Be sure to check out Parts I and III in this series.
In part 2 of this series of posts on NJEA's July 9th lobby day at the state Board of Ed, Spanish teacher and education activist, Heidi Maria Brown, questions Data Commissioner Bari Erlichson's obvious omission of any negative feedback on the state's PARCC trials, and why some board members have not done more to get to the truth.
◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊
Good afternoon. My name is
Heidi Maria Brown. I’m here today with my family. My husband is helping me with
our two boys, Johnny and Nicholas, both of whom attend the amazing public
schools in Pitman, New Jersey. We came here today despite the fact that
following testimony, we have a wake to attend and a funeral tomorrow. That is
how important I feel this opportunity is.
Throughout the past school
year, I attended three board of education meetings. Initially, the experience
was very positive. However, over time, it became quite discouraging because it
appears that my testimony has fallen on deaf ears.
I recently met with my
legislative representative, Assemblyman Paul Moriarity (D4 – Camden, Gloucester). When I first spoke with
Mr. Moriarity, he mentioned that some of my concerns could be explained by human
error. I concurred that perhaps one or even two misstatements could be
explained by human foil. However, the number and type of misstatements are
worrisome considering that the Department of Education is also responsible for
determining test scores and teacher evaluations.
At the May 7th BOE meeting, Data Commissioner Bari Erlichson evidently misspoke with regards to the number of hours
students spend testing. Students test for four days, not one. And many of our
students with IEPs and 504s test for about six hours a day, not two. That
means that contrary to her statement, students were in testing anywhere from eight hours to
as many as 24 hours. What will this mean for our students when they take the
PARCC, which is a much longer test? Has anyone
considered this? If the BOE doesn’t have an accurate understanding of testing
conditions, due to misinformation, how can they properly serve our students?
Again, this may have simply been a misstatement. So let’s look at another
example.
Erlichson made
statements and provided evidence regarding the success of the first PARCC
pilot. When presenting social media clips regarding the public feedback, she presented 100% positive feedback. I found
this surprising because I had spoken with several teachers in various
districts who confirmed that the computers froze and the testing was
problematic from a technology perspective. Several parents also posted negative
feedback on Facebook regarding testing and the PARCC, but I saw no evidence of
this in her report. Board member Edithe Fulton immediately questioned the lack
of negative comments. The response to
Ms. Fulton was that this was due to the “abbreviated” board session. Does that
justify incomplete and allegedly misleading and one-side data presentation? Perhaps
this omission was simply “human error”.
Furthermore, while the
statement was made that 70 percent of districts piloted, it should be noted
that only 10 percent of students within those districts were actually tested. This
means that we really don’t have an accurate picture of what full implementation
will mean for this fall. This method of cherry picking data to provide evidence seems to be more than a misstatement.
During this same board
meeting, Erlichson depicted a doom and gloom report of New
Jersey’s NAEP scores. Apparently, our growth was, “flat”. Later, after
reviewing the results independently, I was surprised to see that New Jersey’s 8th graders are first in reading and second in math. Why was so little made of this
success? Was this omission just a mistake?
Frankly, I’m beginning to
wonder how accurately informed the board of education is, not to mention your level of engagement in terms of asking critical questions when questionable
data is provided as truth. At the June 4th and 11th public hearings to examine
the CCSS, only one board
member, Joseph Fisicaro, attended. Why?
I work two, sometimes three jobs, I have two little boys and I volunteer in my
local township. I still found time to review the standards, draft feedback and
give professional analysis of the World Language standards. Nobody had to pay
me to show up. I did it, because I care.
During the past five
months, I have witnessed enough testimony here at the BOE, at several
legislative meetings, and throughout New Jersey, to know that there are serious
problems with the implementation of the teacher evaluation, the PARCC testing
and the leadership of our struggling, economically challenged districts like
Newark, where under Cami Anderson’s deplorable leadership, the district spent $330,000 on take-out instead of school supplies, maintenance needs, technology
upgrades, classroom teachers and aides. It was reported by NBC
news that students will not have enough desks this year and teachers will have
to take a pay freeze because Ms. Anderson felt it was appropriate to spent
$22,000 a month for catering. I guess the chicken and sides must be good. But I
digress.
In March, I witnessed the
delivery of nearly 2,000 letters to the Board of Education from teachers,
parents, and community members, imploring you to address these concerns. In
May, despite the conflict of NJASK testing, several teachers reported similar
concerns to the board. In June nearly 30,000 NJEA members participated in a
town hall conference call with Senate President Steve Sweeney to discuss these concerns. But
you don’t have to listen to me or my colleagues. All you have to do is read the
paper, go online or watch the television to know that there is a real
crisis - not with our schools - but with these un-vetted reforms being rushed to
implementation.
And since it’s evident that
many misstatements have allegedly been made due to human error, we need you to
listen to us. The truth is we don’t really know if we’re ready for the
technology demands of the PARCC. We don’t know how much this has cost or how
much it will cost in the future. We don’t know that the data management system
is secure or who will have access to our children’s personal, and legally
protected data. The fact that Assembly Bill 3081 passed 72-4, and that the
sister bill is to be posted for a senate vote tomorrow*, makes it clear that
this process is not going well and we are not ready. (emphasis mine)
So, do what you need to do. I will follow my conscience and follow
up with Assemblyman Moriarty. Because based on the information I provided, he agreed
that there seems to be more than just, “human error” at play. I will
continue to write letters to the editor and educate my community about opting
out of the PARCC, a new NEA initiative, and we’ll just wait to see how this
turns out. Ultimately, I will be able to sleep at night with a clear conscience.
Heidi Maria Brown has an MFA
in theatre from Temple University and a BA in Spanish from Western Washington
University. She has 10 years experience teaching in public schools and 9 years
as an adjunct professor. She currently teaches Spanish in the Pittsgrove
Township School District in Salem County, NJ.
* Note: As of this writing, it is not clear if S2154 will be posted for a full Senate vote. For all the breaking developments, be sure to follow Save Our Schools NJ on Facebook and Twitter.