Arts Advisory Committee Calls for More Testing of Arts

Last night's Panel for Educational Policy meeting featured a report from the PEP Arts Advisory Committee. The membership of this committee is chosen by the PEP, which means by the Bloomberg administration as the mayoral appointees voted in a bloc for their preferred candidates.

The report was much about how to do more with less given the current funding environment. There was some token acknowledgment of the need to do more with those schools who fare the worst in providing arts education; the Committee recommended giving 75 schools $10,000 next year, $5,000 the following year and $3,000 in the third.

The Committee report was far more urgent when it came to testing. It made clear that assessment of arts achievement is "underfunded" and called for a new battery of tests. When I asked the Committee chairman, Jerrold Ross of St. John's University, what they wanted to test and how, Chancellor Walcott interrupted and called on a DOE staffer to respond. I pointed out that the Committee appeared to have ample credentials and ought to be able to defend its own recommendations. Dr. Ross promised only one sentence and simply offered that we need to "assess skills" as well as "how children think". The DOE staffer went on at length in a similar fashion. Nothing they said necessitated new and costly standardized tests but was clearly part of what a classroom art teacher would do everyday.

Murdoch and those no-bid Wireless contracts on Democracy Now

My interview comes in at about 27.30 minutes into the segment.

Bet you Klein doesn't go on his Blackberry during these hearings

See Joel Klein sitting behind the Murdochs today.  For a live broadcast of Parliamentary hearings behind the Murdoch/NewsCorp hearings, check out www.democracynow.org.  My discussion of the many troubling issues related to the proposed $27 million no-bid state contract with Murdoch's Wireless Generation, see this morning's show here.

The DOE-invented credit recovery scam and how it infected my school

For more on how credit recovery has led to accelerated rates of credit accumulation, especially at the new small schools, see Jackie Bennett at EdWize.  But the practice of passing students, regardless of whether they have actually attended class or done homework, has become widespread at many, if not most, high schools throughout NYC, as schools are pressured to raise their statistics or else be threatened with closure.  Below is the account of a teacher who, for obvious reasons, would like to remain anonymous.  If other educators or parents have a story to tell about credit recovery, please email me at leonie@classsizematters.org.

At my school for the past two years my principal has been using what have become simply known as "packets" for credit recovery purposes. Apparently my principal went to a session held by the Department of Education about how to do credit recovery for students and one of the options presented was having students complete a packet of material related to the coursework to be studied.

Now, I'm not sure of the details presented to her in regards to legality (for example: seat time? Can this be a class students have never taken or just one they took but failed? Who grades these, and whose name gets attached to the grade?) but I can tell you about how it has played out in our school.

When it started it was used in very specific situations, and only for students who had so many credits to make up in their senior year that it was impossible to program them for all of them. Then it started getting worse, especially as on-track seniors were allowed to leave school early. Packets started going out right and left:

             ·         Oh, you don't want to have classes after lunch? Sure, you can have a packet for that global credit.

              ·     Oh, you don't like your science teacher? Have a packet instead. 

There seemed to be no limit. Remember, my principal didn't make this idea up; it was recommended to her by DOE officials.

And then teachers were being pressured to give half-finished, crappy packets of worksheets a passing grade. My principal was angry at the teachers who refused to grade them. It became mayhem, and I think she may have even paid teachers at another school to sign their names to some of them.

Actually, it was only through actions made by our UFT chapter that we were able to strongly suggest that this educationally damaging practice be stopped. This is another example of why having strong chapters where teachers feel protected enough to speak about egregious practices is so important. Although I guarantee that come crunch time next May and June, we will see this happening again.

The DOE wants to see graduation rates go up, especially at the new small schools that have been opened under Bloomberg, of which my school is one. They have little incentive to crack down on this type of activity, except of course in the schools they are aiming to close.

The widening Murdoch scandal and the Wireless no-bid contracts: sign our petition now!

A widening scandal envelopes Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp, revealing how his employees in the UK hacked into the cell phones of murder victims, paid off policemen, and may have even stolen the medical records of the former Prime Minister’s newborn son.  What is indisputable is that his papers used offensively bullying tactics against elected officials to dissuade them from criticizing his methods or investigating his activities.  The latest allegation is that News Corp’s journalists may even have hacked into the phones of American victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, leading several US Senators to call for a Congressional investigation.  

NYC’s former Chancellor, Joel Klein, now works for Murdoch, and has been put in charge of his “internal investigation” of this scandal. At the same time questions have been raised surrounding several no-bid contracts that the NY State Education Department and the NYC Department of Education intend to award Wireless Generation, the company that Murdoch bought immediately after Klein announced he would run Murdoch’s new online learning division.   

The state no-bid contract is $27 million for Wireless to build a statewide version of ARIS, the expensive data system that has received widespread criticism from NYC parents, teachers, and principals alike, who say that there are far less expensive and more useful data systems available.  There are also troubling conflict of interest questions, given that these contracts were announced shortly before and after Joel Klein’s departure from the DOE. See also the summary of this controversy from Think Progress.

Sign our petition now, asking the State and City Comptroller to reject these egregious no-bid contracts with Murdoch’s Wireless Generation, with copies sent to the State Education Commissioner John King, the NY Board of Regents, NYC Chancellor Walcott, and the federal independent investigator for the US Dept. of Ed (since the state program is supposed to be paid for with federal funds.) 

A timeline of these events, with more explanation and links to back-up information, is available below.

October 7, 2010:  the NYC Panel for Educational Policy votes to approve a no-bid, 17 month extension of a contract with Wireless Generation for their “School of One”, at an annual amount of $1.9 million.  Wireless is the lead partner in Joel Rose’s online learning project, the School of One.  This contract will pay for six consultants not to exceed $2.7 million (which works out to annual payments to each at over 300K per year.) 

 November 9, 2010:  Joel Klein announced he will resign from DOE to work for Rupert Murdoch as executive VP of News Corp, to head its new “educational” online division, “overseeing investments in digital learning companies.”

 November 22, 2010: It is announced that Rupert Murdoch will purchase 90% of Wireless Generation for $360 million; a company with 400 employees; presumably Joel Klein will oversee this company in the new online division.  Some observers say that he overpaid, as the price is “at a plus “6.5x revenue multiple. That's crazy.”  In a story in the NYT , a spokesperson for News Corp claims that the transaction had been in the works for several months and that Klein “had no involvement” in it, though it is hard to believe that Murdoch would purchase his first online learning company with no input from the person who will head the division.

According to the Times article, “Conflict-of-interest rules set strict limits for city employees, both during and after their tenure, which could make Mr. Klein’s transition a tricky one. City employees are never allowed to disclose confidential information about the city’s business dealings or future strategy, and they cannot communicate with the agency for which they worked for one year after they leave. The rules also bar them from ever working on matters they had substantial involvement in as city employees. “

A spokesperson for DOE says that Klein has now recused himself from all business dealings between the department and Wireless Generation “as soon as we learned that News Corp had acquired” the company, which presumably occurred the day before,  but does not mention if Klein had recused himself earlier, when the decision to extend the Wireless contract was first announced.

January 3, 2011: Joel Klein leaves DOE and takes over at News Corp.

May 4, 2011:  DOE announces its plans to “renew” another no-bid contract with Wireless worth $4.5 million — $1.5 million a year for three years. The document describing the contract says that it is for “published and copyrighted assessment and testing materials.”  The DOE refuses to make the contract available to Patrick Sullivan, a PEP member who requested a copy before the vote.

May 18, 2011: The  PEP rubberstamps the contract, as they have with every other contract ever brought before them.  The vote is 8-1, with two abstentions.

June 9, 2011: NY SED asks the state comptroller permission to award a $27 million no-bid contract to Wireless Generation, to build a data system like ARIS; with federal Race to the Top funds, and that the no-bid aspect of the contract is necessary because of the tight timeline. Wireless Generation claims that Klein had nothing do with the state’s decision to grant them this contract.

Wireless earlier took over the ARIS contract from IBM, which cost city taxpayers $80 million to build.  The contract and purchase price was widely called a boondoggle and a super-mugging at the time; later, these warnings were borne out when teachers and principals pointed out its numerous flaws, especially as compared to more useful data systems that were acquired by schools for relative pennies. Recently, NY1 ran a three part series, pointing out the numerous deficiencies of ARIS.

Yet despite the overwhelming negative experiences of NYC educators on the ground, and their views that there are many other data systems that are far superior to ARIS, SED’s waiver request to the state comptroller claims that “there is no other vendor with the experience, demonstrated capacity, or aligned business model” to rival Wireless, and that ARIS . received “national recognition from Arne Duncan.”

The request claims that Wireless has unique capabilities; for example, it “understands what ‘ELL’ (English Language Learner) means and how analysis of data for students who are classified as ‘ELLs’ would be relevant for an educator.”  

June 15, 2011: City Comptroller Liu reveals he has rejected the $2.7 million Wireless contract that the PEP approved in October, a few weeks before Klein resigned.    He also says that he has stopped payments on checks that DOE attempted to pay Wireless, after his rejection.  Liu says the contract was rejected because Klein failed to provide a letter stating that he had not been involved in approving this contract in the first place.

DOE claims that the Comptroller has no right to reject the contract, and provides a letter from General Counsel Michael Best, which says that Klein had recused himself from any work on Wireless Generation contracts as soon as the company was acquired by News Corp, which occurred in late November.  (Again, as before, there is no mention if Klein was involved before that time.)  The City comptroller spokesperson says, "Because of due diligence, we were able to catch these prior to payment …The DOE is attempting to pay outside consultants without registered contracts, in violation of the State Education Law."

Tomas Hanna, new innovation chief for DOE

I asked a friend, Helen Gym, a parent activist in Philadelphia, what she knew of Tomas Hanna, the new head of “Innovation” for DOE, which to the educrats at Tweed, unfortunately,  means online learning.  With her permission, I share her message below.  Here is his picture from the Broad Academy website, where he graduated in 2008.

Dear Leonie:

Thanks for your inquiry about Tomas Hanna, whom I've known in different circles around Philadelphia. In general, I would say that Tomas carries a general reputation as an accessible education administrator. He's polite, professional, and overall is responsive to most communities around a variety of issues.

In Philadelphia, he's held a number of posts. He won accolades as a teacher & principal and rose quickly thru administration. He eventually became head of Human Resources where he was charged with heading up the Campaign for Human Development, a ground-breaking program that was designed to invest in teaching professionals and improve the retention rate of teachers, create a grow-your-own paraprofessional program, and really develop robust professional development and support.

But when Paul Vallas came in as superintendent, Hanna wasn't able to hold onto the importance of CHD. It was scuttled, Vallas went the Teach for America route, and Hanna headed to Providence. He returned a few years later to serve under Arlene Ackerman and - like many administrators - has been shuffled and demoted in various positions, Chief Academic Officer, Chief of Staff, and his most recent position which I can't even remember at this point (she tends to create new positions to retain the people she demotes).

Most people feel that Tomas is overall a progressive minded education who struggled within administrations that were anything but, particularly under Ackerman. However, in my personal opinion, I have also been disappointed by his lack of leadership and ability to maintain an independent compass particularly through trying times, which I find to be the mark of a true leader. Instead under Ackerman he was a soldier for an administration that wreaked havoc on his record both morally as well as professionally.

My biggest disappointment with Tomas came when I called him the day after dozens of Asian immigrant youth were beaten and sent to the hospital after a day long series of anti-Asian assaults and beatings at a local high school. The District's months-long response to those attacks - including retaliation against victims, racially polarizing rhetoric, and a refusal to address racial bias at the school or assist victims of racial bias responsibly - would eventually result in a federal civil rights lawsuit and settlement by the U.S. Dept. of Justice and the PA Human Relations Commission for civil rights abuses by district officials against Asian students and community members. 

Tomas was then Arlene Ackerman's chief of staff and I reached out to him the day after to see if the situation could be responsibly addressed without antipathy from the District. He hesitated and hemmed and hawed, and said he would get back to me. The next time I heard from him was six months later, when he and District officials were forced to the table to talk with community members by the Justice Dept.

In the meantime, Tomas fronted the District's horrible failures around violence and victimization of students and families in schools (far beyond the school I was working in), mostly by offering empty promises and rhetoric he was unable to match in action. Bilingual ed and language access services declined across the district, and of greater concern, the District seemed to regress even more in its limited understanding of needs of multilingual families - this despite the fact that Tomas had promised to uphold language access and bilingual needs of schools and communities.

This being said, I would say that my experience at that particular school places me in the camp of a much stronger critic of Tomas Hanna. A number of others I spoke to either praised Tomas for his accessibility and/or expressed general disappointment but felt that he was stifled as a progressive educator. Personally for me, I am a little less sympathetic to the good guy/bad leader excuse mill, particularly because he's been around long enough to make his own decisions, and he's seen the dire consequences of inaction.

I do hope he finds a better home and place in NYC as a director of online learning. 100% of PA's cyber charters it should be noted performed "significantly worse" than District managed schools in the recent Stanford-CREDO study, so I hope he is not using any of them as a model.

Sincerely, Helen Gym, Parents United for Public Education, Philadelphia, PA

As teachers are excessed, the bureaucracy continues to grow....

As news spreads of large numbers of teachers are being “excessed” throughout the system because of the budget cuts, DOE is still hiring new “teams” of “talent coaches” (under the titles of Senior Educational Research, Evaluation & Program Planning Specialist, Liii-Ea40),: each of whom  will coach school leaders (6-8 schools) on implementation of a pilot teacher evaluation and development system, under the supervisions of “lead talent coaches”.  Salaries will be $97,199 per year. 

Talent “coaches” will engage with “network-based Talent Managers” to “inform development of systems and tools to support teacher evaluation and development across a network of 20 schools.”

• · DOE is also hiring  “lead talent coaches” (under the title  of Senior Educational Research, Evaluation & Program Planning Specialist, Liv-Ea40)  to “coach school leaders” and to “Facilitate principals’ communication with teachers regarding the pilot teacher evaluation and development model. This will include information on how to create materials, agendas, and talking points to help principals communicate with their teachers around expectations of teacher practice and student learning.”  Salaries at $106,201 per year.

• They also are hiring “achievement coaches” (under the heading of Senior Network Team Achievement Manager - Instruction Specialist, Achievement Coach, Liv-Ea20) to be part of the Children First Network teams,  to help teachers “align their curriculum, assessment, and instruction to the Common Core” and to “serve as a change agent across his/her schools, providing support that integrates the DOE’s instructional initiatives around the Common Core and teacher effectiveness and guidance to school-based instructional teams while simultaneously establishing a standards-based culture of continuous growth in service of student achievement. Performs related work.”  Salary at $106,201 per year.

Some of these positions may be paid for through Race to the Top funds, but this will be temporary, and like the millions spent on new tests, the city taxpayer will be left holding the bag.  Meanwhile, DOE is creating whole new levels of bureaucracy, whose headcount will probably be hidden at the school level, to obscure the growing expense, as teachers continue bleed from the system and class sizes grow ever larger.

“My special child, pushed out of Kindergarten at a NYC charter school"

Here is the story of Karen Sprowal and her son Matthew, that Mike Winerip of the NY Times writes about here. While charter schools have advertised themselves as open to all students through random lotteries, many have been shown to enroll relatively few numbers of special needs children and English language learners, and to have high rates of student attrition.  The charter school described below is a member of the Success Academy chain, the fastest growing chain in NYC.  Its rapid expansion has been enthusiastically supported by the DOE, and by their authorizer, the NY State University Board of Trustees, whose charter committee is headed  by Prof. Pedro Noguera.  There are currently seven Success Academies, all co-located in NYC public school buildings, with two more planned for the fall, and three more authorized by SUNY to open in NYC in 2012. 

If you have had similar experiences with a charter school as this parent, and would like to share them either on or off the record, please contact Karen at katherine_sprowal_cucs@yahoo.com and/or Leonie at leonie@classsizematters.org

This is a mother’s personal story about having child with different needs “counseled out” of a NYC charter school. It’s also testimony of how inclusion, a smaller class size, and the supportive attitude of a great public school made an astounding difference in my son’s life. My name is Katherine Sprowal and I’m the mother of a delightfully spirited and rambunctious son whose name is Matthew. Like most children his age, he’s a vision of pure joy and enthusiasm: often bursting with energy to play all day, every day! 

We live in the Washington Heights area of Manhattan. Back in 2008, both of our zoned schools were listed as “failing.” About a year prior to Matthew entering Kindergarten, we embarked upon a journey of securing an elementary school placement for him. I began my search with help from Early Steps, an organization that assist minority parents through the private schools admission and application process. As suggested we applied to about ten different private schools. To my dismay, Matthew was not accepted to any of the schools and was placed on the wait list for only two of them. 

I had no backup plan for school options except the neighborhood “failing” schools. I then recalled meeting a woman a year prior at a “School Choice” fair in a Harlem church. Her name was Eva Moskowitz. Not knowing who she was or her political background, we engaged in a conversation, as two parents expressing our thoughts about the lack of quality school choices. She then began to promote the charter school she founded, Harlem Success Academy. She explained how it came out of her own personal frustration as mother with no quality public school choices for her own children. She was most impressive in her presentation and argued that minorities need public school choices.  She went on to convincingly state how HSA and other charter schools were  filling that gap. She then asked if I would mind being interviewed by a media crew present at this fair and I happily agreed. 

My neighborhood was saturated with mailings, bus ads and pamphlets about Harlem Success Academy. I applied just in time for her lottery deadline. Matthew won the lottery and was accepted to Harlem Success Academy #4.  We learned of this news with great fanfare at the lottery drawing event held at the Armory on 142^nd street.  This lottery received huge attention; both then-Gov. Paterson and much of the media were there. I ran into Eva at the event and she remembered us, we embraced in a hug and she shared in our pleasure from Matthew’s win. Matthew and I continued to be videotaped straight through to the August parent HSA orientation.

Shortly after this, we attended a mandated orientation and signed all required contract agreements, which included provisions stating that that parents had to respond within 24 hours to any request from the school, they had to purchase costly school uniforms, and children had to complete summer homework assignments. At the meeting, Eva also told us that because all the local elected officials were against charter schools, parents would be expected to attend hearings in support of the school.

Matthew and I couldn’t wait for the first day of school. One day prior, we were given a choice to attend Harlem Success Academy #3 as another Kindergarten class was being added, so it would be a smaller class size. So we changed schools to HSA#3.  On August 28, 2008, Matthew attended his first day of school, gleaming with excitement. Yet on the very first day, he was held back in detention for not walking through the halls in an orderly manner. I thought this was a bit harsh for a five year old, but understood that self-discipline was a major part of HSA model. 

During the first week of school, I noticed immediately how HSA classes were fully stocked with educational supplies and how nice and shiny their classrooms were in comparison to the existing public school space, which appeared dingy and dark. I thought to myself that it seemed a bit odd for HSA to share a building with another school, but never common areas of the building at the same time. The students didn’t eat, play in the yard or even use the same stairs together. I wondered what negative psychological effects this could have on students at both schools. I felt privileged to have my son in HSA and embarrassed all at once. I was anxious to meet the HSA and co-located parent reps to discuss these issues. I was also curious as to why parents didn’t appear to be welcome beyond the HSA entrance doors during drop off and pick-up. I had to literally force myself into the HSA school area during school hours the first couple of days of school. 

When I did, I noticed that the HSA school staff and children didn’t seem to laugh or smile much. I couldn’t help notice there were none of the typical sounds of laughter one would expect to hear in an elementary school. The atmosphere appeared sterile, militaristic and robotic, as the children walked the halls in silence. There were many other things that raised an eyebrow and gnawed at my gut as “not right,” but I quickly dismissed them because “We won the HSA lottery.” I was reassured that the physical appearance of the school and academic mode seemed to resemble a few of the prestigious private schools we had previously visited.  Additionally, Eva and other faculty enrolled their own children along with Matthew. I was certain all my concerns had reasonable explanations and my questions would be answered by Eva directly or by the PTA at a later time. 

Unfortunately, I would soon learn there were no HSA PTA and no meetings with parents at the co-located school. It became clear that parental input was not welcome, supported or encouraged in any meaningful manner. I would later observe students at the existing school taunting and teasing the HSA students whenever they briefly crossed paths. How could they not target the HSA students to express their opposition to the “separate and unequal” practices they internalized and witnessed daily? 

Matthew continued to be held in detention frequently for one reason or another over the next few days. I wasn’t too concerned about it until it was apparent he was no longer excited about attending HSA. He began to have frequent emotional meltdowns before going to school and complained of stomachaches. He became increasingly anxious about school work and not being able to behave as his teachers wanted him to.  This was known as going “Beyond Z.”,   a widely used HSA motto meaning that students should behave like little soldiers, work hard and keep quiet. After about a week of this, the principal blatantly stated my son was “not performing at the school’s social expectations.” She said he had poor interpersonal skills, was un-focused and disruptive to the teacher and the entire class. 

In response, I pointed out that he was only five years old, and had spent the last three years in a nursery with a Montessori philosophy – a very different setting. I asked for her patience and time for him to make the transition. I then offered to shadow him in class for a few days.  She was reluctant, but agreed to my request. My presence helped provide Matthew with some of the emotional support and the security he was seeking. But by mid-day he often became fidgety, agitated and just wanted to move around and play. The school psychologist told me she had to fight to have them put a tiny play area and provide play time in the Kindergarten classrooms.

There were three other children exhibiting the same behaviors as Matthew, all African-American boys. They were assigned seats together, separate from the rest of the class as though they were contagious. By the second week, additional HSA staff began coming into the class in shifts to observe my son and the other boys in his group. The staff sat quietly in the back of the room and wrote notes. One by one, all these other boys left the school, without any explanation, over a period of two weeks. I have no idea if their parents fought for them to remain as I continued to do with Matthew, but within a few days from the beginning of school, they had already been marked as not HSA material. 

By the third week, it became apparent that the school had deemed Matthew as defective and unapologetically wanted him gone. I outright refused to comply with the principal’s request for me to transfer my son to another school.   I told her it was not an option for us. I said that Matthew and I both felt threatened, unwelcome and that were being unfairly forced out of the school.  The following day I was told that I could no longer shadow my son in school. She stated that if his behavior was not corrected within a few days he would be suspended. Not knowing what my rights were as a parent, or if indeed Matthew required additional support, I continued as best I could to work with him to avoid any further disciplinary action from the school. I suggested half days for him through this transition, which they agreed to.

They proceeded to call home for him to be picked up within an hour of being dropped off at school over the next few days. On the third day of one of these pick up calls, the principal informed me that he was being suspended for disruptive behavior and not respecting another student’s personal space. The principal then scheduled Matthew for psychological testing, without any prior discussion, or my input, notice or consent. I only found out when a message was left on my voicemail to pick him up later than the regular dismissal time that school officials had scheduled him for psychological testing that day. 

In response, I sent a written complaint to the principal that challenged his suspension and for scheduling this testing without my consent. I sent copies to Eva Moskowitz and the HSA board of directors.  Eva responded to my complaint directly via email and assigned her administrative assistant to sit in meetings with myself, the principal and school psychologist. We had two formal meetings and HSA remained consistent and adamant that Matthew must leave the school. They insisted he was incapable of learning and behaving appropriately in a HSA school setting. I remained adamant in my position as well, and that transferring him to another school would not be an option. I explained that the way that they had dealt with us was insensitive and dismissive. I was not going to permit any further negative consequences due to their failure to follow the appropriate procedures.   

Yet Matthew’s awareness of not being wanted in the school and being scapegoat as the “bad kid” perpetuated his challenging behaviors. The HSA school psychologist wrote on September 22 that "Matthew has the intelligence and desire to learn. However, he is beginning to develop a negative sense of himself and is in danger of seeing himself as bad and a failure. It is very important that Matthew enter a school situation where he feels supported and successful…Matthew may need a smaller classroom than his current school has available.”

On the day of my third planned meeting with HSA, on the ride to school Matthew looked up at me and asked “Mommy, is today the day that HSA is going fire me?” He recently learned the definition of this word as I had recently been laid off from a job I’d had for ten years. I realized at that moment the only real successful outcome had to be for Matthew to feel good about school and good about himself again. His emotional well being and happiness was the most important issue. 

I attended that final meeting and negotiated that HSA would transfer him to a public school of my choice that day. They eagerly accommodated me to the extent of arranging that he would be placed in a school outside his zone, at PS 75 in District 3, on the Upper West Side. Despite my best effort to advocate and protect my son, Matthew left HSA crushed, thinking he was an unwanted “bad child.”  A milestone period that should have laid the foundation to foster a lifetime of learning had the complete opposite effect. The ugly truth that our personal experience at HSA revealed is that this charter school is purposely designed to exclude!   

Matthew now attends the inclusive Emily Dickinson Public School 75. The principal, the guidance counselor, teachers, schools aides and support staff took the time to go above and beyond to make learning fun again for Matthew. They embraced his imagination and need to be active completely!  On his most difficult days they showed him more love and gave “us” increased support. They do this each and every day with every child, no matter how they learn or where they come from.  The principal Mr. O’Brien personally spent hours with my son and me, because he wanted to know who we were and what I thought would be needed for Matthew to thrive. They encouraged and welcomed my partnership, to ensure that my son would be happy and could achieve his full academic potential.

After a rough second year, they recognized that a smaller CTT class setting of 18 students with two teachers might be more conducive for his temperament and style of learning. And they were right!!!  Matthew will be entering the third grade in the fall with academic evidence that inclusion and class size does matter. He has done exceptionally well this year and has exceeded all academic expectations. 

In addition, the school has provided us with helpful referrals like the Boys Scouts of America and St Luke’s family services, for on-going comprehensive support. This is a school that unites communities rather than divides them and has opened their arms to me and my son.  With the help of P.S. 75 principal, teachers and support staff, Matthew and I have moved forward. But I have not forgotten about this awful start to his academic career.  I also hope that those other little boys who were separated from the rest of the class the first few days of school along with Matthew were as lucky as we were in finding a public school that would help them succeed.     

More testing madness: DOE bidding out 408 new standardized exams for our kids

I recently examined the contracts being bid out by DOE for new “local assessments” that they intend to use to evaluate teacher performance.  Though back in May, this plan was reported in NY Times as “more than a dozen new standardized tests,” it really is far more.  

Looking at the “performance based” and “computer adaptive” assessments, each to be given in at least four subjects twice a year,  a typical elementary, middle and high school student will now be asked to take at least 16 more standardized exams annually – not counting the state tests or the Regents.

Here is the RFP spreadsheet for the performance-based tests and  for the computer adaptive tests. When added together (see chart below), the total number of tests DOE is ordering appears to be a startling 408; or 136 new exams per year for  three years. 

The RFP is also supposed to include online professional development for teachers, principals, school-based assessment coordinators and central staff, planning meetings and other associated expenses, printing costs, and “audit scoring” for one third of all students for the “performance based assessments.”   

What it doesn’t include, of course, is the cost of wiring all classrooms and providing laptops to all students for the computer based tests, which the DOE intends to spend nearly a billion dollars on next year.

And while the NY Times article reported that DOE said these local assessments  are supposed to be aligned with the new Common Core standards, this is nowhere stated in the RFP, and it is hard to see given such a rushed job, they could be.   

Moreover, in April, in testimony before the City Council, UFT president Michael Mulgrew said that he didn’t understand why the DOE was buying new tests, given that the UFT had not approved them and the city needs that approval to use them in teacher evaluations.  According to high-level sources, the UFT has still not approved the use of these assessments.

While the  NYT article said that the city wants to introduce the tests in only 100 schools next academic year, 500 schools the following year and nearly all 1,700 schools by 2013-14, the RFP asks for exams for the same number of students each year -- 390,000 per subject in 3^rd- 8th grades, and 65,000 for each high school subject.

DOE officials told the NY Times that they expect these exams will require about 10 percent of the $256 million they are going to receive through the "Race to the Top" funds.

The original deadline for bids was in May, but this was recently extended to July 13. At some point, we will probably find out how much money these new exams will cost, at a time when school budgets are being brutally cut back, and class sizes are rising. 

Not to mention how the administration and scoring of these tests will cost our kids the loss of even more precious learning time. All for the purpose of grading teachers by means of unreliable test scores.  And what happens when the federal money runs out?  It is likely then that city taxpayers will be expected to cover the bill.

RFP Class	COMPONENT 1 (Performance Based task Assessments):
#1	PBTA, ELA, Grades 3-8 (six different tests, one for each grade – given twice annually,  for three years =36 tests
#2	PBTA, Math, Grades 3-8 (same reasoning as above=36 tests)
#3	PBTA, Science, Grades 3-8  (same as above= 36 tests )
#4	PBTA, Social Studies, Grades 3-8 (same as above = 36 tests)
#5	PBTA, ELA, Grades 9-12 (four different tests, twice a year for 3 years= 24 tests)
#6	PBTA, Math, Grades 9-12 (three subjects, twice a yr for 3 yrs =18 tests)
#7	PBTA, Science, Grades 9-12(four different subjects, twice a yr for three years =24 tests)
#8	PBTA, Social Studies, Grades 9-12(five diff. subjects, twice a yr for 3 years =30 tests)
RFP Class	COMPONENT 2 (Computer Adaptive Tests):
#9	CAT, ELA, Grades 3-8 (36 as above)
#10	CAT, Math, Grades 3-8 (36 as above)
#11	CAT, Science, Grades 3-8 (36 as above)
#12	CAT, Social Studies, Grades 3-8 (36 as above)
#13	CAT, ELA, Grades 9-12 (24 tests)
#14	CAT, Math, Grades 9-12 (18 tests)
#15	CAT, Science, Grades 9-12(24 tests)
#16	CAT, Social Studies, Grades 9-12(30 tests)