Who represents the people at the NJ BOE?

Guest post by Susan Cauldwell

How much power should one elected official have? It's common knowledge that the Office of New Jersey's Governor is highly coveted as it gives the officeholder vast power and abilities. Is that good or bad for the people of the state?

Here's how Article 5, Section 4 of the NJ Constitution describes the powers bestowed upon the Governor:

Each principal department shall be under the supervision of the Governor. The head of each principal department shall be a single executive unless otherwise provided by law. Such single executives shall be nominated and appointed by the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to serve at the pleasure of the Governor during the Governor's term of office and until the appointment and qualification of their successors. The Governor may appoint the Lieutenant Governor to serve as the head of a principal department, without the advice and consent of the Senate, and to serve at the pleasure of the Governor during the Governor's term of office.

Whenever a board, commission or other body shall be the head of a principal department, the members thereof shall be nominated and appointed by the Governor with the advice and consent of the Senate, and may be removed in the manner provided by law. The Governor may appoint the Lieutenant Governor hereto without the advice and consent of the Senate. Such a board, commission or other body may appoint a principal executive officer when authorized by law, but the appointment shall be subject to the approval of the Governor. Any principal executive officer so appointed shall be removable by the Governor, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard.

In plain English, the above two paragraphs say that the Governor appoints all State of NJ department heads, with the advice and consent of the NJ State Senate. If a NJ State department is headed by a board or commission, the Governor also gets to appoint those members, too, with the advice and consent of the State Senate. The State Department of Education is headed by a Commissioner and guided by a Board of Education.

Examining this structure in light of the recent action by the NJ State Board of Education to appoint Chris Cerf as Newark Schools' Superintendent, it is correct to conclude that the public never had a chance to impact the decision. For starters, Commissioner David Hespe (appointed by the Governor) effusively endorsed the appointment at last week's State Board of Education meeting. In addition, all six 'yes' votes by the State Board came from members who were appointed by the sitting Governor. Four of the six votes to appoint came from State Board members with ties to private schools, one came from a former police officer who now works for a State Senator, and another came inexplicably from a current public school teacher and former NJ School Boards Association officer. The vote was close, 6-4, to appoint Chris Cerf. Had just one 'yes' voter flipped, the appointment would not have occurred. While two board members took pains to explain their 'yes' votes and assure the audience that local control of Newark schools was foremost on their agenda, another member exclaimed that he "couldn't think of a better choice." One State Board member who voted to approve Chris Cerf attended just four of the last twelve State Board meetings and did not attend any State Board meetings from August 2014 through January 2015.

By contrast, the four 'no' votes all have public and/or higher education experience and were not appointed by the current Governor. Two of these members described the appointment of Chris Cerf in negative terms and not in keeping with the wishes of the local Newark community. Another member who voted 'no' implored the Commissioner to appoint an interim Newark superintendent and immediately begin a search for a new superintendent.

The State Board was well aware that Newark residents wanted their local advisory board of education to conduct a search and appoint a new superintendent. Newarkers have been protesting the State appointed superintendent for years. It's mystifying that the State Board would think Chris Cerf, the man responsible for bringing Cami Anderson to Newark, would suddenly be an acceptable replacement. Also, the State Board received thousands of e-mails, calls, and signatures on petitions from residents all around the state, urging them not to approve the appointment of Chris Cerf and to allow the residents of Newark to choose their own superintendent, just like every other local board of education in NJ (except Camden) is permitted to do.

What conclusions can be drawn about the six State BOE members, appointed by the sitting Governor, who voted for Chris Cerf? Did the Governor influence the vote? If so, how? Some board members strenuously objected to the suggestion that the Governor influenced their vote, despite several reports to the contrary. Like local board of education members, State BOE members serve without compensation. It's very unlikely any of them are benefiting financially from being on the State BOE. Perhaps it would be just too personally embarrassing to be removed from the State BOE.

If the Commissioner of Education and a majority of the current State BOE are beholden to the Governor, who represents "the people?" Are the people even supposed to be represented by the DOE or State BOE? The language in the State Constitution appears to indicate that the people are left out of decisions such as the appointment of a Newark school superintendent. Despite the enormous statewide interest in this matter, no one was permitted to address the State BOE. One person who dared to speak up during the meeting was quickly removed. This is wrong. The people deserve to be heard. The Committee that the Governor established to oversee the transition to local control in Newark is weighted in his favor, with five of nine members (none of whom live in Newark or have a background in education) appointed and undoubtedly beholden to him. The same is true for the Governor's Study Commission on Assessments. More than 300 public comments have been received without any comment, discussion, or altering of course. It is reasonable to expect that this form will hold with the recently announced Governor's Common Core Review Committee. When will public sentiment be incorporated into DOE policy and practice?

My personal feeling is that the State BOE should be allowed to consider public opinion without fear of retribution. Whether this can be achieved is debatable. One way to do this is to uncouple the State BOE from the Governor. Some states elect State BOE members; others allow appointments by the legislature in addition to the chief executive. Perhaps New Jersey should use a combination approach: some elected State BOE members, some members appointed by the Governor, and some members appointed by the legislature. Or perhaps an elected State BOE is the answer. The election would be non-partisan to minimize the influence of political parties. The idea is to insulate the State BOE from political retribution and make the State BOE as well as the DOE responsive to the public.

This could be the beginning of a cascade of reforms at the DOE. Other needed changes include the way State BOE meetings are conducted. The public should be heard at every meeting and public comment should be built into the meetings, like local boards of education do. Currently, the Commissioner and a majority of the State BOE are not present for public comment, which is limited to three or four opportunities over the course of a year. The atmosphere at DOE headquarters is not oriented toward the public. For example, at least half the seats in the meeting room are reserved for DOE staff. The public is forced to squeeze into the back of the room. Occupancy limits are also strictly enforced. Security staff is less than accommodating. Just last week, a parent was asked to produce ID in order for his 8th grade son to be admitted to the meeting room. No such requirement exists at the State House. The State BOE should also vary its meeting times and locations so that working members of the public are afforded an opportunity to attend and participate. If there is any doubt who is in charge at the State DOE, one look at the press releases says it all. Of the twenty-one press releases posted since January, twelve lead with the words "Christie Administration."

If the status quo holds, the right thing to do for taxpayers is to abolish the State BOE and redirect the resources to other areas. As currently comprised, the State BOE is clearly not necessary and serves no purpose other than to rubber stamp whatever the Commissioner desires. This is not democracy.

Susan Cauldwell is the Executive Director of Save Our Schools NJ Community Organizing, a 501(c)(3) set up to support the work of SOS NJ, which is a grassroots, all volunteer, non-partisan pro public education organization.

NJ BOE Testimony Part III: Horror Stories from Paterson

Be sure to check out NJEA member testimony at the NJ State Board of Education Parts I and II.

So, you think you have it bad. You think your administrators didn’t fully implement the new evaluation system. You think you could have gotten a higher score in this domain or that. How would you like to be an educator in a state controlled district? Paterson Education Association member, Gennaro Tortoriello, paints a shocking picture of administrators gone wild in his state controlled district. And to think, the state took over Paterson because they deemed it 'failing'. If this is their idea of improvement, everyone at the department of education should resign.

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

Thank you for your time. I would like to speak about the evaluation system that was very hastily implemented by the state without proper training for both administrators and teachers. As a grievance delegate in the Paterson Education Association, I have witnessed the effects of this unjust system throughout my school district on a daily basis. Here are some examples:

• Some administrators have been told by their superiors that they are not allowed to give teachers high scores.
• Some administrators have told teachers that they work in a failing school and failing district therefore there are no effective teachers. In School 13 70% of teachers have been placed on a CAP (Corrective Action Plan).
• The principal of one school told the staff that 80% of them are incompetent and should not be educators.
• In many of our schools special education teachers have been directed to not follow the legal mandates of student’s IEPs if they want to earn a proficient observation.
• One administrator in School 18 has written fraudulent observations and has egregiously violated the terms of the collective bargaining agreement, state law, and district policy because tenure is “dead”, and “we can do whatever we want to them.”
• Educators have been told that instruction must be data driven yet many administrators ignore data when conducting evaluations.
• Educators have been told that lessons must be differentiated yet when instruction is modified teachers are told that their lessons are not rigorous enough.
• When educators use the whole group instructional method they are sometimes told that they did not differentiate the lesson and did not make accommodations for exceptional students.
• One administrator in a high school marked staff down for not creating ‘data walls’ where student test scores were to be posted as a way to make them improve. When association officials pointed out that that is a violation of student privacy rights protected by FERPA, the administrator told them to use student ID numbers instead. When the association pointed out that students are not supposed to publish or share their ID numbers, the administrator relented, but refused to reassess staff ratings.
• The majority of staff rated partially effective or ineffective met their SGO’s. Can somebody explain how this is possible?

These are only some examples. There are many more. This system has created an environment of distrust in which the evaluation system is viewed as discipline and punishment rather than an opportunity for professional growth. As you can see, this system has led to an abuse of power by many administrators. Please repeal this system. (emphasis mine)

Thank you.

NJ BOE Testimony Part II: Was human error or intentional omission to blame for PARCC pilot report?

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.

NJBOE Testimony Part I: Educators stand up, speak out, fight back

Be sure to check out Parts II and III.

Yesterday was an NJEA Lobby Day at the NJ State Board of Education, and as usual, our members didn't disappoint. There was a good crowd, among which were many first-time speakers. I'm proud to be part of an association that includes so many articulate and passionate educators who know the facts and are not blinded by empty rhetoric nor cowed by bullying and aggression. I'm optimistic that the number of new speakers is a sign that more voices will join what I call 'The Fight' as we inch closer to PARCC testing madness. In the next few posts I'll be highlighting some of the testimony.

NJEA has been pressuring the state board and the state legislature to slow down the implementation of the PARCC testing and form a task force to study the efficacy of the tests and the Common Core. S2154/A3081, the bill originally sponsored by Sen. Jeff Van Drew (D-Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland), made it out of committee and the assembly with overwhelming bipartisan support. As of this writing, we are anxiously waiting to see if Senate President Steve Sweeney will post it for a vote. Save Our Schools NJ has been posting updates on their Facebook page as information becomes available, and NJ Spotlight is reporting that Gov. Christie may opt for some sort of compromise. The details are still unclear, but a decision could be made this week. 

What is very clear however, is that educators all across the state are overwhelmed by the increased burden of teaching to a test that has never been proven to do what it claims to do. Far too much instructional time is now devoted to test prep of one form or another, and far too little time is available for educators to do the job right. And starting with the 2014-2015 school year, we go live with this new evaluation system where PARCC scores count for 30% of some educators' summative evaluations.   

The following testimony is from 7th grade math educator, Mary Steinhauer. She highlights the fact that, when PARCC goes live, educators may be working for 6 additional months before they know the results of their evaluation. If the aim of this new system is to weed out all those 'bad teachers', why would it be structured so as to let them remain on the job an additional half year?

◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊◊

There are three things I would like to discuss with you today:

1. Evaluations
2. Testing - PARCC
3. SGO/SGP scoring

First, I want to say thank you for allowing me this time to address you. I am a 35+ years classroom teacher representing Burlington County Education Association as the president of its 10,000 members, and also representing the NJEA Instruction Committee as its chair.

I am a highly effective teacher in my practice, but left school in June not knowing what my final summative score is. You see I teach 7^th grade math, a tested subject area. So I must wait until December or January to finish my evaluation for 2013-14. This is almost halfway through the 2014-15 school year. This is unacceptable to me as I prepare over the summer for the next school year. Do we wait 6 months for results from the doctor? Do we wait 6 months to find out if we are pregnant? Do we wait 6 months for anything that could affect our livelihood? Well, this is what you are asking the tested area educators to do.

I have no control over how the SGP score that I am waiting for is determined. And how do I even know if it is correct? (emphasis mine)

As I stated the last time I was here, this SGP score is 30% of my evaluation while I am only in contact with the students 1/8^th of their day, and statistics show that the school environment is only accountable for 1/3 of the student’s development. Therefore, this calculates to us being a little more than 4% responsible with a weight of 30% accountability. Somehow this doesn’t add up nor make sense.

Let’s talk about what determines this SGP: a test that the 3^rd through 8^th grade students take on a computer. Right now, it is expected to be the PARCC tests next year. I have been serving as a PARCC item reviewer and can tell you clearly that if my career is going to be determined by this test, I might as well retire like many other veteran educators. Have you gone on the PARCC website and tried the samples? Most [school districts] are not tech ready, the questions are too lengthy for a computer read, and there are going to be multiple select instead of multiple choice questions. Let me explain this. The students will need to identify all the correct answers out of 7 to get the problem correct. Where the students are to model an answer for an extended response, they are going to only be able to write an equation with the equation creator. They cannot make a graph, chart, diagram, or a picture. In my classroom, my students learn to think and discover how to get to a good answer, not just write an equation. Can you see these students sitting at these computers for over 2 hours to complete this test?  Can you concentrate for 2 solid hours at a computer screen? 

I am frustrated, angry, and just plan worn out from all of this, as are my county members and my Instruction Committee members. I don’t know how you plan on drawing the best and brightest college students into this career that I love, but if this doesn’t get fixed, you will have no veteran teachers, and no new teachers to serve and dedicate their lives to the students of this great state of New Jersey.

I love working with my students, watching them grow, seeing them become well-rounded adults, and instilling in them a love for learning. If we don’t stop this craziness, we will lose a whole generation of creative, innovative and well-educated children.  Please slow this down, and let’s get this right for our children, my students, and the future educators of this state.

Mary Steinhauer is a 7th grade math teacher, President of the Burlington County Education Association, an NJEA Professional Development Consultant, a Certified Smartboard™ Trainer/Lesson Developer, a Smart Exemplary Educator and a PARCC Item Reviewer/Sensitivity and Bias Reviewer.

NJ Ed Truth Squad Call to Action Part 2: When bad things happen to good schools

UPDATE! I have it from a reliable source in Newark that closing Hawthorne or turning it over to a 'charter launch' is a violation of the NCLB waiver process for priority schools, so Cami had to back down on that. However, it appears that Hawthorne's progress, which qualified it as a K-8 school on the move, may have helped her earn a merit pay bonus. So, she wanted to close a school that helped line her pockets. 

___________________________________________________

In Part 1 I wrote about the recent Congressional vote on a charter school bill. Part 2 is about Newark Superintendent Cami Anderson's plans to convert Hawthorne Avenue School, a successful and beloved neighborhood public school, into a charter.

A Newark teacher sent me this heartfelt post written in April by Hawthorne Ave PTSO President Grace Sergio about the successes this school has had under Principal H. Grady James. You may remember that along with three other principals, James was briefly suspended earlier this year for speaking at a parent/community forum (something Anderson no longer does) on the fate of their school in light of her One Newark plan. Read Bob Braun's excellent coverage of this here. 

Originally under One Newark this school was destined to be converted to a charter, but I guess after reviewing the school's data here and here, she had no choice but to back down—sorta.

See, the school is improving under James' leadership. Even though 94% of its students are free and reduced lunch eligible, and 89% are African American (both numbers higher than the district average), many of its numbers are heading in the right direction: 

True, their language arts proficiency trend numbers are a little erratic, but I defer to Jersey Jazzman and Dr. Bruce Baker for explanations. They are the numbers guys.

Despite all these obstacles, and the fact that the building quality is rated as 'Very Poor' (something that's far too common in our urban school districts), Hawthorne's numbers are going up and the parents and community support it. Maybe that's why Cami wanted to co-opt it—so she could somehow prove that a charter school serving a mostly minority, low-income population really could outperform a traditional public school. #SMH!

I guess the public outcry got to her because a report this week in NJ Spotlight had this to say:

Anderson has since backed off on some of the details, instead saying Hawthorne Avenue would remain a district school, just under outside management.

Either way, a third of its students are to be moved elsewhere, and with enrollment decisions due to be announced within the week, the change for the school continues to blow back on Anderson in increasingly public ways.

Yesterday, the extra attention came by way of the Randi Weingarten, the national president of the American Federation of Teachers, visiting the school to voice her support for it remaining as it is.

Identifying Anderson as part of a nationwide reform movement of “privatizers” and “profiteers,” Weingarten said Hawthorne was an example of the superintendent’s plans gone awry.

“They don’t want schools doing well the old-fashioned way,” she said. “They are so craven here that instead of celebrating the success, and instead of seeing what is growing and nurturing that, why would you stop that?”

According to the district's and state's own beloved data, Hawthorne Avenue School is headed in the right direction. If anything, it needs to be supported, nurtured, studied and replicated—not dismantled! What the heck is 'outside management' anyway? And why does this school need it? Why can't the Newark School District continue to manage it? As we've seen time and again with all things ed 'reform', all roads lead to one place: the bank. My guess is there's some sort of profit to be made by somebody, somewhere. 

So, #NJEdTruthSquad, here's what we need to do: Contact Rep. Donald Payne, Jr., who wrote a letter to Cami demanding answers about One Newark. I wrote about that letter in a previous post, but interestingly the link is no longer available. Odd technical glitch? Or could it be because he has endorsed Shavar Jeffries in the Newark Mayoral race? Not sure.

But in any event, click on the Congressional delegation contact info link on the right side of this page and send Rep. Payne an email or call and leave a message telling him to help stop the dismantling of Hawthorne Avenue School, and demand that he push Anderson for proof her 'reforms' really are in the best interests of the children of Newark. 

Happy Teacher Appreciation Week: Delirium at the State BOE Meeting Part 1!

Today was open topic day at the NJ State BOE, which means anyone can testify about any education topic. The board has their regular meeting in the morning, then public testimony in the afternoon. Due to NJASK testing, there was a small contingent of NJEA members present along with concerned parents and citizens.

It started with a resolution to recognize May 2014 as Physical Education and Sport Month. A physical education teacher gave a brief presentation on the topic. Forgive me for not knowing her name, but she's a firecracker. She's been teaching close to 50 years. I met her at a previous BOE meeting and she's the epitome of a career educator: fiercely passionate, knowledgeable, inspiring and uplifting. During her presentation she reminded the board that even though NJ is one of the top states in PE in the nation, because of budget cuts and increased demands of standardized testing, many districts are not fulfilling the mandated 150 minutes of PE per week. Board president Arcelio Aponte told her to mention this to acting Education Commissioner David Hespe. (More on this in tomorrow's post.) She then got the entire room up and doing an 'brain break'-type activity, wherein Aponte laughingly admitted that he'd lost control of the meeting. Leave it to a teacher to take control.

Then came the presentations. Chief Performance Officer/Assistant Commissioner of Data, Research, Evaluation and Reporting (now there's a mouthful), Bari Erlichson, presented on the PARCC field tests. I guess ya gotta love data to have a title like that. Trouble is data doesn't have a pulse. It's not a flesh and blood, 98.6 degree little kid. It can only tell you so much. I live Tweeted the testimony, so you can check out the details there. Does anyone know if there's a Chief Crying, Stressed-Out Eight Year Old Commissioner of Calming Fears position at the DOE? If so, I want to apply.

According to Erlichson, the PARCC trials went swimmingly well. She even had slides of Tweets from teachers and administrators praising the process! Why, one of the superintendents was from Mount Olive. Now, where have I read about him before? Oh... yes... Jersey Jazzman wrote a little piece on him. This is just the tip of the iceberg, you really do need to read the whole piece: 

Before he was hired in Mount Olive, Reynolds was director of Newton Learning, an education company he formed as a division of Edison Schools. Edison Schools is a private education management company and [former NJ Education Commissioner] Cerf was formerly the chief operating officer.  

How nice that his school district's trial run went so well.

So anyway, back to Bari. Did you know that, according to her, "NJASK is one day of testing then kids relax for the afternoon"? Dear God, what kind of hell-hole have I been teaching in!?! My school does 4 days of testing in the morning, then regular academic classes in the afternoon! Such torture must be stopped!! I'm so glad she is on the job to set the record straight because she made the point several times that all this testing info must be messaged properly. Apparently it doesn't matter if it all works or not. So long as the message is good, all will be well.

She also talked about technical issues with the computers the students used, including 'proctor caching' issues, and all the ways districts are magically fixing them. Teachers, memorize that phrase because you too will soon be catching proctors! What's wrong with 'sharpen pencil and open book'? Oh right, chrome books are so much more reliable profitable.

Now mind you, I have nothing against technology in teaching when used appropriately, and there are many great reasons for the switch to a tech-based style of teaching and learning, but this roll out is happening way too fast, and board member and former NJEA President Edie Fulton knows it. After Bari showed all the tweets of happiness and joy over the trial runs, there was this:

Fulton: Where are the negative comments on the field test? 

Erlichson: I had to abbreviate my presentation.

But the good Dr. Bruce Baker came to the rescue as soon as I tweeted that exchange. Bari, here are some dissenting voices in case you want to update your Power Point:  

"Education in the school came to a screeching halt. No other uses of technology were permitted during testing time." 

"I am a teacher as well as a parent of a field-tested student. I am certain this sort of paradigm shift in high-stakes testing, where results will be used to 'evaluate' teachers, will force educators to spend more time instructing how to take the test, how to be most successful on the test and how to remain motivated for the test than actually educating students. In essence, I fear PARCC and preparing for the PARCC will become education as we know it." 

Sounds more and more like China, doesn't it?

Oooo! Oooo! Oooo! Guess what, teachers?!?!? According to Bari, more PARCC practice tests are coming in the fall! YES! AND... regional training centers for test administrators! And Bari even said they need to reach out to districts that aren't electronically ready for the PARCC because, you know, "the NJASK just can't get to the standards the way a computer-based test can." Wow, I guess that means the state is going to pay for their tech upgrades and— oh wait... never mind. (Pssst: $800 million budget shortfall)

On questions where there are multiple right answers:

Fulton: Have you ever seen one of them?

Erlichson: I haven't drilled down enough. (Translation: No.)

The pilot was administered to about 10% of all students in NJ. Board VP and retired teacher, Joe Fisicaro, questioned the potential technology problems with a fast roll-out next year:

Fisicaro: 10% is a very small number. What happens next year when tens of thousands of students take the test? 

Aponte: Everyone gets frustrated when technology doesn't work... We are committed to moving forward with PARCC. We are sticking to our timeline. 

Hespe: Field testing has green-lighted PARCC. Change is hard. Our achievement gap numbers are devastating.  

Aponte: The public needs to know the field test is going well. We fully expect to stay on our time schedule. (emphasis mine)

There you have it folks. Damn the technology problems and full speed ahead! We don't care about your district or student tech issues. We don't care whether your teachers have had time to unpack the standards and write curriculum. We are committed to reform! I'm so relieved to hear that. 

To close this discussion, Erlichson asked one final, chillingly telling question:

"PARCC is part of the regular school day. How do we present this so people don't think it's a lost week?"

First, dear readers, it's not a lost week. It's a lost two weeks: one in March and one in May. Second, if this grand scheme is so wonderful, so fantabulous, so marvelously marvelous, nobody would have to do any spin. This thing would sell itself. But it's not and it won't.

But wait, there's more! Now we move on to the NAEP scores review. Yippee! 

While Erlichson confirmed that NJ has been "leading the nation" in 2011 and 2013 our scores are flat. *Sigh* This is what I can't stand about reformy logic. See, normal logic goes something like this:

We are at the top + We've been at the top for a decade = We are doing a good job because proficient equals a high level of mastery, like a B+. So, let's maintain our strengths, define the areas that need improvement and work to improve them.

But reformy logic goes something like this:

We are at the top + We've been at the top for a decade = Our scores are flat. Excellence is so overrated! Something must be wrong and we've got to fix EVERYTHING—NOW!!! And it doesn't matter if the 'fix' will really work or if it's even valid, we just have to convince the public that it is!

Let's look at this another way: The Yankees are the most successful baseball franchise in history. They've won 27 World Series and 40 American League Pennants. Do they have areas in need of improvement? Sure, every team does. That's why they trade players and hire excellent coaches, trainers and managers. But what if suddenly one day the owners decide that excellence isn't good enough? What if they decide that a consistent winning record (even though they might not win the World Series every year) isn't up to snuff? What if they want every player to be perfect—for half the price? What if they told Derek Jeter, one of baseball's all time best players, that he suddenly has to change the way he plays the game because his numbers aren't perfect enough? Oh, and they are slashing funding for trainers and coaches in the process. Could he do it? Would he do it? Why would he do it?

That's what education 'reform' is doing to NJ. In its race to perfection, it's completely avoiding the correlation between achievement and socioeconomic status, slashing school budgets and placing all it's reformy eggs in the testing basket. If you want the New York Yankees' winning record, you have to fund your team like the New York Yankees.   

Still not convinced that what the state BOE is doing is wrong? I leave you with this from Acting Commissioner Hespe testifying at a state budget hearing on Monday (paraphrased):

If the PARCC and Common Core Standards are properly implemented, there will be no need for remedial college courses.

Tomorrow: More BOE delirium, and public testimony.

Rally for NJ Public Education Part 3: ‘Bad Teachers’ & ‘Failing Students’ are the WMDs of Ed 'Reform'

Thirteen years ago, after the horrific attacks of 9/11, the Bush/Cheney/Condi triumvirate sold the nation on a war based on a lie: that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was connected to the terror attacks. Even after it was proven they didn’t have WMDs and the terrorists were Saudis—not Iraqis—Bush and Company plowed on, squandering our budget surplus, putting billions on the nation’s credit card in hopes of gaining control of Iraq’s oil reserves, and sacrificing the lives of thousands of brave young men and women in the process.

In 2011 I visited the Washington, DC office of the late Sen. Frank Lautenberg—a WWII veteran—to talk to him about education policy. Outside his office was a display called “Faces of the Fallen": 

"... a memorial to the service members who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq. Begun in 2004, the memorial… consists of more than 100 placards, each containing the pictures, names, ages, hometowns and causes of death of service members who sacrificed their lives to serve our country.” It was, to say the least, a moving and humbling tribute to so many brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. 

While President Bush was perpetrating that lie on a shell-shocked nation, he was cooking up another one: failing students. More recently accompanied by ‘bad teachers’, these two phrases have become the WMDs of the war on public education. They have been manufactured and sold to the general public by business people and elected officials—both Republican and Democrat—in order to cash in on the $600 billion education industry despite the fact that there is an enormous amount of data generated by the US government and researchers from a variety of public and private enterprises that says the problem in America isn’t public education, but poverty.

While President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan were wringing their hands over the US scores on the 2010 PISA (Program for International Student Assessment), Diane Ravitch actually analyzed the data and debunked the Chicken Little myth:

“American students in schools with low poverty… had scores that were equal to those of Shanghai and significantly better than those of high-scoring Finland, the Republic of Korea, Canada, New Zealand, Japan and Australia… the scores of students in low-poverty schools in the United States are far higher than the international average, higher even than the average for top-performing nations, and the scores decline as poverty levels increase, as they do in all nations.” (Reign of Error, p.65) (Emphasis mine.)

American schools are not 'failing', the sky is not falling, but the ability of many Americans to provide for their families is. 

But why look at messy things like facts when rhetoric is so much easier to sell and profit from? While school district budgets across the country are being slashed, those same districts must come up with thousands, and in some cases, millions of dollars to pay for technology and other upgrades to prepare for the onslaught of standardized testing despite no proof that it will improve student learning!

As the assault on public education marches on, two glaring ironies are emerging:

• While ‘reformers’ push for more ‘accountability’, testing, and standards for our kids, theirs go to elite private schools with low student-teacher ratios, rich curriculums, shorter school days and years, and no punitive accountability measures. 
• As educator/blogger Mercedes Schneider reports, the long overemphasis on standardized testing in other countries is backfiring as they graduate more and more students who are excellent at test taking, but who lack critical, creative, and higher order thinking skills: “Asian countries do better than European and American schools because we are ‘examination hell’ countries,” said Koji Kato, a professor emeritus of education at Tokyo’s Sophia University. “There is more pressure to teach to the test. In my experience in working with teachers the situation is becoming worse and worse.”

Click here for the answer.

Be sure to read Schneider’s entire post. It’s a veritable primer on the ultimate goal of education ‘reform’.

So again I ask: What will you do to help stem the tide of education ‘reform’? I know where I’ll be on March 27^th. I’ll be in Trenton with people from all across the state fighting to take back our classrooms from profiteering carpetbaggers. Please join us!

Rally for NJ Public Education Part 2: Stop Bashing Teachers!

Is it just me, or is everything marketed as ‘sexy’ these days? Almost every bride on every bridal reality show (Ok, I admit it, I watch them all!) wants to look sexy. (Whatever happened to classy?) Cell phones, computers, paint colors, guns, food, tools, toothpaste and a zillion more products are all marketed in some way, shape or form as sexy. I’ll bet somebody somewhere thinks it’s a good idea to market shower caulk as sexy!

Along with “risqué” one of the definitions of sexy is “excitingly appealing; glamorous, as in: a sexy new car.” So although a commercial may not use the word ‘sexy’ in it, the subliminal messaging is there nonetheless. Marketing experts know that the key to opening consumer wallets is to offer the chance of an appealing, glamorous (sexy) life along with their product.

So, what does all this have to do with education? In their efforts to privatize public education and turn it into a multi-billion-dollar, for-profit enterprise, education ‘reformers’ have to market and sell it in slick, messaging that’s ‘excitingly appealing’, aka sexy! Public education advocate, Leonie Haimson, one of the founders of Parents Across America, and head of Class Size Matters in NYC, has assembled a compendium of reformy-speak buzzwords including:

“transformational”, “catalytic”, “innovative”, “bold”, “game changer”, “effective”, “entrepreneurial, “economies of scale”, “instructional efficiency"

“Wow!” you say, “They sound so excitingly appealing and glamorous! Damn it, why isn’t my local public school doing this?? I WANT THIS FOR MY KIDS!!"

Now hold on a second. Before you go opening your mental wallets to the education ‘reformies’, consider this from public school teacher/blogger, Jersey Jazzman, who also happens to be a doctoral student in educational theory, organization and policy at Rutgers University (you know, an expert):

“[Education reformers] do not care that all of the research points exactly AWAY from the solutions they propose. They do not care that it is inherently contradictory to say ‘we don’t have the money’ and then fund programs like vouchers that will further drain the state’s coffers. Nor do they care that it’s illogical to say how much they value teachers while simultaneously pushing to cut their pay.”

So, while ed ‘reformers’ are busy selling you that shiny new car, many veteran teachers have had it with the abuse, the bullying and the blame. Far too many are retiring earlier than they had originally planned. And with every experienced educator we lose, our students lose years of experience. But that’s okay because waiting in the wings is a “catalytic”, “innovative”, “bold”, “game changer” with absolutely no experience to take their place! 

You see, reformers don’t care if their plans work or not because this is what really motivates them:

Yes, this is an actual slide from an actual education ‘reform’ presentation. The You Tube link is no longer available. Hmmm… wonder why? Could it be that that video was so cringe-inducing (especially the part where the presenter tells the audience he’s an education expert because he saw the movie ‘Dangerous Minds’) that the blowback from the education community shredded it to pieces?

Bashing teachers is a marketing tool, folks! It’s been packaged and sold to the general public by politicians, billionaires and those who do their bidding as part of a slick and sexy marketing campaign that diverts attention away from the real problems facing New Jersey and the rest of the US: poverty, staggering income inequality and the decline of the middle class. Public education is a $600 billion industry, and corporations, certain ‘non-profits’ and Wall Street investors are hijacking it and making some beaucoup bucks at the expense of hard-working education professionals—and your kids! Oh sure, they love to tell you it's all about the kids, but how many of them sat back and did absolutely nothing while Congress cut SNAP benefits?

New Jersey does not have an education problem of epidemic proportions. We consistently rank at or near the top in student achievement in the US. But we do have about 200 apartheid schools in our inner cities, with high concentrations of poor and/or minority students. They are not, as Gov. Christie calls them, ‘failure factories’. The teachers in those schools are working with a higher concentration of students with special needs than those of schools in our wealthiest suburbs, and like the dedicated staff in that hospital in my previous post, they are being blamed.

Do we have some bad teachers in our profession? Of course we do—just like any other profession. And thankfully it’s now easier to remove them from the classroom. But we also have bad elected officials, business people and ‘edupreneures’ who have little to no education experience, but who have boatloads of influence, money and power, and have sold the general public on the hokum that teachers are responsible for all the ills of society. Unfortunately, it’s not so easy to remove them from power.

Think about it: who is a bigger threat to the welfare and prosperity of New Jersey: a school teacher with a median income of $62K who is going to work every day, providing for her family, trying to make a difference, or a billionaire with a lot of political connections and a nose for venture capitalism who wants to privatize public education without a shred of evidence it will benefit children?

It’s time to stop blaming teachers! It’s time to stand up! Speak out! Fight back! Come to Trenton on March 27^th at noon and make your voice heard!