Why our lawsuit against 36 co-locations continues; please sign onto our letter of support!

I will be on the EdShow on MSNBC at 5:30 PM tonight, Monday March 10, talking about these issues; please watch!

Saturday's Co-location Town Hall meeting

Obscured in the furious rhetoric of the charter propaganda machine, bewailing how three Success charter co-locations were reversed, is how 36 out of the 45 co-locations approved during the last few months of the Bloomberg administration have been allowed to go forward.   Here is a list.

While fourteen of these co-locations are for charters, twenty two are for non-charter schools. Five are for Success Academy charters.  All of these co-locations, charter or not, will negatively impact the existing public schools, whose students will be squeezed out of the space they need for a quality education.

In fifteen of the co-locations, the building will be pushed to 100% utilization or higher, while all of these buildings would likely register above 100% if the DOE's enrollment projections were accurate and if the school utilization formula was properly aligned with the real needs of children, including smaller classes, a full complement of art, music and science rooms, and access to the cafeteria at a reasonable time of day.

Public Advocate Tish James & Lori Podvesker, PEP member

Indeed, every one of these co-locations will push class sizes upwards and/or prevent future efforts to reduce class size.  Class size is now at a 15-year-high in many grades, despite the fact that the state's highest court held that smaller classes are necessary for NYC students to receive their constitutional right to an adequate education.

These co-locations will also hamper efforts to expand preK, prevent  students with disabilities from receiving their mandated services in dedicated spaces rather than hallways or closets, and cause schools to lose their art, music and science rooms and/or be able to schedule lunch at a reasonable time.

These co-locations will also waste millions of dollars in precious funds, by replicating bureaucracy and out of classroom positions, as the numbers of classroom teachers continue to decline.  In none of the approved co-locations were Community Education Councils, the elected representatives of public school parents, properly consulted before the proposals were made -- and in no case, did Chancellor Farina consult these bodies before deciding the 36 co-locations should go forward.

Gloria Smith, President of District 75 President Council

These were the main points made in the lawsuit filed in December by Advocates for Justice, on behalf of Class Size Matters, the NYC Parents Union, Public Advocate Letitia James, Speaker Melissa Mark Viverito. These issues have been ignored by the mainstream media, which instead has focused ad nauseum on the alleged grievances of the deep-pocketed charter lobby, with all the wealth and the power of the hedge-funders and privatizers behind them.

On Saturday,  Public Advocate Tish James held a Town Hall meeting for CEC members and parents at the affected schools to ask them whether the lawsuit should continue, and the vote was unanimous that it should.

It was the best meeting I can remember in over 15 years of education advocacy, with parent after parent explaining with passion and in detail why these co-locations should never have been approved, describing the negative impact on their children's schools and the way in which their input had been ignored and the public engagement process deeply flawed. Throughout, Tish James listened carefully, was responsive and took notes.

Arthur Schwartz, attorney

Many of the parents at the affected schools as well as the majority of CECs participated, who represented hundreds of schools with hundreds of thousands of students.  In every case, they explained how the educrats at DOE's Portfolio office had informed them at the "early engagement sessions" that new schools would be inserted in their buildings, whether they liked it or not.

But the entire process carried out by Portfolio has been corrupt and illegitimate from the start, as Tory Frye of CEC 6 pointed out, including the fundamentally inadequate community engagement, incomplete and deceptive Educational Impact Statements, and erroneous and manipulated enrollment projections. In some cases, DOE claimed there is excess space where children are still being educated in trailers; in at least one case, Richmond Hill HS, they are moving students into trailers to make room for a new school.

Tesa Wilson of D 14 Community Education Council

Indeed, these decisions were engineered by Marc Sternberg who headed DOE's Office of Portfolio until he moved over to the Walton Foundation shortly thereafter-- an organization whose primary goal is to privatize our public education system.

Unfortunately, the officials appointed by Sternberg at Portfolio are still there, justifying their wrong-headed policies with the same arrogant indifference to community input, as well as to the overwhelmingly negative impact their decisions will have on NYC children.  In fact there are twenty five more co-locations now posted for a vote in May that were never proposed by the previous administration, but presumably were in Portfolio's pipeline when Bloomberg and Sternberg departed -- including a charter school co-location that will create an official utilization figure of  141%.

Yudelka Valdez- PTA President, IS52

What's particularly disappointing is that Chancellor Fariña has admitted publicly that the DOE's official "Blue Book" figures on utilization understate the actual level of overcrowding in schools, and has appointed a task-force to revamp the formula.

Two of the members of this DOE taskforce were at Saturday's meeting, Shino Tanikawa, President of the Community Education Council of D2 in Manhattan, and Tesa Wilson President of the CEC in District 14 in Brooklyn, and both voted to support the lawsuit.  

What Fariña should have done is suspended all future co-locations until the work of that task force could be completed.  

If you'd like to get a sense of some of the testimony yesterday, please check my tweets @leoniehaimson. Nick Fox of the NYTimes tweeted the following:

Check out @leoniehaimson's tweets from Tish James's mtg on charter school co-location. Real stories, not rhetoric.
— Nick Fox (@NickFoxNYT) March 8, 2014

Unfortunately, the NY Times did not send a reporter and as usual is MIA.  The only paper to report on the event, ironically enough, was the NY Post, which predictably focused solely on the charter co-locations and how the lawsuit might interfere with their lotteries.

Please sign our letter below in support of lawsuit going forward, as well as in support of the Public Advocate and the Speaker, who are standing up for our kids and putting themselves in the line of fire of the tabloids,  the charter lobby and the privateers behind them.

Just send your name, school/district, and position if any, to info@classsizematters.org if you want to sign onto the letter below; if you believe that public school kids deserve the right to a quality education, with small classes, a well-rounded education, and to be educated in real classrooms rather than trailers and eat lunch at a reasonable time, rather than 9:45 AM in the morning.

AN OPEN LETTER TO

PUBLIC ADVOCATE TISH JAMES

AND

CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER

MELISSA MARK-VIVERITO

_______________________________________

WE NEED YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT!

Dear Public Advocate James and Council Speaker Mark-Viverito:

Let us begin by thanking you for your longstanding support of all public school students and all public school parents.  You have been outspoken supporters of parents and teachers having key input into shaping the schools our children attend.  You have been outspoken supporters of reducing class size, alleviating school overcrowding, and working to implement our children’s right to a sound basic education.  Unfortunately, despite the change in administration, we continue to need your assistance in achieving these goals.

Under the administration of Mayor Bloomberg, the Department of Education pursued a reckless program of closing schools and starting new small schools and charters, and inserting them into existing  buildings were schools were already located, oblivious to their impact on students and the existing schools and programs.

The DOE under Bloomberg ignored the nearly unanimous complaints of parents and the objections of administrators and teachers, and approved hundreds of co-locations that caused more overcrowding, the loss of critical classroom space, as well as art, music and science rooms, caused children with disabilities and learning issues to be pushed out of the rooms required for their mandated services.  The creation of hundreds of new schools also caused a sharp increase in administrative spending and bureaucracy, concurrent with a sharp decline in the number of classroom and a sharp increase in class size.

In October and November 2013, the administration pushed through 45 co-locations in two meetings of the PEP, ignoring the input of communities and the harmful impact of these proposals on students and school communities. 

We were thrilled when you, along with others, sued to void this massive round of co-locations, and waited patiently, as you did, with the hope that Mayor de Blasio would reverse most if not all of these plans. 

He has not done that, and instead chose to go ahead with 36 of these proposals, which will have devastating effects on existing schools.   At least 12 of these proposals would push the building at or above 100% utilization, according to the DOE’s own figures.  If the Blue Book formula was accurate and pegged to reasonable class sizes, as well as sufficient space for special education services, art rooms, music and science, as well as adequate access to lunchrooms, libraries, and gyms, every one of these co-locations would be seen as pushing the existing schools into unacceptably overcrowded conditions.

This is why all of these co-locations must be reversed.

1. In every case, they will either result in an increase in class size, or make it impossible to reduce class size in the future, despite the fact that class sizes in many grades are now the largest in 15 years and the mayor has pledged to reduce them significantly by the end of his term. Moreover, the state’s highest court has concluded that the class sizes of NYC students must be lowered for them to receive their constitutional right to an adequate education.

2. They will hinder the ability of schools to address the needs of students requiring special education services by providing adequate space, as well as the ability of schools to address the learning needs of English language learners. 

3. They will also restrict the amount of space available to expand preK, an important program and one of this administration’s top priorities.

4. Because the DOE has in recent years redefined a full-size classroom as only 500 square feet, down from 750 square feet, and the building code requires 35 sq. ft per Kindergarten student and 20 sq. ft. per student in other grades, many of the classrooms in these schools will trigger violations in the building code, risking children’s safety.

5. In all cases, the addition of new schools requires the creation of new, unnecessary bureaucracy with excessive numbers of administrative positions when resources could be better used on instruction.

6. None of these damaging impacts on safety, learning conditions and/or spending are reflected in the Educational Impact Statements.

7. In cases involving co-location of charter schools, the allowance of rent-free space results in their receiving more funds per capita than non-charter schools, creating inequities within school buildings, with two classes of students, one with smaller classes, more resources and programs, and the other with larger classes, and fewer resources and programs.

8. In all cases, the DOE has ignored the input of parents, community members, and Community Education Councils, who have opposed these co-locations for the reasons cited above and more.

To be sure, these proposals were approved only because the public hearing process was a sham, the public input process was a sham, and because the Panel for Educational Policy rubber-stamped them without serious review.  In all cases, the voices of parents were not heard, and this was unlawful.

We urge you to proceed with your lawsuit and to see that the process going forward adheres to the law.  We pledge to join you in that effort.

Sincerely,

Leonie Haimson, Executive Director, Class Size Matters

John Englert, Co-chair, Citywide Council on Special Education

Shino Tanikawa, President, Community Education Council District 2* and member of the DOE “Blue Book” Taskforce

David Goldsmith. President, Community Education Council District 13*

Tesa Wilson, President, Community Education Council District 14; member of DOE “Blue Book” Taskforce

Felicia P. Alexander, President, Community Education Council District 16

Heather Ann Fiorica, President, Community Education Council District 21

Deborah Perkins, President, Community Education Council District 22

Naila Caicedo-Rosario, President of Community Education Council District 15  

Tamara Rowe, member, Community Education Council 2*

Ben Greene, District 13 CPAC representative; 1^st VP, Community Education Council District 13

Evelyn Feliciano, Parent Leader D10,    Member Bronx CB 5

Monse Santana, Title I chair, PTA Tompkins Square Middle School*, and District Leadership Team, District 1

Olaiya Deen, member, Community Education Council District 3

Christine Kroening, PTA President IS 78 Roy H. Mann School

Irene Abraham, IS 78/P312 parent

Linda Dalton, member, Community Education Council District 21 

Gloria Smith, President of District 75 President Council and 1^st VP, Citywide Council of D75

Randi Garay, member, Community Education Council District 21

Carlos M. Lopez Garcia, SLT Chair, Safety Chair & UFT Chapter Leader PS 30X

 (* for identification purposes only; list in formation)

Watch this! Two and half minutes of the the NY Assembly hearings on inBloom

Highlights from the NYS Assembly hearings on inBloom on February 28, with Assembly Education Chair Nolan and AM O'Donnell grilling Ken Wagner, Deputy Commissioner, who continued to insist that schools could not deliver services to their students if parents had the right to opt out of inBloom's database. 

Nolan sponsored a bill that just passed the Assembly that would postpone any personal data being uploaded to inBloom until at least July 2015, and would allow parents to opt out their child's data from being shared with any third-party vendors.  (Check out our comparison of many of the student privacy bills that have been introduced in the Legislature.)

Thanks to Tom Liam Lynch who edited the three-hour hearing down to these two and half minutes.  Lynch is a technology expert who has taught in the NYC public schools and recently completed his PhD at Teachers College with a dissertation on online learning.  He has a terrific blog that has addressed the inBloom controversy as well as many others. 

inBloom executives finally testify before the NYS Assembly; what a sad spectacle it was

See the videotaped testimony of NYSED's Ken Wagner, along with a crew from inBloom Inc., including Peggy Brookins, Board Member, Jat Pannu, Senior VP of Services and Virginia Bartlett, Chief Privacy Officer before the NY Assembly Education Committee last Friday, February 28.

Highlights (or low lights): Ken Wagner giving a one sentence testimony at the beginning.  

And inBloom's VP refusing to disclose what other states they are working with, by saying they "respect the confidentiality of their clients"!!!  Too bad they don't respect the confidentiality of NYC public school children or their families. 

Thanks to the Assemblymembers present, especially Chair Cathy Nolan, Danny O'Donnell, Tom Abinante, Ed Graf and Shelley Mayer, who asked great questions but got very little information in return. The inBloom people said the system had the flexibility to allow parental opt outs of the database, contrary to what State Ed officials have maintained.

Here is the testimony of Allison White, co-author of the privacy petition, along with Deborah Abramson Brooks. There was no time allotted for parents to speak, but this is how it ends:

I will not allow my children to go to a public school if this is approved. I will protect my children's privacy and private information like medical records which are protected by our government already. I expect our government to be forthcoming about their intentions and inform us (the public) of matters that impact our children and ourselves. I will not allow the government to take away my parental decision making choice.  STOP THIS EDUCATIONAL FARCE....

Our children are not employees, they are not commodities, and they are not owned by the government or special interest groups! This unnecessary intrusion into their lives needs to stop.

Parents and children should not lose their rights to privacy. These rights MUST be Protected. I'm completely opposed to any sharing or storage of student data for the OBVIOUS and valid reasons listed in this petition.

Questions to DOE from Jeff Nichols of Change the Stakes re opting out of the exams, promotional guidelines and data sharing

Yesterday I sent the following letter to the Senior Deputy Chancellor of the NYCDOE, Dr. Dorita Gibson. As a parent of a fourth grader and a fifth grader in New York City and as a member of Change the Stakes (changethestakes.org), I am deeply concerned about the level of public confusion around the subjects of testing and opting out. This letter is part of an effort to help clarify matters at a moment in our city's history when our local leaders may be departing from past policies on these issues in many significant ways.

As the letter indicates, last year Change the Stakes worked with the DOE and the public to provide a FAQ page on opting out that many parents found very helpful. In the course of that process I supplied questions to Deputy Chancellor Suransky's office, but they also took questions directly from the public once the process was initiated. Please feel free to suggest to me any further questions you feel should be addressed now, and I will post any response I get from the DOE about how to proceed from here to create a useful ongoing resource for the public. (I can be reached at jeff.william.nichols@gmail.com.)

-- Jeff Nichols
*  *  *

Dr. Dorita Gibson

Senior Deputy Chancellor

New York City Department of Education

March 3, 2014

Dear Dr. Gibson,

I am writing on behalf of Change the Stakes, an association of parents and teachers in New York City concerned about the misuse of testing in our schools, to request clarification of the DOE’s policies regarding opting out of the state tests. Many parents are deeply confused about how test scores, or the lack of them, will affect student promotions, middle and high school admissions, and the evaluations of teachers and schools.

I’m sure you are well aware of the rapidly growing opt-out movement. Change the Stakes and other groups like it are aware in turn that the DOE is taking a new approach to the role of standardized tests in our schools. However, NYSED is not, many principals in New York City seem to be operating according to Bloomberg-era policies, and many of our members are still determined to refuse their children’s participation in a practice that a preponderance of educators regard as fundamentally unsound – high stakes tests.

Last year Change the Stakes worked with Shael Suransky and his staff to develop a FAQ page that parents across the city and beyond found extremely helpful. This year the need for such a site may be even greater, as the opt-out movement grows in the context of gyrating state policies around testing, which are in greater disarray than ever because of the incomplete and -- in the view of many, irretrievably botched -- implementation of the Common Core State Standards.

Parents in New York City continue to receive radically inconsistent messages from principals and superintendents about opting out. Some are told their children will be given alternative activities, ranging from quiet reading to helping out in the classrooms of younger, non-testing grades. Others are threatened with retaliatory measures like denial of promotion or banishment from honor societies, graduation ceremonies, sports teams and the like.

We are sure you are already taking steps to address such contradictions, and we would like to help with that effort by presenting you with the kinds of questions we have been receiving from dozens of parents.

Last year Mr. Suransky worked with us on an ongoing basis throughout the spring to develop and update the FAQ site. We submitted an initial list of basic questions, and then both we and his office added to those questions as new issues arose. Of course Mr. Suransky and his staff took our questions as drafts and often re-worded them to best suit DOE policies, but the results were I believe satisfactory and very useful to both parties, even though the relationship of Change the Stakes to an administration that was strongly pro-testing was essentially adversarial.

Below, then, is an initial list of questions for your consideration. We hope to work with you to create a vital public resource that will allay stress and confusion over testing for many public school families.  

*  *  *

Opting Out and Student Promotion

How does Chancellor Fariña plan to direct principals and superintendents to approach families who opt out of the state tests? Will these directives be shared with families so teachers, principals and parents alike know what to expect?

Do parents have the right to request a portfolio evaluation in place of the state ELA and math exams for the purposes of promotion? Can they request the teacher's judgement or report cards be used in place of standardized tests for this purpose?

Are parents required to use specific language when opting out of the state tests (for example, must they avoid the phrase “opt out” and use the term “refuse” instead?), or does the clear expression in writing of their intention suffice (as it presumably does for other school activities like field trips or sex education for which they might refuse their children's participation)?

The Black Line Masters and portfolio assessments are very time-consuming substitutes for the state tests and would be difficult to administer on a large scale. Are there plans underway to provide a less cumbersome alternative in the event of widespread growth of the opt-out movement?

When portfolios are used to determine promotion, what are the the contents of a portfolio and who evaluates it, on the basis of what criteria? The BLM passing score is apparently a "high 2."  How does this compare to the state test "2" as passing?

Can parents see and approve their child's portfolio before it is submitted to the superintendent by the principal?

If a school is considering retaining a student, can families request the alternative solution of promotion combined with extra support?

What is the appeals process that families can use if they do not agree with a school's promotion decision? Can teachers appeal a promotion decision that runs counter to their judgment of what is in the best interests of the child? 

What was the rationale for removing the promotion decision from the classroom teachers? Are there any plans to restore their traditional authority over this decision?

What is the timeline for promotion in June, promotion after summer school, and promotion appeals?

Impact on Schools

Will schools that fall below a 95% participation rate in the state tests, either cumulatively or by sub-category of students, be penalized in any way?

Is it true that NYS was granted a waiver from NCLB in 2012, and that any school in good standing cannot have that designation changed until 2015-16, regardless of its test scores or student participation rates?

Will  a school currently labeled as a  "focus school" have special consequences different from other schools if they have a participation rate under 95%?
How are this spring's ELA and math exams going to figure in the evaluations of teachers and schools?

Administration of State Tests

Who scores the state tests? Do teachers see the questions or do they only see the scores the student receives? Are teachers allowed to discuss the contents of state tests with students at any point after they are given?
Can parents see the state tests after they have been administered? Is there any provision for parents to challenge their children's scores?

Who scores the Blackline Masters and the August standardized tests given to determine promotion after summer school? Are parents allowed to see these tests?

When state tests are used to determine promotion, are the tests used in their entirety or are partial scores used (omitting for example sections involving extended responses)?

Middle School Admissions
Given the widely acknowledged disjunction between the still-incomplete implementation of Common Core standards and this year's ELA and math exams, will the DOE direct middle and high schools to disregard state test scores in admissions?

As a general matter, apart from the current confusion about the alignment of state tests with CCSS, for students subject to "middle school choice" and/or applying to middle schools throughout the city, is there an official policy in place that will ensure that children who opt out will NOT be disadvantaged relative to private school students, home-schooled students or others who do not have NY state test results when it comes to consideration for admission?

Field Tests

Will there be stand-alone field tests this spring, and if so, when?

Should parents be asked for permission for their children to participate in field testing? Are schools required to notify families ahead of time about the administration of these tests? What form will this communication take, and will all schools be expected to follow a similar procedure for notifying parents?

Testing and Student Privacy

If parents wish to refuse to allow their children to be tested or assessed in any way that will be tracked by InBloom, how would that affect their children's standing in the NYC public schools?

What measures generally can parents take to prevent their children's personal information from being given to InBloom or any other outside entities without their consent?

Freedom of Speech for Teachers and Parents

Under Mayor Bloomberg’s administration, many teachers were afraid to openly discuss vital educational policy matters of deep concern to parents, such as high-stakes testing and the implementation of the Common Core. They feared retaliatory actions even including dismissal for engaging in speech that ran contrary to the official line of their school's administration. 

Will the DOE direct all principals in NYC that there are no restrictions on the right of parents and teachers to discuss freely with each other all aspects of educational philosophy, teaching methods, and state and local education policy, with no penalties for teachers or parents who express opinions contrary to those of school administrators, the DOE or the SED?

*  *  *

Thank you for your attention and for your ongoing work to meet all of our children's educational needs.

 

Jeff Nichols, Associate Professor, Queens College and The Graduate Center, CUNY

How your child can refuse the state tests, starting April 1! Check out the video now!

For more information on how to your child can refuse the NY state 3-8th grade exams, including a parent guide and refusal letter, please check out the NY State Allies Public Education website at http://www.nysape.org/

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - NYSAPE Urges Legislators to Cast No Vote for Incumbents at Board of Regents Election if Nominated

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  February 25, 2014

More information contact:

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

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

NYS Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE) www.nysape.org

NYSAPE Urges Legislators to Cast No Vote for Incumbents at Board of Regents Election if Nominated

New York State Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE), a coalition of 45 organizations from around the state, is urging New Yorkers to contact their Legislators to attend the joint Legislative session on Tuesday, March 11 during which four Regent board members will be selected.  Although the four Regent incumbents, Cea, Cottrell, Jackson, and Norwood have applied to retain their seats, parents, educators, and community members are asking their Legislators to vote “No” to any incumbent who is re-nominated.  NYSAPE will be keeping score of how each Legislator votes at www.nysape.org

Parents across New York State have expressed outrage at the Board of Regents’ failure to respond to the concerns of both parents and educators. The incumbent Regent candidates have failed to take action to amend current policies or speak out against them.  The recent recommendations of the Regents’ Taskforce Report did little to address the critical problems associated with the Common Core standards, the flawed modules, high stakes testing, or student data sharing. According to South Side High School principal Carol Burris, “The so-called delay in full implementation of high school graduation Common Core standards was a political ploy. First, the Common Core Regents exams were not delayed—students will begin taking them this spring.  Second, the new “passing scores” had never been established—and with good reason. If those two scores (75 on the English Regents and 80 on a Math Regents) were put in place, our graduation rate would plummet to 35%.”

Last week, the State Education Department also announced that they plan to upload sensitive, personal student data to inBloom, starting in July.  New York is the only state of the nine original inBloom participants not to pull out completely or put their data sharing plans on indefinite hold.

In recent weeks, Legislators had the opportunity to interview both new applicants and the incumbent candidates for the four open positions on the Board of Regents. “It is inconceivable to think that Legislators would vote for an incumbent simply out of deference to his or her previous service. I watched the interviews, I read the Regents Taskforce Report. I know that the Regents Cea, Cottrell, Jackson, and Norwood are not the best candidates for the job and do not deserve to be re-appointed. The future of public education in this state hangs in the balance and this vote will help influence how thousands of parents in turn cast their votes come November,” said Bianca Tanis, parent and co-founding member of NYSAPE.

"I would urge our Legislators to show up and vote,” said Eric Mihelbergel, Ken-Ton public school parent and founding member of NYSAPE. “They are more than aware of parent concerns and as elected officials, I am hopeful that members of the Senate and Assembly will carry out the wishes of their constituents to use this election as an opportunity to exert their influence to bring change to current policies and safeguard our children’s education.”

###

inBloom to testify on Friday & state plans to upload your child's private data in July

      Last week, the Commissioner King revealed that, despite the calls for an indefinite delay by legislators of both parties, he intends to start uploading student data to inBloom in July, with the full launch of the data dashboards in September.  We are the only state in the country in which the State Commissioner has been impervious to the objections of parents, educators, school board members and administrators, and  has refused to pull out of this egregious project.

Not to mention inBloom and the data dashboards will start charging for their "services" in January, and all districts will be able to cancel the inBloom-linked data dashboards at that time.   Many will likely do so.  So why does inBloom need to have all this student data for three or four months of data dashboards?

On Friday  the NYS Assembly will be resuming its hearings on privacy, and reps from inBloom are expected to testify.  Their refusal to show up last time really backfired and angered the legislators.  

The hearings will take place Friday, Feb. 28 at 10:30 AM at 250 Broadway in Lower Manhattan; livestream here.  More info and a form you can fill out if you want  to testify is here.  See also the RT video interview from NYC parent activist Karen Sprowal on why she opposes inBloom and feels it will put at risk her child’s privacy and security on our blog below; please also sign the MoveOn petition to stop inBloom in New York state here. 

See the video below and also the discussion/debate on NPR today between Aimee Guidera of the Gates-funded Data Quality Campaign and Superintendent Mary-Fox Alter of Pleasantville NY.

2.     

The current sad state of Murry Bergtraum High School - the result of 10 years of DOE failure

John Elfrank-Dana

John Elfrank-Dana has been a teacher and chapter leader at Murry Bergtraum High School for many years, as well as an adjunct professor at Fordham University.  He blogs at Labor's Lessons where this was originally posted.

Murry Bergtraum High School has been in the press yet again. This time in response to a NY Post article two weeks ago about the school's so-called "Blended Learning" program. The article today was about a bunch of letters students wrote  in defense of the program and school's administration, but many were riddled with grammatical errors. It makes one wonder how the administration let this happen, as we know it was orchestrated from the school's principal-appointed Brand Manager.

Why weren't the letters at least proofread before they were sent to Chancellor Fariña as well as the NY Post reporter, Susan Edelman? This madness is symptomatic of the larger failure of education reform in the city.

It's important that we not forget the background that got us here.

Set up for Failure: Murry Bergtraum has been a school that has been set up for failure since the early days of the Bloomberg administration. High academic and social need students were dumped on the school throughout the closing process of other schools. Bloomberg wanted the small schools to have a good shot at success so students whose family had no plan were sent to large schools like Bergtraum and Washington Irving. Diane Ravitch cogently explains how Bergtraum has become a nerve ending for the failed Bloomberg and Klein educational policy.

Lack of Security: In the last three and a half years the school has been under siege from incompetent administration that failed to provide enough security to ensure a school tone conducive to success. Teachers have complained and I have filed numerous security grievances and complaints that not enough was being done to reign in the school's worst behaving students. You can witness numerous fights online at various social media sites.

Incompetent Administration: Three years ago we saw the infamous bathroom "riot" in response to then Principal, Andrea Lewis' misguided attempt to punish students for fighting by banning use of the restroom for the rest of the day for 2300 of their classmates. That's how the students heard it over the PA anyway. She was removed in August of 2012.

Now we have suffered through the worst school opening in Murry Bergtraum's history this year with botched student programming and a principal, Lottie Almonte, who just never takes responsibility for anything. And like the School of NO, PS 106, in Queens scandal, staff who could escape did. Over 51 staffers at Bergtraum including: all assistant principals of instruction, all the secretaries and other teachers and guidance counselors, most at the top of their game, ran to the welcoming arms of other schools over the summer never to look back. Staff polls on both principals have shown a strong vote of no confidence only to fall on the deaf ears of Bloomberg's Department of Education.

Curricular Gimmicks Rather That Solutions That Work: Rather than reducing class sizes, adjusting the admissions policy so students with high academic and/or social need come from the neighborhood so families can be integrated into their schooling and receive social services, we got gimmicks. The latest is so-called Blended Learning. But, when you blend anything you need at least two parts. In this case it should have been traditional classroom instruction with computer-based instruction. That's not what was happening. Instead, students were given a log-in to an online class and sent their way with a deadline for them (or whomever they hire) to complete the online packaged lessons. Before that was the Leadership Academy 3 years ago which, like the current "Blended Learning" program was a credit recovery scheme that failed to meet state requirements.

The spin will be from pro-charter folks that is shows how public schools can't work. The spin will come from anti-teacher union groups that the school's teachers are to blame. But, given the facts presented above and the accounts embedded therein from those of us who lived it those biases just won't get off the ground.

The fact is that many of our students write well, and are going to have successful careers in college and the work place. It's a big school. There's well over a thousand young people in that building. But, the struggling students in numbers too large have not been served as they needed to be. They shouldn't be sent half way across town to go to school, they need more social services and their homes need support. They need small class sizes and real curriculum. Just like the kind of schooling the children of President Obama and NY State Ed Commissioner King receive.

But, ed reform in NYC and most of the rest of the country has been reduced to a high stakes numbers racket where district administrators look the other way to give principals the message - "get the numbers up any which way you can." Teachers are pressured to pass at least 80 percent of their students or else face the consequences of possible U or Ineffective ratings. The teachers union has been less than aggressive at reigning in bully principals in recent years.

"Just transfer if you don't like it" seems to be the implicit and sometimes direct response to staff from the UFT. The result, our students get junk education and when the evidence hits us in the face like those letters in the NY Post did this morning everyone is talking and anticipating- what's next?

Hold your heads up high, students and staff of Murry Bergtraum. You are stronger for what you have endured.

Videos of Interviews of candidates for the Board of Regents

Next month, four members of the board of Regents will finish their five year terms and are applying
to be re-appointed.  The Board of Regents appoint the Chancellor and are in charge of setting education policy for the state.  All four current members who are applying to be re-appointed, Christine Cea, Wayne Norwood, James Jackson and James Cottrell, have strongly supported Commissioner King and his controversial implementation of the Common Core standards and curriculum, high stakes testing, and data-sharing with inBloom.

NY State Allies for Public Education is endorsing an alternative slate of candidates, whose positions more closely reflect the widespread discontent among parents and educators with these policies.

Below are some videos that contrast the interviews of two of the new candidates applying for these seats with those currently holding those seats. These interviews are conducted primarily by the chair of the Education committee, Assemblymember Cathy Nolan and the chair of the Higher Education committee, Assemblymember Deborah Glick, but other legislators also ask questions.  More videos are collected here.  The vote of the Legislature on these appointments is expected to take place on March 11.  Parents should contact their legislators to let them know how they would like them to vote.

First, see the interview of Michael Reilly, a NYC parent leader and Community Education Council  member, who is applying for the Staten Island seat.  If selected, Mike would be the only Regents currently with a child in the public schools.




Contrast Reilly's positions with those of Christine Cea, a researcher at the New York State Institute for Basic Research in Developmental Disabilities who holds the Staten Island seat and is applying to be re-appointed.  She appears to have a very different point of view on the Common Core and testing, especially as regards students with disabilities.  Here is a quote from her interview, when asked if there is a disparity between the Common Core and the IEPs, or individualized education programs mandated for students with special needs:

“I think that the IEP and the standards are the same because the IEP has standards on it already. The standards that we are proposing are a little different but they can be adapted because the IEP is individualized."

Also please watch the interview of Milady Baez, a former teacher and Queens local superintendent, who is applying for one of the at-large seats.  She expresses a more critical perspective on the Common Core as well as the education agenda pursued previously by the non-educators in the Bloomberg administration.




Baez's positions on equity and education contrast with those of Wayne Norwood, who currently sits in one of the at-large seats, chaired the Regents task force on the Common Core, and is a strong proponent of the current NY State Education policies.  Norwood is the Director of Community Engagement for the Finger Lakes Health Systems Agency, and like Cea, is applying for another five-year term.

Tepid recommendations from the Regents taskforce on the Common Core & Ken Wagner admits little or no change in the offing

Commissioner King and Ken Wagner of NYSED

UPDATE: Even the slight suggestion that teachers might be able to appeal their "ineffective" ratings in their APPR evaluations based upon the flawed roll-out of the Common Core curriculum and modules was too much for the full Regents -- given the Governor's criticism -- so they eliminated that proposal today when the full Board voted.  More on this at the Times Union, and a video of a rather pained-looking Merryl Tisch explaining how these changes show how they really "listened" to parents is below.

The most accurate story about the recommendations of the Regents task force on the Common Core was reported by WNYC/Schoolbook, which called them "tepid" and "tweaks.” 

Nevertheless they enraged Gov. Cuomo who called them “too little too late,” even though his own Commission on the Common Core has not yet met.   

It seems Cuomo objects to the proposal that teachers can bring up their district’s inadequate implementation of the standards if they are threatened with being fired as a result of an “ineffective” rating they may receive from the junk science, value-added teacher evaluation system that he pushed into law. 

Yet these proposals will NOT satisfy the concerns of parents whose children’s education is being wrecked by developmentally inappropriate and rigid standards, overly prescriptive curricula and excessive testing; see the NYSAPE press release  . Neither do they appear to assuage the concerns of teachers; see the NYSUT release here.  Excerpt:

Instead of listening to parents and educators who are grappling with the fallout from the State Education Department's disastrous implementation, the task force dismissed their concerns with a report that, in the end, adds up to a 'we know best' collection of minor adjustments," said NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi, who noted - contrary to a comment by the governor - that the Regents did not pause or delay anything that is not already in law…. On teacher evaluations, what the Regents put on the table - allowing teachers to point out failures in their district's implementation of the Common Core - is nothing new. It is a provision that already exists in state law and which we planned on pursuing with or without 'permission' from the State Education Department," Iannuzzi said.

As further evidence this is what Ken Wagner of NYSED wrote today to his “data” working group:

 From: Ken Wagner <KWAGNER@mail.nysed.gov>
Date: Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 7:43 AM

Yes, as you will see if you read through the Regents materials, the Common Core standards remain in place for both grades 3-8 and high school.

The only things that would change for State assessments based on these proposals is the availability of an assessment overlap in Geometry next year (similar to the ELA and Algebra overlap this year) and the lower cut score (partial proficiency, similar to the existing 65) for graduation purposes prior to the class of 2022.  We are preparing a short field memo to clarify these issues. 

EXCEPT as Carol Burris points out, they had NEVER proposed raising the cut score to graduate above 65.

As further evidence, the most independent and savvy Regents, Kathy Cashin of Brooklyn and Betty Rosa of the Bronx, voted against these proposals, for making insufficient reforms to the current regime.

See below, head Regent honcho Merryl Tisch, trying to explain her way out of the mess they are in, having satisfied neither parents, the unions or the Governor with their proposals.