NYSAPE: Flanagan’s Proposed Legislation Insult to the People of New York

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  December 13, 2013

More information contact:

Eric Mihelbergel (716) 553-1123; nys.allies@gmail.com

Lisa Rudley (917) 414-9190; nys.allies@gmail.com

www.nysape.org

 

Senator Flanagan’s Proposed Legislation Insult to the People of New York

During the past few months, Senator John Flanagan of Long Island held a series of hearings across the state entitled, “The Regents Reform Agenda: Assessing our Progress”.   Senator Flanagan, his colleagues and members of the State Education Department listened to a steady stream of concerned citizens express their grave concerns regarding the implementation of Common Core, high stakes testing, APPR, and student data sharing.  The overwhelming majority of speakers were very critical of the performance of the New York State Education Department, and the leadership of Commissioner John King and Chancellor Merryl Tisch.

Yesterday, December 12, 2013, Senator Flanagan released his findings along with proposed legislation: (http://www.nysenate.gov/press-release/nys-education-chairman-flanagan-calls-immediate-sed-action-common-core-and-unveils-pac). Unfortunately, the four bills fall completely short of addressing parent concerns.

Bianca Tanis, New Paltz public school parent and Founding Member of NYS Allies for Public Education says, "These bills fall short of the mark. I am sorely disappointed by the lack of protection afforded to students. The bills do not address the concerns of nearly all who took the time to attend, speak out, and testify.”

According to Carol Burris, Ed.D. principal of South Side High School in Rockville Centre New York, “The P-2 Senate bill S6006 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6006-2013 appears to be an attempt to blame schools for the extra testing caused by the teacher evaluation system mandated by the legislature. It allows schools to re-write APPR plans to exclude pre-tests, but such pre-tests were given in the fall. Its passage this spring would have little to no impact on students. Second, it does not relieve schools of the obligation to incorporate student achievement in teacher evaluations and provides no valid or reliable alternative measure.”

The Unnecessary Testing Senate Bill S6008 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6008-2013 also does not address the serious concerns raised by parents regarding standardized testing and young children. The bill allows schools to test pre-K to grade 2 students, using "BOCES or regionally developed assessments that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms." Such tests, as described, meet the definition of a standardized tests. “Ironically, S6008 both bans and encourages standardized testing at the same time,” says Jeanette Deutermann, Bellmore public school parent and Founder of Long Island Opt-Out (of testing) group.  Deutermann further states, “There will be an explosion the number parent refusing the state tests.”

Lisa Rudley, Ossining public school parent and Founding Member of NYS Allies for Public Education says, “The Privacy Protection Bill S6007 http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6007-2013 would not stop the state from sending students’ sensitive data to inBloom, nor does it allow for parents the option of “opting out” – even though 78% of the New York school board members in a recent survey said parents should have that right.  It does however, add another level of bureaucracy by calling for a “Chief Privacy Officer” under the control of the Commissioner – who has shown he has no respect for parent rights or student privacy – and calls for penalties to be issued, but only after data breaches have occurred. The Senator missed the mark on parental rights.” Rudley further says, “Making the Commissioner of Education essentially responsible for the “Parents Bill of Rights” further indicates that our explicit concerns in trusting Commissioner King were ignored.”

Although we applaud a serious review of the testing system in the Truth-In-Testing Senate Bill S6009  http://open.nysenate.gov/legislation/bill/S6009-2013, however, until an objective, in-depth audit is conducted, Common Core testing should be suspended.  “Parents do not need an audit to know that their young children are being subjected to too much testing and test preparation. The audit could be conducted using 2013 testing conditions, items and results” said, Tim Farley, a parent and a principal of the Ichabod Crane School in Kinderhook, New York.

NYS Allies for Public Education are deeply disappointed that the Senator did not propose meaningful legislation that addresses the problems created by the hastily enacted Regents Reform Agenda.  Parental trust in our New York State leaders is rapidly eroding.

 New York State Allies for Public Education represents forty-five grassroots parent groups from every corner of the Empire State. The organizations are proud to stand with the parents, community members and fellow educators in NYSAPE to call for a change in direction and policy beginning with new leadership at the New York State Education Department.

###

Senator Flanagan's Privacy Bill unacceptable to parents; omits any mention of parental consent or opt out

For immediate release: Thursday, December 12, 2013

For more information contact: Leonie Haimson, leonie@classsizematters.org; 917-435-9329

SEN. FLANAGAN’S PRIVACY BILL UNACCEPTABLE TO PARENTS;

OMITS ANY MENTION OF PARENTAL CONSENT OR OPT OUT

Today, after holding public hearings throughout the state, Senator John Flanagan, the chair of Senate Education Department released a report with recommendations on the State’s current education policies and a bill on student privacy, S. 6007-2013.  Unfortunately, the report’s recommendations as written are ambiguous, and his bill is an inadequate response to the furor aroused by the state’s plan to share public schoolchildren’s personal and highly sensitive student data with the corporation called inBloom Inc.

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters said, “In his report, Senator Flanagan calls for an immediate one year ‘delay in launching the full operation of the Education Data Portal,’ though there is no mention of this in his bill. We enthusiastically endorse this proposal if it means a halt to the state uploading any more personal information to the inBloom cloud. Yet the state could interpret this instead as a delay in the full implementation of the data dashboards, which would not prevent the possibility of breaches or the misuse of this highly sensitive information.” 

SED officials have admitted they have already uploaded much personal information to inBloom for the purposes of the “data portal roadshows” and have said they will not delay beyond January 15 the disclosure of student names, along with their grades, test scores, racial and economic status, disabilities, disciplinary records and much else, though there is a lawsuit pending in Albany County Supreme Court where on January 3, parents will ask the court to issue an permanent injunction to stop this from happening.

Haimson pointed out, “The Flanagan bill, S. 6007, is weak and contains fewer restrictions on the disclosure of student information than the Personal Protection Law passed by the New York State legislature in 1984, which remains on the books and is the basis for our lawsuit.  This new bill would omit any requirement for parental consent or opt out before children’s most sensitive data could be disclosed or re-disclosed to third parties, or shared with for-profit vendors.”

While the bill does allow districts, as opposed to parents, to opt out of having student data uploaded to the NYSED “Educational data portal,” it does not specify whether this means uploaded to the inBloom cloud or to the data dashboard vendors.

Haimson added: “The bill also calls for a privacy officer to be appointed by the State Commissioner, who would develop a “Parent Bill of Rights.”  Yet there is little reason to believe that any such document would contain requirements for parental consent, given the current Commissioner’s disdain for parents and his insistence that he alone should be able to control who receives children’s most personal data.”

Karen Sprowal, a NYC parent of a special needs child and a plaintiff on the lawsuit, says:  “Eight out of the nine inBloom states have now listened to parents and severed all ties with inBloom or put their data sharing plans on hold. In contrast, Commissioner King insists on going ahead in the face of huge opposition from parents, school board members, Superintendents, and elected officials from both parties. All these people recognize the need to protect our children from the devastating harm that would come to them if this personal information leaked out.  In contrast to the two bills already filed in the NY Senate, S5930 by Senator Martins and S5932  by Senator Robach, which both passed by the Assembly last session with bipartisan support, this new bill would not stop the state sharing information with inBloom and would provide penalties only after breaches did occur.  The damage would already be done to my son and other children. It is imperative that parental consent should be included in this bill.  Without this fundamental right, the bill has no teeth and will not save our children from our worst fears.”

Mona Davids, President of NYC Parents Union and a parent plaintiff in the lawsuit said:  “Yesterday, the NY State School Board Associations released a survey showing that 75% of school board members say that districts should have the right to opt out of inBloom, and an even large number, 78% say that parents should have that right. If you polled parents throughout the state who are outraged at this plan, I’m sure you could get even higher numbers.  It is every parent’s ethical duty and inherent right to be able to decide who sees their children’s most sensitive data – which if breached or misused could severely damage their futures for the rest of their lives.  That Senator Flanagan refuses to acknowledge that right in his bill is an insult to all parents, and suggests that he has not taken our concerns seriously.”

###

NYC Parents star at Senator Flanagan's hearings on Common Core, testing and privacy

Wednesday's NY Senate hearings on the Common Core, testing and privacy were long but revealing.  After our press conference, the morning started off with Merryl Tisch, head of the Regents, saying that the tests had caused much upset and displacement but the state must move ahead with the program, no matter what.

Many of the Senators present were former teachers who decried the amount of standardized testing and test prep, the stressful effect on schoolchildren, and their total uselessness for the purposes of diagnostic assessment or teaching.  But Tisch said that it was important to carry on, given the low rates of college-readiness throughout the state (as though flawed, lengthy and stressful tests are necessary to prepare kids for college.)

Sen. Hoylman asked her why Commissioner King is holding 16 forums around the state, but none are scheduled so far in NYC, where one third of the entire state's public school students are enrolled.  She said they would be announcing some NYC forums soon -- either three or five, she was unclear.  She used as an excuse that the DOE had adopted their teacher evaluation system later than the rest of the state. (Why this is relevant?)  When asked about why the state's providing personal student information to inBloom, Tisch deferred to Ira Schwartz of SED, saying the issue was "too technical for me", although she has been supporting this unconscionable plan from the beginning.

Schwartz repeated the bland SED talking points that many districts already have contracts with vendors, and the state's sharing data with inBloom is not different from what they do currently.  Of course, superintendents and school boards throughout the state oppose inBloom and disagree vociferously.  He added that the new system will simply make it easier for personal student data to be used more efficiently, as though why should assuage the anyone's fears.  Senator Tkaczyk asked, what about parents with special needs children?  Schwartz: this is not a cause for concern.  Glad you've cleared that up, Ira!

Tisch claimed that many teachers think the Common Core curriculum modules provided by the state are helpful, though this seems to be contradicted by voluminous statements made by teachers at the forums around the state, where the poor quality of these scripted modules seem to be their  #1 complaint.  She said that she came from a family of immigrants, and she was sympathetic to the needs of English Language Learners.  She was "appalled" by the federal requirement that ELLs have to be tested with the same state exam after one year, and that NYSED would be asking for a waiver.  She decried the "inflammatory rhetoric" being used around the state, and then claimed that if we want New York state to remain civilization's "centric" we must proceed apace with the Common Core and the testing regime, or "families won't stay here." (Talk about overheated rhetoric.)

Senator Felder commented that he himself wasn't a good student when he was in school, and many other students who don't do well on tests excel in art, music or other areas. He wrapped up by saying that "Kids aren't robots" and that the state's emphasis on exams do little to help them. (much applause and no response from Tisch.)

Then came Michael Mulgrew of the UFT, who wholeheartedly supported the Common Core and its premise, that we need it because international comparisons show that our country is "falling behind other nations."  (A new study seems to dispute this.)  The roll out, though has been "terrible," because there's "no curriculum" (what about those modules that teachers are complaining about?)  Until there is a curriculum, we should have a moratorium on the high-stakes of tests, but not halt the tests themselves, and the tests should be made harder more gradually, as "there's a human cost to students and parents to suddenly impose a new baseline".  Senator Martins smartly pointed out that he wasn't sure about the validity of the cut scores, (along with many others) and "how does failing on exams help kids learn, anyway?  Mulgrew said he wasn't a psychometrician, and Martins should ask King about that.

Deputy Chancellor Suransky was up next, and made all sorts of debatable claims, like the new state tests were far better than the old ones (really?) and that the DOE just needed more "flexibility" from the Legislature in implementation, though he could give no specific examples.  He said that the DOE didn't want to have to give the much-criticized bubble tests to Kindergarteners in their Early Childhood Centers, but had been forced by SED because of their teacher evaluation system. His major thrust was that whatever problems existed with the Common Core would be solved by giving teachers more common planning time and professional development -- though this would likely cut into their time with students, and/or raise class sizes.  Already with DOE permission, schools have converted one day a week of their extra 37 minutes per day to  planning time, scoring tests or training, time that was originally designed to help struggling students with small group instruction; and many schools are also instituting half days to do more of the same.

While Suransky said much of the angst among teachers about the new evaluation system was misplaced, since only 1% of them across the state were rated ineffective, he neglected to mention that 6% of teachers in the tested grades and subjects were rated ineffective, putting the credibility of the entire system in doubt. While the next administration may want to make "adjustments," he didn't expect any major shifts since there is agreement between SED and the UFT that this important work.  (Parents don't seem to enter into the equation.)

Finally, he said that only 3% of students who fail 3rd grade exams pass their 8th grade exams, showing how early education is important, but to him and too many others, early childhood education seems to stop at preK.  With the highest class sizes in 14 years in grades K-3, the DOE has taken away one of the most effective ways to ensure children, especially poor children of color and English language learners, can have a decent chance to succeed.

Though neither Mulgrew nor Suransky mentioned class size, the next panel did and were passionate, articulate and pointed in their remarks. The panel of parents, Nancy Cauthen, Lisa Shaw and Karen Sprowal, were all terrific. Nancy focused on the Common Core, and how parent's concerns have been ignored.  She explained how she pulled her oldest son out of school to homeschool him because she was fed up with all the testing. Lisa and Karen focused on inBloom and spoke eloquently and convincingly about how the state's plan to share their children's most personal data with vendors and "profile" them could imperil their futures. Nancy's testimony starts at 2:36, Lisa and Karen at 2:52 in.  Be sure to check them out; they were the stars of the day (at least in my eyes.)

They both also spoke about how they would no longer sign Medicaid reimbursement forms because of the state's data-sharing plans -- which could cause the city to lose millions of dollars if other parents do the same.  After their testimony, Senator Martins, the prime sponsor of S. 5930, the bill to protect student privacy, thanked them because he knew that now he "will have five or six more co-sponsors on his bill."

Monte Neill of FairTest gave terrific testimony, about the rebellion against hi-stakes standardized testing that has erupted in NYC and across the country, and that no other nation gives so many exams; also Marco Battistella of Time Out from Testing. 

Then a trio of "specialists" appeared, first the VP of a for-profit company selling an online credit recovery program (really?), and two reps from StudentsFirst NY, Michelle Rhee's organization, selling the line that despite all the evidence, most teachers and parents really support all the testing and the Common Core. One of them actually claimed that in the past year, the organization had had face-to-face conversations with over 300,000 New Yorkers!  (Another ridiculous claim, like Rhee's statement that StudentsFirst has a million members -- mostly made up of people who signed their deceptive petitions by mistake.) Both StudentsFirst reps also claimed that the Common Core would somehow provide educational equity to all students.  Nuff said.  Ernie Logan, head of the NYC principals union spoke at 3:58 min in, explaining how missteps and miscommunications had angered parents and others.

My testimony is at 4:12 in, if you want to check it out here ( in written form) or orally below.  Zakiyah Ansari was great  at 4:22 in.

Many others spoke with great passion and insight, including Fred Smith from Change the Stakes, Rosalie Friend, and Dr. Ruth Silverberg.  Watch them all -- and especially the shocking testimony of John Owens, former teacher, about the systemic data manipulation and corruption behinds the scenes at one of the "model" new small schools, at 5:16 in.  All the written testimonies are available here.  The Senators seemed to be listening.  Let's hope they take it to heart.