Naveed Hasan's testimony on how NYC must extricate our schools from the primacy of ed tech & privatization of core responsibilities

Here is the powerful testimony from Naveed Hassan, public school parent, ed tech expert, and member of the Panel for Educational Policy (the NYC school board) at yesterday's City Council hearing on ed tech and screen time in our schools. Posted with his permission. Naveed is also chair of a new PEP committee on the use of ed tech in NYC schools. The full video from the hearing is here and the rally beforehand here.  Both are well worth watching. My account of these important hearings is here, and my written testimony here.

Sept. 15, 2026

New York City must take a bolder policy stance with regards to technology. New Yorkers should benefit from the size of our budget with tech services that are designed for public benefit. We need to move away from school purchasing choices based on hype and marketing, and develop sovereign municipal tech infrastructure, within which we engage with outside vendors in more private, secure and sustainable way. Protecting our children from harm and exploitation by big tech can only start if lay the proper foundation for this work. 

Our school system has been enmeshed in a decades-long process of privatization of core responsibilities, letting outside vendors do the thinking, when we should be cultivating our highly trained in-house professionals, including educators with graduate degrees, to develop the pedagogical stack of how best to teach NYC students. This includes responsive curriculum, appropriate modalities of delivering it, hopefully whole chapter book reading, and properly supported safety and privacy preserving technology. Needs and wants will also vary from borough to borough, neighborhood to neighborhood and school to school and top-down dictates lead to one size fits no one solutions.

  

With an academic and professional background in Computer Science and AI and BOE graduate, DOE parent and elected member of the PEP for 5 terms now, it is my experience that the DOE unfortunately does not have the will or the appetite to do this foundational work. It's not clear what it means to ask vendors to remove AI from software already in schools and districts when that product is just a thin code wrapper around ChatGPT or Claude. 

 

Even when the tech vendors themselves, for example Google with YouTube, have told government customers their product cannot comply with laws around student data privacy, years later consumer YouTube is still a big part of many ed tech services in DOE classrooms, using loopholes and workarounds that are in violation of the law. A lot of these ed tech products are provided for free, before local, smaller dollar purchasing agreements bypass any PEP oversight on the propriety of these tools.

There is a significant amount the city can do by refusing to buy products or services from companies behind the attempt to privatize intelligence, sell it as a utility and wantonly disrupt society, undermine democracy, all for their concentration of wealth and power. Let's make sure this is not our children's future. Thank you.

 

Our testimony to the NYC Council urging them to prevent the Mayor's proposed cuts to school budgets and the capital plan!

 May 25, 2022

Check out our  submitted budget testimony before the NYC Council Finance Committee for today. We urged the Chair Justin Brannan and other Council Members to prevent the Mayor's proposed cuts to school budgets of $375 million, that are projected to lead to a loss of about 3200 teaching positions, which in turn may cause the sharpest increase in class sizes since the Great Recession, the last thing NYC kids need to recover from the Covid crisis.  We also ask them to oppose the proposed $1.5 billion in cuts to new capacity in the capital plan, which is unsupported by evidence and apparently relies on an unrealistic change to the school capacity formula that assumes every middle school and high school classroom can be scheduled for every period of the day.

Our testimony also follows.  If you'd like to submit your own comments on these cuts,  you can send an email to testimony@council.nyc.gov by Friday.

Why Mayoral control must be amended ; testimony for today

Joint State Legislative hearings are being held today starting at 10 AM; you can watch them here.  I'm slated to speak around 2:30 PM.  Though we've opposed the current governance system because one-man rule does not work, is inherently undemocratic and leads to dysfunctional decision-making, opposition to Mayoral control has grown in NYC and nationwide in the last few years.  

Several districts that once had Mayoral or state control have returned to an elected school board, as I point out in my testimony below. 

The five myths of mayoral control: Testimony before the Assembly Education Committee

I gave testimony today on school governance and Mayoral control before the Assembly Education Committee. Most large districts whose schools have suffered under Mayoral or state control including Detroit, Newark, and now Chicago have gone back to elected school boards. 

Why shouldn't NYC voters have the same rights? 

I was unable to say most of what I wanted to say about the problems with Mayoral control and why it should be reformed, but here is what I wanted to say below.

Testimony to encourage integration and the reform of the specialized HS admissions process

Today the City Council held hearings on a raft of proposals , including bills and resolutions to encourage school integration, diversity and reforming the admissions process at the specialized high schools.  

The admissions to the specialized high schools has resulted in terribly racially disparate results and relies on one controversial high-stakes exam, the SHSAT.  Sadly, some of the proposals put forward by Council Members, including expanding gifted programs and the number of selective schools, would merely worsen segregation and stratification, as I explain in my submitted testimony below.

Class Size Matters Testimony on the need to fundamentally revamp the Common Core and aligned exams

credit: Katie Lapham

Below is the testimony that my assistant, Miho, gave  on behalf of Class Size Matters at the Cuomo Common Core Task Force listening tour in Queens on Friday.  I have also posted the statements of Nancy Cauthen and Fred Smith.  For an account of this hearing, as well as her testimony, see Katie Lapham's blog, Critical Classrooms.   See also Nancy Cauthen's blog, the Daily News and Perdido St. blog, which features descriptions of the Task Force hearings in the rest of the state as well. 

It appears that outside NYC, the testimony on the Common Core has been overwhelmingly negative, as the poll numbers indicate , with voters two-to- one saying the standards have worsened education in the state.  In NYC, though testimony was more evenly divided, the pro-Common Core witnesses appeared to have been primarily hired guns from astroturf organizations  funded by the Gates and Walton Foundations, including Educators for Excellence, Students First and High Achievement NY.  UPDATE: see also how sadly, this NYC 2nd grader at a DOE event said that the purpose of reading books is to do better on tests -- more evidence of how the Common Core high-stakes regimen is undermining the joy of reading.

Testimony of Leonie Haimson, Class Size Matters

On the need to revamp the Common Core  

November 6, 2015

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.  My name is Miho Watabe; and I am giving this testimony on behalf of Leonie Haimson, Executive Director of Class Size Matters, a citywide advocacy group devoted to providing information on the benefits of smaller classes to parents and others nationwide.

As you will surely hear from many people today, the Common Core exams and cut scores are inherently faulty, unreliable and designed to show that the vast majority of students across the state are failing, when they are not.  The NYS Education Department has not been able to design a consistent, reliable state exam in at least a decade.  The Pineapple question, which we were the first to expose on the 2012 state exam, is only the most obvious of the ridiculous, ambiguous and often overly abstruse questions selected for these exams. [1] First we had years of purposeful test score inflation, and now we have had years of purposeful test score deflation.  The cut scores were devised to align with a combined score of 1630 on the SAT, instead of the 1550 mark which the College Board itself has stated indicates college readiness.[2]

Why was the Common Core designed to show the vast majority of US students and schools as failing? As the conservative commentator, Rick Hess, has explained, it was designed to facilitate the imposition of the corporate reform agenda of charter schools, and test-based teacher evaluation; to which I would add, online learning and the outsourcing of education more generally into private hands: 

“First, politicians will actually embrace the Common Core assessments and then will use them to set cut scores that suggest huge numbers of suburban schools are failing. Then, parents and community members who previously liked their schools are going to believe the assessment results rather than their own lying eyes. (In the case of NCLB, these same folks believed their eyes rather than the state tests, and questioned the validity of the latter--but the presumption is that things will be different this time.) Finally, newly convinced that their schools stink, parents and voters will embrace "reform." However, most of today's proffered remedies--including test-based teacher evaluation, efforts to move "effective" teachers to low-income schools, charter schooling, and school turnarounds--don't have a lot of fans in the suburbs or speak to the things that suburban parents are most concerned about. [3]

The Common Core standards themselves were developed in a secretive process by representatives drawn mostly from the big testing corporations, with only one classroom teacher on the math committee, and not a single teacher on ELA committee. [4] And this lack of teaching experience shows. 

Three aspects of the ELA Common Core are especially defective.  As I’m sure you have heard, they are developmentally inappropriate for children in the early grades.  In addition, the quotas for assigning informational text -- 50% in grades K-3 and 70% thereafter --are absurd, with absolutely no backing in research and potentially very harmful, requiring teachers to strip novels and plays from the curriculum.  There are many studies to show that reading literature is critical for children’s cognitive development, theory of mind and empathic abilities. [5]

Finally, I don’t know of any English teacher who believes in the “close reading” strategies that the Common Core insists on, in which the teacher cannot provide any context or background knowledge for the material that is assigned, and the student is not allowed to relate the readings to his or her own experience.  It is a technique that is designed to drain all life, relevance and interest from the experience of reading into something dry, purposeless and purely academic. [6]  If one tried hard to devise a method to destroy the love of reading in students, one could not do better than quotas for informational text and the “close reading” dogma.

We urge the Commission to take a good hard look at the Common Core’s unnatural and unsupported informational text quotas and “close reading” strategies, and delete them.

---

[1] http://www.wnyc.org/story/301545-the-lessons-of-pineapplegate/

[2]  Carol Burris was the first to expose this; see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/04/29/the-scary-way-common-core-test-cut-scores-are-selected/ ; see also  https://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-2011-5-sat-college-readiness-benchmark-secondary-performance.pdf

[3] http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/rick_hess_straight_up/2012/11/the_common_core_kool-aid.html

[4] http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2013/11/common_core_standards_ten_colo.html

[5] See for example, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/03/i-know-how-youre-feeling-i-read-chekhov/?ref=global-home&_r=0

[6] For some trenchant critiques, see https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2014/02/18/does-common-cores-focus-on-close-reading-make-sense/  and http://curmudgucation.blogspot.com/2014/01/close-reading-20.html  and http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/09/close_reading_is_close_to_a_con.html