lecturer in a course I was taking.  Dr. John King/Secretary King, former Commissioner of the New York State Department of Education, now America's Secretary of Education.

I had written to him in the past and spoken out at public forums about the negative consequences of policies he designed and promoted when he was the Commissioner in New York. I found myself with the potential opportunity to ask him a question in the class, so I spent a few days soliciting ideas from others and thinking what it was that I would want him to hear.  But after mulling over all the things I could possibly ask/say, I decided to actually not say anything, so as not to bring undue distress to my gracious hosts. 

There was much pomp and circumstance around the visiting dignitary, and when he finally arrived, I have to tell you that he held the room (me included) in rapt attention for almost two hours.

I will admit that I was completely awed by Dr. King’s presentation – he actually brought me to tears at one point. He spoke with passion, intelligence, conviction, and noble purpose. He made me want to work with him to support whatever actions he saw fit to implement in the public school sphere. In short, I sublimated all that I knew about the destructive power of his choices made as Commissioner of Education in New York State, to the seductive power of his words. 

(Just as an aside – the speaker I saw before me in this class in no way resembled the person I had personally testified in front of at a public forum, nor was he the person seen in C-Span videos of Congressional hearings. The man I heard last week was a far cry from the aloof, dismissive, and at times, arrogant person I’ve seen in public settings.)

But now that I’ve returned to my “real life” and remembered and reread what I’d previously known about him, I’m saddened and confused by the extreme cognitive dissonance Dr. King’s presentation has caused me. 

Much cannot be ignored nor sublimated.  Dr. King’s real life actions, affiliations, and his choices in how to implement change in education have been questionable, to say the least. He’s been in many positions of power with the awesome privilege to enact fundamental change for the benefit of all public school children. But for some reason, his decisions have led to great failings and real harm. 

I am left completely distressed. 

How could Dr. King’s presentation to an audience seeking to become advocates for our country’s school children be so awe-inspiring on its face while the substance below the surface tells a very different story? I know the short answer may be “this is what a great politician looks and sounds like.” 

But I feel there has to be more to the story. Is it possible he really does believe that his decisions are in the best interest of children, and that if we who see things differently would just step out of the way, real progress could be made? Is it possible it’s just the twisted machinery of politics and policy making that contorts great ideas as they make their way to our classrooms? Or did I merely witness a man with great political prowess give an awesome speech that he knows is far from the truth of his actual intended actions?

I’m sure the answer is as complex as the questions. And I wish I could uncover the true reasons for this confounding and contradictory story.

I am confused and ever more distressed.

PS While I didn’t raise my hand to ask any questions, Dr. King actually cold-called me after asking if anyone had ideas on how to improve our schools. I was stunned and then took a deep breath so as not to say anything that might embarrass. And then I told him what I had previously written to him in letters and said in public forums when he was State Commissioner – “The only adult at the direct intersection between education policy and the student the policy is intended for, is the classroom teacher. It is imperative that the teacher’s voice be heard in the conversation about how to address the needs of our nation’s school children.” 

And by all accounts, it looked like, at least for that moment in time, that he had heard me.

(Though I’m also not so naive…)

ABOUT THIS SURREAL PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN

I can't say the name of the focus of this post myself, but I wanted to pass on this brilliant post from dianeravitch.net.  The original Esquire article is linked here.

Charles Pierce is a thoughtful blogger for Esquire. On everything having to do with education, he is on target. He is on target on politics too.

In this post, he exposes Donald Trump as a major teller of tales, a fabulist, in short, a liar. Trump said in the aftermath of the Dallas disaster that 11 cities were in a state of upheaval and that there were people calling for “a moment of silence” for the killer of the five police officers. None of that was true.

Trump says whatever he wants and contradicts himself a day later, and no one seems to mind. 

He regularly plays to his base, which is angry white men who feel left out and resent those “others.”

Charles Pierce writes:

Damn the delegates who will vote for this man. Damn the professional politicians who will fall in line behind him or, worse, will sit back and hope this all blows over so the Republican Party once again will be able to relegate the poison this man has unleashed to the backwaters of the modern conservative intellectual mainstream, which is where it has been useful for over four decades. Damn the four hopeless sycophants who want to share a stage with him for four months. Damn all the people who will come here and speak on his behalf. Damn all the thoughtful folk who plumb his natural appeal for anything deeper than pure hatred.

Damn all the people who will vote for him, and damn any progressives who sit this one out because Hillary Rodham Clinton is wrong on this issue or that one. Damn all the people who are suggesting they do that. And damn all members of the media who treat this dangerous fluke of a campaign as being in any way business as usual. Any support for He, Trump is, at this point, an act of moral cowardice. Anyone who supports him, or runs with him, or enables his victory, or even speaks well of him, is a traitor to the American idea…..

Here is the truth. Nobody called for a moment of silence for Micah Johnson. Eleven U.S. cities are not on the brink of racial violence. He, Trump just made that shit up so his followers can stay afraid and angry at the people he wants them to fear and hate. This lie was a marching order and the Party of Lincoln is right in step with him, straight into the burning Reichstag of this man’s mind.

Welcome to the 2016 Republican convention: a four-day celebration of the ritual suicide of American democracy.

With balloons.

COME TO D.C. ON JULY 8TH AND 9TH!

Join the SOS Rally, March, and Conference in DC on July 8 and 9!
Click above for more information...

DIGNITY FOR ALL STUDENTS...(AND AMERICANS TOO?)

New York State has a law entitled "DASA - Dignity for All Students Act."  It is intended to protect the dignity of all students at all times, on school property and off, when involved in a  school function.  School curricula must include direct instruction in civility, citizenship, and character education by expanding the concepts of tolerance, respect for others and dignity. The consequences for infringing on student rights as outlined in the law are clearly laid out.  Public school teachers are also required to view a training video on the Act in order to maintain their certification.

My latest question is this: How are we to factor in the impact of Donald Trump's presidential campaign behavior on the behavior of our students?  What if it becomes clear that an increase in school bullying is directly tied to unconscionable public bullying of women, ethnic groups, disabled Americans, the LGBT community, and more, by a man seeking the highest office in our land?  

There is an actual law in the State of New York to address behaviors in children that we now witness daily from a man seeking to be President of the United States of America.  How can we not hold this man accountable?  How can any thinking, caring American support such behavior?  What justification can there be for supporting a "candidate" who exemplifies undignified behavior? How can we instruct our children in rightful behavior when an adult seeking the very highest office in the land is an exemplar of discriminatory, intimidating, harassing, bullying behavior?

PLEASE, we need to speak truth to insanity.  NOW.

The Dignity for All Students Act 

New York State’s Dignity for All Students Act (The Dignity Act) seeks to provide the State’s public elementary and secondary school students with a safe and supportive environment free from discrimination, intimidation, taunting, harassment, and bullying on school property, a school bus and/or at a school function.

The Dignity Act was signed into law on September 13, 2010 and took effect on July 1, 2012. Amendments to the act are effective as of July 1, 2013 and are noted below under ***DIGNITY ACT NEWS***. 

The original legislation amended State Education Law by creating a new Article 2 – Dignity for All Students.  The Dignity Act also amended Section 801-a of New York State Education Law regarding instruction in civility, citizenship, and character education by expanding the concepts of tolerance, respect for others and dignity to include: an awareness and sensitivity in the relations of people, including but not limited to, different races, weights, national origins, ethnic groups, religions, religious practices, mental or physical abilities, sexual orientations, gender identity, and sexes. The Dignity Act further amended Section 2801 of the Education Law by requiring Boards of Education to include language addressing The Dignity Act in their codes of conduct.

Additionally, under the Dignity Act, schools will be responsible for collecting and reporting data regarding material incidents of discrimination and harassment.

QUestar (Pearson Jr.) RELEASES SOME (NOT ALL) TEST QUESTIONS IN NYS

It's true.  With Pearson gone (sort of) QUestar has released 75% of this year's test questions for the public to view.  While they haven't yet included the answers nor breakdown of how students did on each question across the state, I suppose you could be a tad thankful they released something. (?)

Yesterday, I sat down to look at the 5th grade math questions during my prep and found myself working through lunch and “taking” the whole test. 

I’m a fairly decent math thinker and have successfully taught scores of 5th graders the underlying concepts. But I had trouble with some of the questions. 

Sure, I could have looked at my teaching notes, and spent a little more time puzzling through the difficult problems, (they’re challenging but not impossible questions,) but the point is, our students take these tests under pressure (even if they’re un-timed,) and the answers just shouldn’t be so elusive. I understand throwing in a few questions to challenge the stronger students, but there were many challenging questions that frankly didn’t make much sense if the goal is to see how proficient students are, overall, with the math standards. And if the goal is to test the supposed “effectiveness” of teachers, then this post could most definitely be even longer… 

Question # 9 requiring students to know the “trick” of how to divide fractions is the one that sticks in my craw the most. The State’s own declaration of what Shifts in Focus the CCSS are supposed to lead to include “deep comprehension” of topics and not merely learning/teaching “tricks.” 

While it’s true that a truly astute student might know or remember that a whole number divided by a fraction is a whole number, including a problem like “56 divided by 1/17” is ridiculous. (For those not familiar with fifth grade math, this is the first year they work with division of fractions. It’s an incredibly complex concept to understand with “deep comprehension” so to create a test problem like this one pretty much forces teachers to teach the trick of “Keep, change, flip.” Then the answer is simple. And math short-cuts and tricks will surely remain the safety net for teachers and students. Maybe that is all for the best…)

Maybe I misunderstood the intention of all the new math standards and the underlying focus on “deeply understanding mathematical concepts.”

What do I know? I’m just a 5th grade teacher.

GOVERNOR CUOMO IS NO FRIEND OF PUBLIC EDUCATION

Wait. 
Stop. 
Hold the phone!

Did Governor Cuomo really just say "The problem is the State Education Department, which is the Board of Regents. It did a terrible job in implementing Common Core?"

He went on to say the Board of Regents must "change their perspective and their level of competence."  

And then had the audacity to say "They lost the faith and trust of the parents of this state, and they're going to have to remedy that.  It's not that the parents are irrational.  The parents are rational.  The system was implemented poorly and it did a lot of harm."

Seriously? 

I don't even know where to begin...

COMPUTER BASED TESTING

I've been trying to focus on the positive the past month and so have done a lot less reading and writing about all that's wrong in my public education world.  (The negative education news, together with the insanity of the current presidential election news, has worn me out...)

Today, I couldn't help myself, though.  Below is my latest, written as a letter to the Board of Regents. 

Suppose the war against excessive and inappropriate testing is "won," Computer-Based Testing looms on the not-very-distant horizon in New York State.  Testing is not going going away no matter how many students refuse the tests. This may be the next battle...

Dear Board of Regents,

I'm an elementary teacher in New York State.  I took a personal day in April and attended my first Board of Regents meeting.  It was an amazing (and educational) day for me.  I was thrilled to witness Dr. Rosa's first day as Chancellor of the Board of Regents, and to hear so many important and insightful discussions and questions on topics of great concern to me and my colleagues.

Among the many topics I found particularly interesting, was the discussion about Computer-Based Testing.  I have to admit, even as a veteran teacher in a grade that tests both ELA and Math every year, I was unaware that computer-based testing was slated for implementation in NYS in the very near future.  I discovered I wasn't the only surprised person, though, as Regent Cashin asked the question I had been wondering:  "When was the decision made to actually move forward with CBT?"  When I read the notes today from the April 18th meeting, I was surprised to see no indication of the conversation that ensued after the question was raised.  Part of Regent Cashin's questioning included concern that she had not seen indication in previous meeting notes (September's, I believe) about a similar conversation regarding CBT. It seems that decisions about implementing CBT may have continued in the absence of an actual agreement of the full Board of Regents to do so.  In the interest of creating greater trust between teachers, parents, the public at large, and the SED,  a frequently mentioned priority at the April meetings, I hope this was merely an oversight, and that greater discussion and even investigation into the appropriateness of CBT at the elementary level will occur before a decision is made to definitely implement CBT in New York State.  With new leadership and with a new sense of mission to truly serve the best interest of the State's students and teachers, I am hopeful this conversation remains open.

The public, and I presume the SED and the Board of Regents, are well-aware of the myriad technical problems CBT has faced across the country in recent years.  From slow data loading times, to crashing servers, to lost data, students in many states who have already taken CBT have faced testing challenges above and beyond the challenges that testing, in general, may pose to students. (Questionable standards, test question construction, overly "challenging" reading passages and math problems, and problematic "un-timed" testing protocols, to name a few of those challenges.)  But there is a far more troubling concern that has arisen, particularly at the elementary level.  Students in grades K-5 learn best when reading and writing on paper.  (If this is untrue, then research that proves otherwise should be cited and shared with the teaching community.)  It's true that our society is moving towards an ever-increasing use of technology and our students spend a greater and greater amount of time "connected" and students in today's world are ever more proficient at many of the technological devices they use.  But I strongly believe that developmentally speaking, at this time, it is still more appropriate for elementary students to be reading and writing with paper where they can easily flip back and forth between pages without delay, highlight and annotate on paper with accuracy, and avoid the challenges that computer-use skills will add to the reading/writing process.  Another real fear is that if we move forward with CBT for assessment, then reading and writing instruction throughout the year at the elementary level will also move towards computer-based instruction.  And then the computer-based instruction could start as young as Kindergarten or even Pre-K.  While it may be appropriate to introduce young students to computer use in some way, using it exclusively or nearly so, for instruction in fundamental subjects such as reading, writing, and math remains a questionable teaching choice.  (Again, I am hoping that the new Research Working Group will investigate these issues before making a decision about CBT.)  

Another possible consequence of CBT and related computer-based instruction, although  inadvertent, could be to widen the gap between student populations according to their family resources.  Students have greatly varied access to computers and other forms of technology outside the classroom which certainly impacts their use of technology in the classroom, and thereby could further widen the gap in test scores.

In addition to these concerns, I wonder about the motor coordination challenge that effective/efficient keyboarding poses to elementary students.  This, too, needs to be viewed through a developmental lens to ensure we are not expecting all students to achieve proficiency at a skill that not all are developmentally ready to achieve.  Ease of texting does not equate to improved spelling and writing skills, just as increased presence of technology in the lives of today's students doesn't necessarily equate to CBT being the best nor most appropriate way to assess reading and writing skills in elementary students.  

I'm hoping the current Board of Regents agrees that the issues I've raised cannot be overlooked when making the important decisions about how to most fairly and accurately assess student achievement and teacher effectiveness. I truly hope that the impact on all classroom instruction, down to the Kindergarten level, will be taken into consideration, as well.  I further hope that the Board of Regents will utilize Chancellor Rosa's new initiative of the Research Working Group before making any permanent decisions about CBT.

I'd be happy to engage in further discussion, should you have questions or seek further clarification of my concerns. 

Thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts.

Most sincerely, 

VICTORY OVER VAM!

I haven't had much to write about recently.  All the negative news in my teaching life was feeling unhealthy.  I've been trying to focus on the positive.
And along comes this fabulous news:

Teacher Sheri Lederman challenged her VAM score of "ineffective" in court.  Today she found out that she won.  New York Supreme Court Justice Mc Donough found the score to be "arbitrary and capricious" and threw the score out. Read about this exciting decision here: The judge's decision is posted here. This is the first successful legal challenge to VAM. It must not be the last.  Share this far and wide.  Thanks for all you do, Carol This is good news - for teachers, students, and our entire democracy! Let's focus on the positive!

REFUSING THE TESTS - AN ACT OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

I wish we had Long Island's Jeanette Deuterman's clear and articulate thinking up here where I teach and live.  I wish there had been more talk about civil disobedience and how change doesn't happen through compliance.  It happens through civil disobedience.

But we didn't.

Because civil disobedience is what's called for if there is going to be real and substantive change in public education.

The 2016 testing season is over.  There is a new Chancellor of the Regents who believes and articulates all the right things for the right reasons.  There are several other Regents who understand what is going on and what needs to be done.

But change is not here yet.  (Again, despite what NYSUT, my State union keeps saying.)

I'm still trying to get my class back on track after two weeks of disruptive testing schedules.  My students are still faced with Local assessments at the end of the year which have suddenly taken on far greater importance than prior years as the resulting scores will stand in for the State test scores to judge my teacher effectiveness.  And in my classroom and everyone else's in NY State, there are still unreasonable expectations for students to meet age-inappropriate standards, teachers are still being assessed and observed for not-always-supportive reasons, and computer-based testing is on the near horizon.

It's not too late, (nor too early) to reiterate Jeanette's words:


"It's time for parents to understand the power that parents have.
It's not about whether or not your child would do fine on the tests.  It's about standing up for all children.
There are bystanders and up standers.  Which are you going to be?
The tests are wrong and they hurt a lot of children.
If we don't stop it.  Nobody will stop it.
It's time to say all these things are not okay."

Civil disobedience in the form of withholding the data the State so desperately wants is what we need.

Don't be misled.  Testing data isn't to show you how successful your child is.  Your child shouldn't take the test because "they're good at taking tests."  

Whether or not to take the tests is about the Big Picture.  And the Big Picture includes a lot of children who aren't good at taking the tests. And the process by which the tests are administered is questionable on many levels.  It's not "just a test."  It's not a benign process by which children learn real life lessons.  The data is a valuable commodity you are providing free to the State.  So please, learn more and ask questions.

There is almost a year until the next testing season arrives.  As an act of democratic citizen participation, find out more about the issues.  Six days of un-timed tests are no good for anyone.  There is nothing of use to a teacher that will be discovered from so many hours of testing. 

There are new people in Albany who really do have our children's best interests at heart.  But they can't make change happen alone.  They need our support, and our voices.  So, if you don't hear about substantive changes in time for Testing 2017, I urge you to consider your small part to affect real change. 

Thanks.

MORE ON THE BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING...

I said I'd post more specifics on the BoR meeting I attended last Monday.  But I haven't had the brain energy to sift through my notes as I'd intended.

I'll just re-iterate these important highlights:

• The Board has clearly heard there are trust issues in our State, between the public and the SED.
• They clearly seem concerned about re-gaining trust.
• Their path to regaining trust is unclear, however.

I have great faith in Dr. Betty Rosa to lead forward into sanity, if that's possible.
I have faith that she'll be successful bringing actual research findings to the table when making critical policy decisions.
I also have faith that there were will be some positive movement on teacher evaluation plans, helping struggling schools, and something to do with testing.

But I am also equally clear that she cannot do it alone.
She needs teachers and parents to stand behind her and continue to question and to hold the entire SED - Regents, Commissioners, office staff, and the Governor - accountable for re-righting the ship, and steering us towards logical, child-centered decision-making.

We need to keep pressing for the things that will make us trust them again (sane, appropriate and logical standards, tests, and teacher evaluations.)  We need to speak out against the things that make us question their trust-ability (missing test pages, unlimited time to take tests, pressuring young children to decide for themselves how long to test for, continued inappropriate questions, too-long tests, questionable standards, and onerous, stressful, unproductive teacher evaluation systems that require districts such as mine to add three more administrators just to keep up with evaluations and paperwork, etc.)

If you live in New York State, your voice is needed.  

Join with me here or send your own comments and questions.

But please, participate.

IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION

I came out of a store this morning and found someone kneeling behind my parked car.  I immediately assumed he'd hit me and was looking at the damage.  But when the man saw me coming, he stood up and smiled instead.

He'd seen my bumper sticker and liked it so much he wanted a picture of it:

"If you're not outraged, you are not paying attention."

It pretty much sums up how I feel about things in general.  

Although I first got the sticker during Bush Jr.'s infamous days in the White House, this saying has sadly become even more relevant today as 1% money invades and threatens to overcome our democratic way of life.

This is not a popular opinion to voice, but I wonder how different things might be in education today if more of my colleagues were a tad more outraged.  If more teachers were paying attention, connecting the dots, and seeing through the deception that goes by the name of "reform," I wonder if Misters Gates, Broad, Walton, et. al. would have been so successful worming their way into our schools and classrooms if they'd been questioned at every turn.

I don't actually like seeing all the connections.  (The constant cognitive dissonance hurts my brain.)  I don't enjoy questioning the motives of people who claim to have children's best interest as their priority.  But it also doesn't take very long to feel the outrage, if you're willing to pay a little attention.

Compliance and obedience and doing what you're told without questioning are not the hallmarks of exemplary professional behavior.  (Contrary to what nearly every administrator has told me.)  If your job is to place children's best interests at the heart of your efforts, then you are obliged, compelled, and actually mandated to think first before acting.  Use the critical thinking skills so avidly talked about in education circles.

Sometimes the most professional thing to do is to question and to find another way.  

For the sake of the kids.

And the future of public education.

Please.

And if you need a place to start your eye-opening and to gain some "BI" (background information,) then I highly recommend two blogs and a book:

dianeravitch.net         and       curmudgucation.blogspot.com
and Intelligent Disobedience: Doing Right When What You're Told To Do Is Wrong.

WHY THE MISSING NYS TEST BOOKLET PAGE MATTERS

For those who haven't heard, there was a page missing from the 2016 New York State ELA test booklets for grades 3-8. Given the excessive importance given to these tests, the enormous amount of money spent on creating, prepping for, and administering these tests, this omission has to be important in some way. I admit I continued to be confused why there is so little public discussion about the missing test booklet page.  Even amongst my colleagues, there is a general sense that it is a minor detail not worth wondering or worrying about.  

While some might say I'm just looking for stuff to complain about, I maintain that the missing page has much more significant implications. 

Here are some things worthy of pondering:

•              Even if you personally don't plan your writing ahead of time, many students do (particularly students who have been test-prepped for months and given a "formula" for writing high scoring essays.)  Your personal feelings about the importance of a planning page doesn't make the absence of one any less important to those students that needed it.

•              The test booklet directions, as well as the directions read aloud by teachers, refer to a "planning page" that wasn't there.

•              Students are instructed not to go past "stop signs" nor to write in any spaces not designated for answers.

•              A main intent of these tests is to claim a standardized (read: "irrefutable") ranking of students across the State. But standardized test scores require standardized testing conditions.  On Wednesday, April 6th, only some students were alerted to accommodations they could make in the absence of the official "planning page." Other students did not receive that advantage.  Blank pages were only available in some grades' test booklets, and occurred after the "stop signs" that test takers are instructed not to turn past.       TO SUMMARIZE - a planning page, critical for organized and coherent writing for some students, was missing in all test booklets.  Only some students were instructed on alternative spaces to use for planning.  CONCLUSION - all students did NOT test under standardized (read: "the same") conditions.

•              What protocols does the testing company Questar have in place to insure accurate, error-free publishing of standardized test booklets?  How and why did the protocols fail?  Is there any consequence to the testing company for its error of omission?  What other errors may have been made that are far less obvious?

•              Can the scores of the essay on Day 2 of NYS ELA testing be considered valid under the conditions outlined above?  (read: "Testing conditions were not standardized across the State.  Valid scores require standardized conditions.")

Just some food for thought...

Your thoughts?

BOARD OF REGENTS MEETING

I attended my first Board of Regents meeting in Albany on Monday.
It was fascinating and I highly recommend all teachers make the effort to get to Albany at least once in their careers to attend a meeting.

I took lots of notes and hope to post a detailed debriefing this weekend.

These things stick out as important initial observations:

• This message was repeated several times throughout the day - a major goal of the Board is to regain trust.  (How they're going to do that is still not completely clear...)
• 
  
• There seems to have been a deliberate decision to not keep records on how long students chose to sit with the tests in this first year of un-timed tests.  (If records weren't kept, then you can't document if there was a problem...)
• 
  
• Amidst a discussion about the impending roll out of computerized testing (for the 2016-17 school year) a Regent wondered aloud about when the Board had actually agreed to move forward with computerized testing.  It was a stunning moment.  And while there was a brief discussion following her question, no conclusions were reached and further discussion was put off to another time in the future.

Stay tuned for more details this weekend...

POUGHKEEPSIE JOURNAL INTERVIEW WITH COMMISSIONER ELIA

Here is a great interview of the New York State Commissioner of Education by the Poughkeepsie Journal on April 14th.

It's long but well-worth the time to watch and listen.

The questions are direct and cover many concerns that have been raised about receivership, testing, teacher evaluations, and more.  The answers are often evasive but there is satisfaction in hearing the questions at least being asked.

Among some important highlights:  Ms. Elia seems to firmly believe a teacher evaluation system has to produce positive outcomes, be created in conjunction with teachers, be done at a local level, and be for the benefit of students.  She agrees there's more work to be done.  She says there's a plan to give parents more useful information on their child's tests results, and she thinks there needs to be a partnership with universities to ensure students graduating from high school are in fact "college ready."

Things not asked or not answered clearly - what about the missing pages in the ELA test booklets this year?  What impact does the missing page have on test validity? Was she aware some teachers knew and were able to alert their students to the missing page, and other teachers didn't know until the test booklets were collected? What impact does students sitting for vastly different amounts of time have on the scores they get?  (Is a "3" from a student who took 70 minutes to take a test equivalent to the "3" another students took 3 hours to get?)  How can she keep saying teachers reviewed and approved all the test questions on all the tests, thereby implying all the test questions are now developmentally appropriate and well-written (a major concern of all stakeholders) when in fact the teacher reviewers could only replace bad questions from a list of Pearson created questions that could also be bad but maybe not AS bad...  This strikes me as a tad disingenuous...

Watch the video and then add your own comments to the PJ page. Maybe the paper will start covering the story of missing test pages and the travesty of un-timed tests.

The public MUST know.

MORE ON UN-TIMED TESTING

I thought I was done writing about State testing, but apparently, I'm not.
Ms. Elia's words just echoed in my head:

"Students who are productively working will be able to demonstrate what they know and are able to do, even if it takes more time. We're interested in what students know, not how fast they can go."

I wonder what impact this will have on every day classroom assessments...

Does this mean that unit tests, and mid-terms, and finals, and maybe even those weekly spelling tests should also be un-timed?

If the State has declared that they're "interested in what students know, not how fast they can go" then who are we at the local level to place time constraints on students during any test?  Isn't the goal to always discover what our students know, not how fast they can go?

But that leads me to other questions.

One of the most common reasons given why parents should not let their children refuse the tests is because in real life, there are challenges.  And just because the challenge is hard, doesn't mean you can "opt out."

Well, I don't do a lot of testing in my class. (I prefer essays where students really do get to show what they know.)  But I do know that in real life, you don't get unlimited time on many things.

What life lesson are we teaching our children/students if we show them that this critically important State test does not require them to show what they know in any particular time frame?  Does this set them up for failure later in life, certainly in their high school and college careers when assignments and tests most definitely have a timed component?

These are important questions to consider.

It's been clear that the NYSED doesn't do a lot of projecting into the future in regards to potential real-life impacts of policy on children.

So the questioning is left to us.

Please, ask the questions.

STATE TESTING 2016 - FINAL THOUGHTS

Six days of testing in New York State are over.  (apart for make-up days.)
I don't want to dwell on the past, but I do want to record some of my thoughts/concerns here in public cyberspace.

Here in New York we have a new Commissioner of Education - MaryEllen Elia.  She replaced John King a year ago.  (Despite spearheading the destruction of our State's public school system and demonizing teachers, Mr. King received a promotion to the highest Education Office of the Land when Arne Duncan resigned...)

Ms. Elia said she understood there had been serious concerns about the way in which Mr. King had rushed the implementation of new standards and tests of those standards (before teachers had had a chance to learn the standards and before there was new curriculum in place to address the new standards - all this referred to in a bizarre training video about "building a plane in mid-air.")  

In an effort to "reboot" the process of education reform in NY, Ms. Elia went on a "listening tour" around the state (more than 20,000 miles of listening she's been known to boast,) to meet with and hear first hand from parents, teachers, administrators, and other interested stakeholders.  She claimed she heard our concerns.  You can read her words here.

She said she heard the concerns about the tests themselves. 

"We brought teachers from across the State to Albany to review every reading passage, word problem, and multiple-choice question on this spring's tests to make sure they're fair. In all, every item has been reviewed by at least 22 educators."

But on the ELA tests my 5th graders took there were questions that had no clear right answer, math questions that required knowing 'the trick" rather than relying on the deep comprehension skills the "Shifts in Instructional Focus" for the new Common Core Standards demand, and please let's not forget about the planning page that was missing entirely.  If these tests were reviewed by competent teachers, then there was a flaw in the process that needs serious consideration.

Ms. Elia also heard concerns about the stress the tests caused.

"We reduced the number of test questions and alleviated time pressure for test takers. Students who are productively working will be able to demonstrate what they know and are able to do, even if it takes more time. We're interested in what students know, not how fast they can go."

But Ms. Elia did not consult teachers when she created this response. Many elementary classroom teachers could foresee problems Ms. Elia had apparently not considered - mainly that some children, as young as 9 years old, might end up "choosing" to sit with tests for 3, 4, 5 hours a day and more.   (And for myriad reasons - to meet expectations, to do their best, to please adults, in response to some diagnosed or undiagnosed anxiety issue, etc.) 

At a meet and greet session with Ms. Elia that I attended, she refused to give specific details of how "un-timing" tests would work.  She seemed to think things would just magically work out. No timing. No pressure. No problem.

Lack of foresight?  Lack of collaborative decision making?  Lack of authentic interest in real change?

Can un-timing the tests possibly be considered age-appropriate or best practice?  Is any test that requires a child to make such a choice (how long to sit for a test) designed in a developmentally appropriate manner?  There are so many questions this particular "change" has triggered, I encourage you to read my past (and future) posts on this issue.

I've applied to be part of the committee Ms. Elia is convening to review all the Math Standards.  It's a long shot, of course.  And while I blog under a pseudonym (spoiler alert) I am who I am, whatever my name. 


I do a lot of reading.  I came across this quote from Ms. Elia in response to some less-than-favorable reviews of her performance as Hillsborough County  Fla. Superintendent prior to moving back to New York.  
“The concept of continuous improvement is critical,” Elia said. “That’s my agenda — to work in a constructive way and continually get better.” 

Let's all hold her to that lofty goal.