A parent in the Broad award focus group speaks out

As widely anticipated, the Broad Foundation gave its prize to NYC today -- despite the letter we sent yesterday, asking them to withhold this honor as it was not legitimately earned.

Unmentioned in the announcement of the prize, of course, are the millions of dollars that the Broad Foundation has given NYC and the innumerable ties -- both financial and ideological-- between the foundation and the DOE.

As mentioned in this AP article, the Foundation says that "it conducts focus groups with teachers and parents" before awarding this prize.

Below is a statement from David Quintana, parent leader in Queens and a member of the group of parents that met with the researchers from the Foundation a few months back. It is remarkable that even with a hand-picked group of parents, DOE could apparently find no one who would say anything good about their administration of our schools.

As one of the four (4) parent participants in a focus group held at Tweed for researchers from the Broad Foundation, I am disappointed in the fact that NYC received the Broad Foundation prize today.

This group of parents, handpicked by Martine Guerrier of the Department of Education (DOE), expressed uniform disappointment with the various changes put into place by DOE, the lack of transparency and accountability, and the lack of consideration given the views of parents about what their children really need to succeed.

Clearly the Broad Foundation did not take parents views into consideration when awarding this prize to NYC today.

I feel that the DOE is totally dismissive of parents views and makes short shrift of our concerns for our children (i.e. - class size reduction, cell phone ban, school bus fiasco, numerous reorganizations of the DOE, et al.)

thanks,

David M. Quintana

District 27 Presidents Council - Recording Secretary; District 27 Representative to Chancellors Parents Advisory Council, Queens Community Board 10 - Education Committee and Queens Borough President's Parents Advisory Council member

Setting the record straight; why NYC should not win the Broad prize

It is widely expected that after being nominated three times, NYC will win the Broad prize tomorrow for most improved urban school district. We faxed the following letter to the foundation today, to set the record straight.

Dear Eli Broad and the Broad Foundation:

We urge you not to award the Broad prize to NYC this year. As parents and teachers, we have witnessed one incoherent wave of reorganization after another over the last five years, leading to unnecessary chaos and in many cases, disruption of educational services. None of these changes have been planned or undertaken with any consultation of the stakeholders in the system.

In the first phase, when districts were dissolved and schools placed into regions, a year went by when thousands of special education students were denied referrals and/or essential services. Now regions have been dissolved, and districts re-instated, but without the ability or manpower to supervise and provide support to individual schools. More recently, the Department of Education instituted bus route changes in the midst of winter, which left thousands of shivering children in the cold, and others as young as six years old who were given Metro cards and expected to take the subway by themselves.

Instead of transparency and accurate information, we get spin and PR. Though overall, the amount spent on education has risen, there is no evidence that a larger percentage of resources has gone to the classroom, despite repeated claims by DOE. Instead, each year the headcount grows of highly paid officials at Tweed, as well as the number of multi-million dollar consultants.

Though test scores have risen, a careful examination shows that for the 4th and 8th grade state exams, there was more growth during the four years before the administration’s reforms were put into place than in the four years since. Moreover, as recent news reports have revealed, the 4th grade exams in both ELA and math were much easier in 2005, when the largest gains in NYC performance occurred, putting into doubt their validity.

And while the city claims a rising graduation rate, the way in which the DOE calculates this rate excludes thousands of students “discharged” from the system to GED and alternative programs each year, none of whom are counted as dropouts. What is most disturbing is that the number of these students continues to rise, as the City Comptroller has pointed out. Without fully accounting for the fate of these students, as the DOE refuses to do, there is no way to assess whether graduation rates have actually improved. Even according to DOE’s own unreliable calculations, the six year graduation rate is no higher than it was in 1996.

With nearly every change they have made in recent years, this administration has ignored the input of parents, and continues to show its contempt for our concerns, including the need to communicate with our children before and after school and help ensure their safety through the use of cell phones. Though the City Council has passed a law that would allow students to carry cell phones to and from school, the administration has said they will not comply with this law, since they claim unilateral authority when it comes to our schools.

The DOE is similarly scornful of the legitimate desires of parents for their children to be educated in smaller classes. This was the number one priority of parents in the recent DOE survey, though the administration continues to attempt to obscure these results. Our classes remain the largest in the state by far and some of the largest in the nation, without any significant improvement in five years. The State’s highest court concluded that class sizes were too large to give NYC children their right to an adequate education, yet in 2006, an audit showed that the city created only 20 additional classes with $90 million in state funds meant to reduce class size. Despite the audit’s findings, the DOE has refused to adopt any of the recommendations of the State Comptroller to improve compliance.

On your website, you have said that you will take into account the views of stakeholders, including parents and teachers, in awarding the prize. We urge you to consider these facts, and withhold this award from the NYC Department of Education until it is more legitimately earned.

Yours, fifty one NYC parents and teachers

For the letter with footnotes and full list of signers, click here.

More on the school bus scandal

The Daily News follows up with updates on its revelatory -- and horrifying -- series about abuse of special ed students on school buses. For the original five part series, click here.

Yesterday, the paper revealed that the Department of Education had withheld at least 225 complaints of abuse of students on city school buses after the Daily News had FOILed them last spring.

Today, more revelations of mismanagement and lack of follow-through by the Office of Pupil Transportation – with the director of that office, Richard Scarpa, still in charge.

DOE: Random Scanning Fulfills Class Size Mandates

September 16, 2007 (GBN News): GBN News has learned that contrary to critics’ claims, the NY City Department of Education does not need to come up with a plan to reduce class size, because it already has one in place. The DOE policy is called “Unannounced Scanning”, and, if the experience of at least one high school is any indication, it has lowered class size significantly. At Forest Hills High School, attendance during a metal scan for cell phones last week was down 9.7 per cent, which resulted in a commensurate reduction in average class size. The DOE presumably hopes that if these figures can be replicated throughout the system, they will finally be compliant with state law.

Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, when reached for comment, said this proves that the DOE is responsive to parents’ concerns, as expressed in a recent survey. Mr. Klein admitted that the parents at Forest Hills High School made “smaller classes” their top choice in the survey, and acknowledged that the school was chosen for scanning on Tuesday in response. He also noted that “better communication with parents” was the parents’ next preference, and said, “What better way to communicate our concern for parents’ wishes than an unannounced metal scan?” Mr. Klein also pointed to a tremendous increase in parent involvement, when the next day hundreds of parents appeared at the school to retrieve their kids’ cell phones. “And we didn’t even have to pay them”, he said.

Joel Klein on the Colbert Report

Colbert was very funny on Wednesday night's show-- the Chancellor not-so-much. See Colbert commenting on the administration's controversial program to pay kids for high test scores:

"Now, I love this idea of paying the students because, what it does is, it brings free-market forces to knowledge. If you score in seventh grade and make $500, you can invest that money in nerds to write term papers for you when you get to eighth grade.”

And: “As long as you’re going to be paying kids and making it seem like a job, why not just bring back child labor? Because, I’ve got to tell you, you give those 10-year-olds a couple of shifts in my textile factory, you know, a couple of fingers missing, they will hit the books hard and achieve.”

Klein made the following dubious claim: “There have been programs where they pay kids for abstinence and it’s worked.”

In fact, none of the abstinence programs have been proved effective.

Assembly Leader Lafayette: "Klein is still giving State Education Department the runaround"

On Thursday, the Queens Times published a lengthy letter from Deputy Assembly Speaker Ivan C. Lafayette which was highly critical of DOE's failure to provide the State Education Department with an acceptable plan for reducing class sizes. Here's an excerpt:

Despite all of the rhetoric coming from City Hall and Chancellor Joel Klein, they have made it clear that there are no plans in the immediate future to utilize any of the additional state funding to reduce class size. As of this writing, the city has still yet to come up with a plan on how to reduce class size. Did I mention that the contracts for excellence were supposed to be concluded by mid-August? Because of the irresponsible stubbornness of city Department of Education, we have already started the new school year and there are many more children who are being forced to try achieve more, but under even worse conditions. The budget was enacted on April 1st of this year, with New York City schools receiving $714 million more than last year. Six months later, Chancellor Klein is still giving the State Education Department the runaround. The current school year has already started and a plan is still not in place. It is an absolute slap in the face to the students and teachers who are still working and trying to teach in overcrowded classrooms.

Lafayette concludes his letter with a condemnation of the Bloomberg administration's woeful record on schools construction:

Figures provided to me from the State Department of Education show just how few new schools have actually been constructed over the last five years in New York City, with a majority of these schools being initiated by the previous administration. The law passed this year authorizes that state to provide New York City with an additional $283 million to carry out the goal of smaller class size. Chancellor Klein’s foot-dragging will not only cost the city money, but also cheat the children out of a quality learning experience.

For the full letter, see the Queens Times.

The cover-up on class size continues

In response to our letter to the Mayor, asking him to correct his misstatements about the results of the Department of Education parent survey, DOE officials and the Chancellor himself continue to deny that they have been disingenuously spinning the results. In the process, they are still trying to cover up the fact that the need for smaller classes was the top priority of parents who responded to the survey.

See this NY Sun article, Mayor Asked To Correct Class Size Statements, in which David Cantor, DOE spokesman said: "Class size is a major concern, but the fact is that more than 40% of parents say improving academics is the most important issue facing our schools."

Here, Cantor is lumping together four different responses -- more enrichment, more arts, more hands-on learning, and more challenging courses. Moreover, two of these are hardly "academic".

And Chancellor Klein on NY1 said: "The numbers are clear; the mayor's representation is accurate...We don't need people to politicize the debate when the facts are all known and all visible. We put them all out there." (Video clip here.)

Ironic that Klein claims that we have "politicized" the debate, when all we asked in our letter is that the Mayor should stop mischaracterizing the results of his own survey.

Indeed, it was Bloomberg himself who tried to politicize the findings, by falsely claiming that the responses showed that class size was not the top priority of parents and casting aspersions at groups like Class Size Matters, asserting at his press conference that that''When somebody stands up and says, 'I speak for all parents and we want smaller class sizes,' that's just not true.''

Queens Chronicle Story Misses Mark on Standardized Testing

On Thursday, September 13, the Queens Chronicle ran a story by Colin Gustafson entitled, "Parents Give 'A+' To Teachers But Low Marks On Class Size." To the Chronicle's credit, the story summarized fairly accurately the recently announced results of last spring's DOE Parent, Student, and Teacher surveys. In particular, Colin Gustafson noted properly that nearly 25% of parents who responded indicated that smaller class size was their highest priority improvement while the DOE has "cobbled together" data from four different categories to claim higher parent priority for an amorphous (and hard to reject) entity called "more or better programs."

Unfortunately, the Chronicle story rather missed the mark in its statement about parents' responses concerning standardized testing. As Mr. Gustafson wrote, "...only 1 percent believe schools put too much emphasis on standardized test preparation — a finding that has startled many of the mayor’s most ardent critics on education policy." Aside from the fact that note such critics were mentioned by name, the most startling aspect of this observation is the conclusion itself.

A brief recap is in order. As a concession to parents and the focus group that participated in creating the Parent Survey, the DOE included a final question that asked parents to choose their most desired improvement from a list of ten items: smaller class sizes, more or better enrichment programs, more hands-on learning, more challenging courses, more or better arts programs, more effective school leadership, better communication with parents, more teacher training, more preparation for state tests, and less preparation for state tests. Thus, less preparation for tests was just one of ten possible choices from which parents were instructed to choose just ONE. More preparation for state tests received about 10% of the parent votes, while less preparation received about 1%, the lowest of any item.

The Chronicle's interpretation of this result is incorrect in several respects. First, 100% of responding parents did not comment at all on their attitude toward standardized testing -- they were never asked about this issue on the Survey. The 1% response simply represented the group of parents who perceive reduced test preparation time as the single greatest improvement they would like in their children's schools. To infer that this 1% response level reflects the prevailing attitudes about standardized testing among the nearly 217,000 parents who responded is invalid and devastatingly misleading.

Second, the DOE Parent Survey question is precisely worded as "more (or less) preparation for state tests." This choice presumably refers to New York State 3rd through 8th grade Math and English tests and Regents exams for high schoolers. NYC parents were not widely opposed to the State's original 4th and 8th exams or Regents exams. However, by referring to this question as having addressed "standardized tests," Chronicle readers are being further misled. They are asked to believe that there is virtually no parental objection or concern with respect to the batteries of 3rd through 8th grade high stakes grade level exams introduced in the last few years or the even more intrusive intrayear exams the NYC DOE plans to begin implementing this year. To the contrary, there are many parents concerned with the dramatically increased testing regime, the planned use of such test scores for student, teacher, and school evaluation, and the loss of true educational time and content as teachers feel more and more pressure to "teach to the tests."

All is not well with the state of standardized testing in NYC public schools (check out the Time Out from Testing website at www.timeoutfromtesting.org), and the degree of dissatisfaction is likely to swell to all-time highs once parents actually see their children subjected to as many as 20 more standardized tests per year (five each in math, English, science, and social studies). To suggest otherwise from the Parent Survey results or elsewhere is to misrepresent seriously the concerns of many parents. If a full explanation of the DOE testing program had been coupled on the Parent Survey with a direct question asking whether parents wanted more time or less spent on standardized test preparation, one can safely assume that well more than 1% of parents would have opted for less time.

Still No Approval from State on NYC's Contract for Excellence and Class Size Reduction Plan

There is still no word from the State Education Department on DOE's Contract for Excellence, the plan that needs to be approved in order for our schools to receive additional state funding. Parent Karen Koenig sends this message to the State Education Commissioner, Richard Mills, and his bosses on the Board of Regents. Parents can email the commissioner at Richard.Mills@mail.nysed.gov


Dear Board of Regents and Commissioner Mills:

I am a NYC public school parent. As you may be aware, the need for smaller classes in our schools was the top priority of parents in the recent DOE parent survey. Yet DOE’s proposal under its “Contract for Excellence” is inadequate, especially with respect to class size, and will not lead to the smaller classes necessary to provide my child and other NYC children with their right to a quality education.

Please refrain from releasing any state funds to NYC until and unless the DOE submits a real five year class size reduction plan, showing how class sizes will be significantly reduced in all grades starting this year, aligned with a capital plan that will provide sufficient space in the long term.

I am tired of high school classes with an average of 30 students (and sometimes way more than that). I am tired of my daughter attending a high school that was built for 2,000 and now has 3,500 kids in it. I am tired of my child not receiving adequate instruction in math and science because there are so many in the class that not all questions can be fully explained and responded to. I am tired of my child starting classes at 7:30 in the morning because of overcrowding. I am tired of not being able to meet with all teachers during parent/teacher conferences because there are so many other parents trying to do the same. I am tired of the DOE NOT listening to or respecting what parents have to say about school over-population and the need for smaller class size.

Regards,

Karen Koenig
Recording Secretary
John Bowne HS
Flushing, Queens

More on the 9/11 Forest Hills Cell Phone Raid

A follow up to yesterday’s Forest Hills HS scanning story:

1) My co-worker, whose son’s phone was confiscated in yesterday’s scanning, spoke to another parent while they sat in the auditorium this morning awaiting return of their kids’ phones. That parent related how last year her daughter was almost abducted after school by a man in a car. She was able to get away and call for help on her cell phone. This parent said she was terrified at the prospect of her daughter traveling without a cell phone after this trauma, and doesn’t know what to do now. Perhaps the Mayor can send his limo to pick her up every day.

2) Here is what my colleague reports about the raid, for the benefit of those of us who have not yet had this unique DOE educational opportunity:

• Most kids were late for class because of the scanning.
• A number of kids did not go into school because of the scanning.
• At least three kids were arrested. –Details were unclear, but it seemed there was some sort of conflict or confrontation over the confiscations.
• A number of teachers had to waste their valuable time assisting in returning the phones to parents today, because there was not enough support staff to handle it.
• Though she came before 8 AM today, she still had to wait 40 minutes to get her son's phone back, as the school personnel attempted to accommodate hundreds of irate parents, most of them, like her, having to take hours off from work (good thing I'm her supervisor). Parents were still streaming in as she left, and they obviously were going to have to wait even longer than she did.
• One last piece of absurdity: Kids who had both an ipod and a cell phone were given a choice of which they wanted to have confiscated. I'd love to hear the logic behind that one!

Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg, for making sure our kids are not distracted from their learning!

Class Size Limits for NYC Public Schools

We are getting a number of inquiries from parents seeking to know the limits on the number of children per class. From the Frequently Asked Questions page at Class Size Matters:

What are the current class size limits? Are they set by the teacher contract?

Yes. The UFT class-size limits are as follows:

• In kindergarten, 25.

• In grades 1-3, 29.

• In grades 4-6, 32.

• In Title I middle schools, 30.

• In non-Title I middle schools, 33.

• In high schools, 34 for academic classes.

If class sizes have increased in your school, send us a note.

Letter to Mayor from UFT, CSM, Hispanic Federation, CDF and Robert Jackson

This letter was faxed to City Hall today:

Hon. Michael Bloomberg
Mayor, City of New York
City Hall
New York 10007

September 11, 2007

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

The newly released DOE parent survey clearly showed that smaller class sizes is the number one improvement that parents would most like in their schools. Nearly one of every four respondents, or 24%, named smaller classes as their top choice from a list of ten choices. Given this response, we have been surprised at your statements about the desire for class size reduction versus “more or better enrichment programs” which came in second, at 19%.

Twice in recent days, first at a September 6th press conference and then again on September 7th on your radio show, you said that parents by a "two to one margin" preferred “enriching programs” to smaller classes.

Understandably, enrichment is an important issue to parents – especially as many schools are lacking greatly in this area, due to the emphasis on preparing students for the state tests, with double periods of ELA and math. This is a trend that will probably worsen as school grades will depend 85% on test scores in these two subjects.

We wish to continue to work with you in a cooperative fashion to ensure that NYC children receive the quality education they deserve. To do that, it is important to acknowledge the actual desires of parents and state them accurately. In this spirit, we respectfully ask that you state clearly that smaller classes were the top priority of parents who responded to your survey.

Sincerely yours,

Randi Weingarten, President, United Federation of Teachers

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director, Class Size Matters

Lillian Rodriguez Lopez, President, Hispanic Federation

Robert Jackson, Chair, City Council Education Committee

The Rev. Emma Jordan-Simpson, Executive Director, Children's Defense Fund

The DOE’s Idea of a 9/11 Commemoration?

Lest anyone think that the Mayor and Chancellor might be a bit chastened by yesterday’s overwhelming 46-2 City Council veto override of a bill insuring children’s right to carry cell phones to and from school, that notion was dispelled by today’s events at Forest Hills High School. The DOE, in its infinite wisdom, sent legions of security agents this morning to the Queens school to scan and search students, and to confiscate dangerous weapons such as cell phones.

Yes, on the anniversary of 9/11, the DOE sees fit to heighten the anxiety of parents and children who have likely spent much of the day reliving those unspeakable events on TV and radio. To have kids stand in line while uniformed agents confiscate the very items that afford them and their parents a vital lifeline in these dangerous times. To disrupt the school day of the very schoolchildren that the Mayor’s ill advised and abusive cell phone ban purports to protect from distractions. One wonders if they were trying on purpose to recreate a piece of the anxiety and fear that people experienced on that day six years ago, in a perverse sort of 9/11 commemoration. Or, were they just getting back at those parents who had the temerity to go through their elected representatives to redress what they felt was an ill-advised policy.

Ironically, my daughter’s Constitutional Law class (at a different school) discussed this very issue today. At first, it seemed that the teacher had misinformed them when he told them that in 90 days, when the new Council law takes effect, they will be allowed cell phones in school as long as they are kept away and not used. But then I realized, the teacher is correct. It’s the Mayor who is misinformed and thinks he can illegally continue to confiscate the phones in violation of the Council law. Unfortunately, it will likely take a court ruling to set him straight.

PS: If anyone at Forest Hills HS, or any other school that experienced scanning today on 9/11, is willing to talk to the press, Yoav Gonen, a NY Post reporter, is interested in hearing from you for a possible story. He can be reached at 212-930-5766.

Spin City: Bloomberg Disses NYC Public School Parents Yet Again

Last year, Mayor Bloomberg dismissed parents’ concerns over the cell phone ban by claiming that his office had only received about 500 calls on the issue and that they were probably the same person calling 500 times.

Just today, after saying he would ignore the City Council's override of his veto of their legislation on cell phones, he again trivialized our concerns by suggesting that parents only want to discuss with their kids whether to have fish or beef for dinner. Never has a NYC Mayor publicly treated his own constituents with such haughty condescension. It is the mark of a man who has never been a public school parent or educator and who obviously believes he is smarter than the rest of us. In his mind, there’s simply nothing to discuss.

Last week’s announcements from the DOE of their much-touted surveys provided the Mayor with an opportunity once again to spin the results, revealing the same dismissive attitude toward NYC public school parents. As the New York Times quoted the Mayor, “When somebody stands up and says, ‘I speak for all parents and we want smaller class sizes,’ that’s just not true.” Yet the Mayor conveniently ignored the fact that it was the number one choice of parents in his own survey! Given the administration's previous unwillingness to incorporate the changes requested by members of the focus groups created for the survey’s preparation, it's hardly surprising that the results are now being interpreted to show nothing but support for their favored policies.

Let’s take a closer look, leaving aside for the moment the statistical truism that any survey in which respondents self-select their participation (by mailing back their response in this instance) is not random and is automatically invalid as representative of the full population of (in this instance) public school parents.

• The press release from the Mayor’s office claimed that 45% of parents chose the non-existent category “More or Better Programs” as their highest improvement priority, compared to “just” 24% who cited “Smaller Class Size.” At the press conference, the Mayor himself said that parents preferred “more enrichment” two to one or smaller classes – a claim he repeated the next day on his radio show.

As pointed out in a previous entry, while the press release was highly misleading, the Mayor’s statement was flat out wrong. More enrichment came out second (at 19%) to smaller class size (at 24%).

• The Mayor’s continued insistence that parents do not consider class size as an important issue appears to be contradicted by his own survey’s results. A review of the results for all 194 schools in Districts 1, 2, 3, and 4 (all that I have been able to analyze so far) showed that in a whopping 87 of them (45%) , parents identified smaller class size as their #1 most desired improvement. (See this excel file.) Smaller class size came out as the top preference for parents in each of these districts, although it tied for number one with enrichment in District 4. The percentages of schools where parents chose class size as their number one concern ranged from 55% of those in District 1, 50% in District 3, 42% in District 2, and 39% in District 4.

• The District 2 results were skewed somewhat since the list of schools in that district consists of many small alternative high schools with relatively low class sizes. Still, parents at most of the district’s large high schools, ranging from the highly selective Stuyvesant to lower-performing high schools like Washington Irving, Murray Bergtraum, and Norman Thomas, chose smaller classes as the improvement they would most like to see in their children’s schools.

Similarly, across all four districts, parents in 24 of 39 schools (61.5%) with enrollments of over 700 selected smaller class size as their highest priority improvement. In the 18 schools in those four districts with enrollments over 1,000, parents in 15 of them (83.3%) indicated smaller class size as their top choice. Despite the Mayor’s assertions to the contrary, there is clearly a sizable parent constituency that sees class size as the biggest problem in our schools that needs addressing.

• Mayor Bloomberg has publicly made the patently absurd claim that parents want more time spent on test preparation as compared to less time by a factor of 10 to 1, as if thousands of parents want less test preparation (or could conceive of “less preparation” as an “improvement”) in the era of high stakes testing he himself has promoted. First, this was not the stated preferences of parents overall. Rather, these numbers were taken out of context, representing the small percentage of parents who chose these two categories out of the same list of ten preferences offered in the survey, including smaller classes and many other compelling needs for our schools. That is, only 10% and 1% of the 26% parents who responded to the survey chose these answers– meaning 2.6% vs. .26% of parents overall.
  

Few high school parents would argue against more test preparation for State Regents exams which determine whether a student will graduate from high school. Indeed, given the fact that this administration has decided to base all promotion decisions on test scores, it is understandable that many parents would want their children as prepared as possible – in fear that they would be held back.

• In his public statements, the Mayor intentionally conflated a survey item labeled as “More Time for State Test Preparation” into massive parental approval (or lack of disapproval) for all testing. From the New York Times:

The mayor said the statistics discredited the idea that there was widespread discontent with testing and test preparation. “It’s a tiny, trivial number of people who scream the loudest who get the press, but it can send you totally in the wrong direction,” he said.

Nowhere were parents given the option of responding whether they believed that their children were being tested too much (not to mention all the new tests coming this year to be fed into ARIS) or that too much emphasis overall was being placed on tests. Preparation for State tests has zero relationship to the educationally stifling testing regime Chancellor Klein is planning to implement in NYC public schools, and this survey cannot in any way be construed to constitute parental support for it.

Back in the late 1990’s, ABC ran the Michael J. Fox comedy series “Spin City” about the NYC Mayor’s office. Who could have known that the show’s title would so perfectly prefigure this administration?

--- by Steve Koss

Mike’s Food For Thought

September 10, 2007 (GBN News): While many New York City parents and politicians struggle to make sense of Mayor Bloomberg’s intransigence over his school cell phone ban, the reaction of some others suggests that there may be a method to his madness. GBN News has interviewed a number of city parents who seem to feel that the Mayor’s statements are having the desired effect.

One parent, Floss Medwick of Brooklyn, told GBN News that when Mr. Bloomberg said that parents only want their kids to have cell phones so that they can call them and ask whether they want beef or fish for dinner, she had a revelation. “My daughter’s a vegetarian”, she realized. “She doesn’t eat beef or fish, so she doesn't need a cell phone!”

Bob Flick, whose son travels from Brooklyn to middle school in Manhattan, said the Mayor struck a similar chord. “My son hates fish. All he eats is beef. Why would I have to call him? I already know what he wants for dinner. Goodbye, cell phone!”

Another middle school parent, Grace Partridge of the Bronx, realized that by taking away her children’s cell phones, she saves enough money to serve both beef and fish each night. “Now I never have to call them,” she said. “We threw the phones into the river. Thank you, Mayor Bloomberg!”

Other parents, though, feel that the Mayor is still out of touch with their experience as city parents. “What about chicken?” asked Floyd Caslow, a parent of a high school student in Staten Island. “Does he think New Yorkers just eat beef and fish?” But Mr. Flick counters that the Mayor is probably just trying to say that food is a distraction to children’s learning, and that the fewer culinary choices they have, the better their test scores will be.

In a related story, the Mayor claimed victory in today’s City Council override vote. Apparently referring to the two Council members that supported him, Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement, “By a two to one margin, we beat every single Council member who voted to overturn the veto.”

MIKE BLASTS COUNCIL OVERRIDE; PLANS NEW “SURGE” AGAINST CELL PHONES

September 10, 2007 (GBN News): Mayor Bloomberg, in criticizing today’s override by the City Council of his veto of a bill guaranteeing children the right to carry cell phones to and from school, cited a recent Education Department survey to bolster his hard line against cell phone possession. “Not a single parent”, the Mayor said in a City Hall press conference, “chose ‘more cell phones’ as the most important improvement they would like to see in the schools.” Mr. Bloomberg also said that in what he termed a “surge” aimed at eradicating cell phones, school security chief Emomali Rakhmon plans to add 30,000 more school security agents to enforce the ban.

NY ELA tests much easier in 2005

Check out this NY Sun story -- disclosing a UFT study that concluded that the 2005 NY state ELA 4th grade test was as many as six grade levels easier than the same test in 2004. There was much comment at the time -- including hearings at the City Council -- looking into this issue, but the UFT study has not been previously disclosed.

The Daily News recently reported evidence showing that the 4th grade math test of the same year was also much easier. Mayor Bloomberg used the big jumps in NYC test scores to coast to an easy re-election.

Do we get to revote?

Bloomberg gets it wrong -- repeatedly -- about the survey's results on class size

On Thursday, the Mayor and Chancellor held a press conference to release the results of the teacher, student and parent surveys -- posted here. Almost immediately, they misrepresented what the surveys actually said -- by repeatedly claiming that class size did not come out as the top priority of parents, when it did.

A little background: I was one of the participants in the parent focus groups that were organized by DOE and KPMG to help develop the survey. Our focus group as well as every other said that large classes, as well as an overemphasis on testing, were top concerns of parents and should receive their own questions on the survey. (We knew about the results of the other groups because they showed them to us.) Yet when we were given a draft of the survey, it didn’t have a single question that mentioned class size or testing on it. We protested vociferously, and DOE offered a compromise– that they would include class size and test prep as one of a list of 10 possible priorities in a catch-all question at the end of the survey.

We didn’t think this was sufficient – since it seemed purposely designed to minimize these problems and ensure that these issues would get as low a preference as possible We continued to argue that each deserved its own questions – especially given all the other repetitive and apparently purposeless questions that the survey contained. Yet they went ahead anyway, we asked parents to consider boycotting the survey, and we subsequently undertook our own independent parent survey, whose results will be released soon.

So what happened? Despite the attempts by DOE to minimize this issue, smaller classes still came out as the top priority of parents at 24% -- which is quite substantial, considering they were forced to choose among many other compelling options. Here are the responses to the question in full:

Question 13: Which of the following improvements would you most like your school to make?

Smaller class size: 24%

More or better enrichment programs: 19%

More hands-on learning: 13%

Better communication w/ parents: 10%

More preparation for state tests: 10%

More challenging courses: 8%

More teacher training: 6%

More of better arts programs 5%

More effective school leadership: 5%

Less preparation for state tests: 1%

Now ignoring the question of why parents should have to choose among these various options (wouldn't smaller classes make hands-on learning and better communication with parents more possible? Don't our kids need both enrichment and small class sizes?), it is clear that despite the best efforts of DOE, parents spoke resoundingly clear -- that reducing class size is an important goal that should be pursued.

So what did the administration do? Rather than accept the reality of their own data, they put together a press release that attempted to obscure the results.

In a rather clumsy attempt to minimize class size concerns, the Mayor's Press Release contrasted the 24% of parents who selected smaller classes as their highest priority with “45% of parents who said creating more or better programs should be their school’s top priority “ They omitted the critical fact that they had to lump four different responses to get to this latter figure (more enrichment, hands-on learning, challenging courses, and arts programs.)

At the press conference the Mayor went further, and actually said: “By a big majority, two to one, parents would rather have you spend more money on enriching the programs rather than reducing class size.”

Perhaps he was confusing the new, rather inchoate category that DOE had devised -- “more or better programs” with enrichment. As you can see above, “more or better enrichment programs” actually came out second to class size at 19%, rather than two to one ahead of it.

During the press conference he also denigrated groups who advocate for smaller classes, saying that the results show that “When somebody stands up and says, “‘I speak for all parents and we want smaller class sizes,’ that’s just not true.”

As I was quoted in the Times , "It’s a transparent attempt to minimize the importance of an issue that is staring everybody in the face as the top priority of parents.”

Thanks to keen reporting, the NY Post noted the Mayor's error in claiming that parents preferred more enrichment over smaller classes, and the NY Times noted the deceptive comparison between class size and "more or better programs." See also the NY1 story.

If the Mayor's misstatement was an inadvertent mistake, you would think he would have figured it out after all these news stories. But you would be wrong.

On Friday, he went on his weekly radio show and did it all over again. Here is an excerpt:

Gambling: What did you learn? What was the one surprising thing that you learned from this?

Mayor: People wanted, by a factor of 2 to 1, double the number of people wanted more money spent on enriching programs as opposed to class size. Class size is something we want to work on. We are bringing it down, we're building more classrooms, you've got the biggest construction budget ever seen and all that sort of stuff. And we really are. We're hiring more teachers all the time. So we're going in that direction. But class size as compared to better teachers say, the science shows, are really important, and parents seem to think that.

He added some other rather interesting comments:

"You know everybody's got bitches, and of course that's what the papers focus on. But there are an awful lot of people very satisfied."

And: "The real world is full of tests. Every day your employer tests you all the time!... People who say too many tests, I don't know what they're thinking."

He also reiterated that despite the City Council override of his veto of the cell phone bill, he would continue to confiscate any cell phones that students brought to school.

What can you say? For a guy who claims to worship data, Bloomberg appears to have little interest in getting it right when it comes to how parents feel about the importance of class size.

Parents, No Seat at This Table

Hard on the heels of Erin Einhorn’s stories this week in the Daily News questioning whether NYC public school students’ progress from 2002 to 2007 in the NY State math exams for 4th Graders is a result of easier test questions comes an announcement today from Chancellor Klein’s office. A new organization called the Research Partnership for New York City Schools has been formed with a charter to review data provided by the DOE and verify operational and student performance results through independent analysis. The new group will be privately funded by ten foundations and has pledged to maintain independence in its analysis and reporting.

Not surprisingly, the Research Partnership’s oversight board consists almost exclusively of people with close ties to the DOE and vested interests in the research and analysis outcomes. Chancellor Klein’s and UFT President Randi Weingarten’s presence on the board alone creates conflicts of interest, and these are furthered by the presence of Robert Hughes (New Visions for Public Schools) and Kathryn Wylde (Partnership for NYC, and already a Board Member of the DOE’s private sector-funded Leadership Academy and the conservative think tank The Manhattan Institute).

The first and most basic rule of auditing is arms length independence from the organization being audited. Where is the independence here? Even more disconcerting, where are the real independent voices? Where are Betsy Gotbaum, Diane Ravitch, Alfred Posamentier, Sol Stern, or a host of others from the NYU, Columbia, or Bank Street Schools of Education? And where are the parents representatives: CEC Presidents such as Tim Johnson or David Bloomfield, parent advocates like Leonie Haimson, or just interested and capable parent representatives? Reflecting the Chancellor’s continued policy of ignoring and dismissing NYC public school parents, he could not even bring himself to include Martine Guerrier, the DOE’s so-called new “Chief Family Engagement Officer.”

As Sol Stern points out in today’s Daily News article, “The whole thing is a fraud…it will have the illusion of objectivity.” Likely he’s correct. It seems the head fox has just recruited another set of foxes to verify independently their positive progress in the hen house. And once again, the message to parents is clear: “You have no seat at this table.”

GBN Newsflash: Afternoon Test Results Are In

September 5, 2007 (GBN News): GBN News has learned exclusively that based on this afternoon’s ARIS computer “real time" test results, six more school principals are being fired at the end of the school day. According to a source at the DOE, the principals were cited for their schools’ “insufficient progress” since this morning’s testing.

In other news, the DOE has reportedly given an $18 million no-bid contract to A&M Urology Group, a Manhattan based medical practice, to investigate ARIS data showing excessive bathroom visits in a number of middle schools and high schools.

“Here are the numbers. Everything is improving. Trust us.”

“Tell me the result you want, and I’ll find a way to make the numbers show it."

Anyone with a good feel for numbers and a background in math or statistics will recognize the ironic truth underlying this statement about mathematical deception. Nowhere in recent years has this approach seemed more evident than in the NYC Department of Education, most recently in the NY Daily News story about the decreasing level of difficulty in the NY State 4^th Grade math exams.

As Erin Einhorn reported in yesterday's Daily News , NYC pass rates on the 4^th Grade exams in math since 2002 have tracked very closely to the degree of difficulty of the exam itself. As the tests have gotten easier, the NYC (and NYS) pass rates have increased almost in perfect lockstep. This determination was made by obtaining information from the State Education Department, but the Daily News supplemented it with their own small-scale lab experiment with 34 youngsters who were participating in a Brooklyn College summer program. The kids took the 2002 and 2005 NYS math exams and, for the most part, concurred that the 2005 test was easier. In fact, 24 of the 34 young students did better on the 2005 exam.

Even for those well-versed in mathematical statistics, psychometrics (the science of testing and intelligence measurement) is an arcane subject. Suffice to say, all standardized tests are created from large banks of potential questions, each of which is field tested to determine its degree of difficulty, called a p-value. A question with a p-value of 0.65 means that 65% of students tested will likely get that question right, based on the field test results. A test can therefore be “rated” with a p-value according to the values of the questions chosen to make up that test.

Since 2002, the p-value of the state 4^th Grade math exam has risen from 0.61 to 0.74 in 2007. Remarkably, the number of questions needed to get a passing score has actually decreased at the same time, from 40 in 2002 to 39 in 2007. Not surprisingly, the NYC pass rate has increased from 52% to 74.1%, with the largest year-to-year increase occurring in 2003 when the p-value had its biggest increase (from 0.61 to 0.68). Defenders of the tests argue that the pass rate for an easier test can be adjusted by requiring more correct answers to pass, but how many of us (adult or child) would prefer an easy test requiring 40 correct answers to a more representative test requiring 39 or 38 correct answers? I certainly would.

In The Truth about Testing, author W. James Popham points out that questions with p-values between 0.4 and 0.6 are best suited to creating the degree of score spread necessary for a standardized test questions to be reliable differentiators of student performance (higher score spreads are interpreted as indicators of higher test reliability in measuring whatever it’s supposed to measure). It seems odd that the State can be creating tests with a p-value of 0.74, suggesting that 74% of students should be able to pass (and, in fact, exactly 74.1% did just that last year in NYC). Yet the Mayor and Chancellor have been solely crediting their own new policies for increases that would be expected just by the increasingly easier nature of the exam itself.

Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein have aggressively adopted the business model mantra that whatever isn’t measured can’t be managed (and incentivized) to the world of public school education. This policy has resulted in more and more standardized testing of students and increased collection and manipulation of school-level data on every aspect of school operations. Success or failure of Mayoral control, we are led to believe by the Chancellor, is entirely contingent on these measures: test scores, attendance levels, graduation rates, school report cards, and the like.

Bad enough that this is the factory model par excellence applied to education – you can’t measure a student’s found passion for theater or chorus, a discovered pleasure in reading, the classroom excitement over a new insight into the process of history, the joy of seeing one’s poem or short story in print, or the deep self-satisfaction that comes from further, teacher-led independent exploration of a science topic. Worse, it is solely the DOE that collects, cleans, massages, selects, and controls this information behind closed computer room and office doors. Since no external oversight, audit agency, independent review or verification exists, the message is clear: “Here are the numbers. Everything is improving. Trust us.”

Disturbingly, it’s the fox who is not only running the hen house but also reporting the excellence of the results to the farmer.

-- Steve Koss, PTA President of Manhattan Center for Science and Math

Update: see today's Daily News, where leading experts call for an independent audit agency as exists in other states, to verify the validity of these exams.

Speaking truth to power; Diane Ravitch and Erin Einhorn

As an antidote to all the PR feel-good nonsense put out by DOE, listen to the wise words of Diane Ravitch on WNYC radio today.

Diane said our kids are being turned into “test-taking puppets….At the end of the day, you really have to ask is that what education is all about?”

And: “We’re not getting honest answers from Albany…we really need an independent audit agency to look at these test scores.”

Lots more great points from Diane -- about how the public's voice has been completely shut out of this administration.

Erin spoke about her blockbuster scoop in today's Daily News, showing that the dramatic rise in the 4th grade math scores in 2005 -- just in time for the Mayoral elections -- was a direct result of a much easier test.

Ten reasons to distrust the new accountability system

Welcome to a new school year in which all schools will be given grades of A through F -- 85% of which will be based on test scores. The principal's job and even the continued existence of the school will depend upon avoiding a failing grade. And yet there are obvious flaws in this system:

1- One of the primary metrics used to grade schools will be their "value-added" test scores; meaning that the growth or decline in scores for students enrolled at each school from one year to next. Yet the state tests are given in January (ELA) and March (math). Thus for ELA, there will be only half a year of learning for each grade in each school. Even in March you're not getting a full year's worth of learning.

2- It is well known that poor students lose more learning over the summer. Thus most experts believe that if you're going to do value-added measures to assess the learning taking place in the school, students should be tested at the beginning and the end of the year. The method the DOE is using could easily unfairly penalize schools with large numbers of poor children. DOE says they are controlling for the demographic background of students in elementary schools, but not in middle or high schools.

3- There is tremendous volatility and randomness in year to year test scores at the school level - which means that if the school's grade is based on one year's performance alone, the statistical error is large enough to make the results unreliable. That's why so many schools that get bonuses based on their test scores in states throughout the country rarely repeat.

4- The peer schools that schools will be compared with in order to determine grades are based on student test scores and demographics alone, and do not take account widely unequal school inputs like class size, overcrowding etc. which despite the arguments of DOE, are largely out of the control of individual schools. In fact, since Tweed continues to control enrollment, schools and principals are being judged based upon very different conditions and ability to succeed, leading to even more instability and turnover at the large overcrowded schools that continue to educate our neediest students.

5- The whole purpose of the accountability system as it is currently designed is basically punitive - even if the school grades were reliable, the administration doesn’t intend to use results either to help low-performing schools improve, for example, by giving them more resources or help them learn how to emulate more effective schools; but simply as a tool to decide which principals should be fired, and which schools should be closed. This will lead to more turnover and churning at our low-performing schools.

6- Many experts, such as Bob Tobias, former head of testing at DOE, say that because of the large standard error, or natural variability mentioned above, the interim assessments to be given five to six times a year cannot reliably measure short term gains in learning—which means much of the data churned out by ARIS will be garbage and all the expense and time taken up by the tests and the “data inquiry” teams in each school will be wasted.

7-Similarly, many testing experts say that the state tests are not designed (or validated) to do the grade by grade comparisons that the administration intends to use them for. As revealed in today’s Daily News, the difficulty of the state tests varies from year to year considerably – making the validity of these comparisons even more doubtful.

8.- DOE does not intend to measure critical negative student outcomes, no less include them in the accountability system for schools – outcomes that have already become more common– including the numbers. of students discharged to GED programs, long term suspensions, and/or transfers to other schools or sorts of programs. All of these negative consequences have become more common in recent years, and will likely become even more rampant in the future as principals feel even more pressure to improve test scores or risk losing their jobs -- and no school will be held accountable for how many kids are forced out in the process.

9.- By basing so much of the school’s grade on test scores, the incentive on the part of principals and teachers will also increase to cheat.

10- By excluding all other measures of a school’s success, one will not only get a very limited picture of what schools should be attempting to achieve, but the system itself may actually suppress all these other, important aspects of learning and enrichment.

Here is a good discussion by Henry Levin (in pdf) of this issue, in another context:: "By measuring only one or two school objectives...the result is that it may be impossible to determine what is being sacrificed...surely some area of learning is shortchanged by the shift in resources. As an example, [there is] cogent evident that non-cognitive aspects of school which are not even measured in school accountability systems may be the dominant determinants of education's effects on earnings, rather than cognitive aspects measured by tests....A similar issue is evident in high stakes testing where teaching efforts, curriculum and test preparation shift to what is tested from what is not. “

For all these reasons and more, the new accountability initiative may work to impoverish all of our students and schools – while punishing those who need our help the most.

Rough First Day for Joel and Mike

September 4, 2007 (GBN News): The first day of school proved to be an embarrassing one today for Chancellor Joel Klein and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. To start the day, Mayor Bloomberg missed a joint appearance with the Chancellor at a Queens middle school when Mr. Bloomberg’s SUV got stuck in traffic on the way to the subway. Left to fend for himself, things went downhill after that for Mr. Klein, when his Blackberry was confiscated in a metal detector search. Mr. Klein then had to cut short his visit to the school when it became apparent that class sizes were so high, there was no space for him to get into any of the classrooms to visit.

Mr. Klein then tried to retrieve the Blackberry in order to email his office and revise his schedule, but as per Chancellor’s regulations, he was told that it would only be returned to his parent at the end of the day. Fuming, the Chancellor stormed into the school office to use the phone, but there was no answer at the DOE despite his repeated attempts to call. The Chancellor’s only recourse was to call a hotline set up by Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum. Ironically, Ms. Gotbaum had created this hotline precisely to help people who could not reach the DOE amidst the chaos of Mr. Klein’s latest school reorganization.

In a related story, GBN News has learned that based on data gathered in the first three hours of the school day, the new DOE $80 million ARIS computer system has labeled thirty-six schools as “failing” due to poor test results. The Principals of twelve of those schools were fired today and the rest are to be reassigned. Afternoon test results were not available at press time, but may result in additional personnel moves. A statement will be forthcoming from Chancellor Klein as soon as he gets his Blackberry back.

Jonathan Kozol on class size and where Pres. Bush went to school

Jonathan Kozol has written a new book, called “Letters to a New Teacher.” Leonard Lopate interviewed Kozol last week on WNYC.

Here is an excerpt:

Kozol: “If I wanted to really lower the achievement gap between minority and white kids in America, I wouldn’t waste time testing them to death, I wouldn’t waste time terrifying school principals and trying to run a school system under the sword of fear; I would #1 defend the high morale of the best young teachers I could hire; and #2 give them a class size which never exceeds 18 children in elementary school; or 22 children in secondary school – which is exactly what it’s like in the top suburban school systems.”

He also talked about the fact that at Andover, where President Bush went, there is a maximum of 12 students in high school classes: “If small class size and the individual attention this gives every child is good for the son of a President, then its good for the poorest child ….right here in NYC.

Download the interview here (mp3).

Buy his book here.