Pensions Politics & Those Pesky Public Employees Pt.2

Back to School & The #RightToWork For Less

Note: This post is long overdue, but sometimes I just gotta take a break and re-charge my batteries.

You can read Part 1 of this series here.

On Labor Day we honored the American middle class. Once the backbone of this country, labor unions helped lift vast numbers of American workers out of poverty, gave them safe, well-paying jobs, allowed them to live their American Dream while building the American landscape, and set our economy firing on all cylinders.

But the backbone of this nation is now bent and weak. Many unions are no more, and wages are down in direct correlation. The US is now a majority 'right-to-work' nation. The American middle class is shrinking. And despite a report released last month showing we had our "best year of economic improvement" in decades, it "did not fully repair the damage inflicted by the Great Recession." Some of us will never fully recover. 

Makes me all giddy inside.

****

September is always rough on education professionals. Contrary to 'reformy' rhetoric, I was not sunning myself on the beaches in the South of France all summer. No, I was on unpaid furlough. Granted, I did work this summer at an amazing job (more on that in another post). But, while many people are enjoying barbecues with family and friends over Labor Day weekend, many of us are digging through sofa cushions and raiding our kids' piggy banks to make September's mortgage payment.

This is my 15th year in the teaching profession and 14th as a proud NJEA member. I have a masters degree and graduated summa cum laude from college, and I have finally reached point in my salary guide where I feel like I'm earning a respectable wage for the work I do. I'm not complaining. I knew going in that I would never be a millionaire, but when I looked at that pay stub, I must admit that I was disappointed once again. 

Despite a decent raise, I'm only taking home about $44 more a week. I guess I shouldn't complain. There are many public employees still stuck in the mire of Chapter 78 and are still seeing their paychecks decrease every year—a phenomenon we call "net negative" return. And there are education professionals in other states who fare far, far worse (more on that below). My local is one of the lucky ones. We bargained out of Chapter 78, but that doesn't mean we're rolling in dough. Soon, $44 a week won't even buy me a tank of gas.

So, where does all my money go? The biggest deductions outside of the standard state and federal taxes are—contrary to what 'reformies' would have you believe— not for union dues. No, they're for pension and health benefits—those 'Cadillac' benefits Gov. Christie loves to accuse us of lolling in while he lolls here:

Chez Christie

... or scopes out pricey real estate at the Jersey shore for life aprés politics.

Those vital health care benefits and deferred compensation that—thanks to Ch. 78—I now pay more for, work longer to receive, and get less of in retirement. But my dues deduction for that big, bad 'ole union that is sucking the life out of me and preventing me from taking home oodles of dough is less than 1/7 of what I contribute for pension and benefits combined. 

But, 'right-to-work' (for less) 'reformies' like the National Right to Work Committee, funded by the likes of the Koch Brothers and molded by countless hours in ALEC meetings, would have the general public believe that, if it wasn't for those damned greedy unions and the outrageous dues they fleece from their members, business would flourish! Workers would do fantastically, wonderfully well on the open market! We would suddenly command 6-figure salaries! Our careers and lives would be magically transformed for the better!

We know that the only entities right-to-work laws benefit are corporations. According to the IBEW:

"Right-to-work is part of a national anti-worker agenda that won't bring one job to the state or help a single family put food on the table," said Stephanie Bloomingdale, secretary-treasurer of the Wisconsin AFL-CIO. 

Right-to-work laws weaken workers' ability to collectively bargain by making it harder for unions to collect dues, driving down wages and benefits. The average worker in a right-to-work state makes $1,500 less a year than his counterpart in union-friendly states. 

Employees in pro-worker states are also more likely to have job-based health benefits. (emphasis mine)

How bad is it in right-to-work states? Consider Wisconsin. WEA members now face this every day:

• No due process protections
• No right to collectively bargain anything
• Teachers resigning in droves
• Schools of education enrollments plummeting
• Gender-discriminating dress codes that force female teachers to wear longer skirts and closed-toe shoes

And in right-to-work-for-even-less, North Carolina, lawmakers have taken it a step further, eliminating salary increases for post bachelors degrees. How would you like to go to bed at night with these stats invading your dreams?

So, what do I get in return for those dues which Gov. Christie—in his $4,000 Cartier gold cufflinks—and some of his GOP cronies in the New Jersey state legislature call outrageous and outlandish? Well, for less than what I pay for my cell phone bill every month I get this:

• Due process protection. The reassurance that, if a whistle needs to be blown, a student needs to be protected, a wrong needs to be made right, or an administrator just doesn't like me, there is a legal process through which I can state my case. Contrary to 'reformy' spin, it won't provide me with a job for life.
• Professional development. The NJEA Convention is one of the largest and most comprehensive professional development conferences in the country. And yes, I do attend, and if you're an NJEA member, you should, too.
• Equal pay for equal work. Union salary guides guarantee that I won't make 70¢ on the dollar simply because of my gender or my age; and my credentials and experience—not my cronyism—drive my compensation.
• Support. Like any family, my union brothers and sisters and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but when push comes to shove, we are all on the same page when it comes to providing our students with one of the best public education systems in the country. And no, that system didn't come from Christie, Cerf, Hespe and Company. It came from us—200,000 strong—doing our jobs every single day, despite sometimes overwhelming odds and under tremendous pressure to solve all the ills of the world.
• Help. Education professionals know there are no 'failing' districts in this state. We know
  
  the issues some schools face go far deeper than a 'pass/fail' label. We know that the solution isn't to close schools and disrupt communities. And we know that our union provides help that is SMART—not some rhetoric-filled, pie-in-the-sky mumbo-jumbo devised by people who've never set foot in a classroom.
• Political Power to endorse candidates and affect election outcomes. And, more than anything else, that's something 'reformy' folk desperately want to take away from us, because once they control the vote, they control everything.

There ain't no 'reformy' organization that will ever provide any of this (and more) to people who work in right-to-work-for-less states. The only things you are guaranteed are job insecurity and less take home pay.

So, when Gov. Christie and Co. make stupid comments like this:

"What we know now is, more money alone does not translate into a better education," Christie said. "Better teaching methods, more instruction time and improved educational programs make the difference."  

Allowing the status quo to continue would be "criminal," Christie said. 

... I can say true, more money alone—without an evidence-based plan—won't make a difference. And neither will less. And neither will the 'status quo' which is not what Christie accuses us of perpetrating. Quite the opposite. These days the 'status quo' is the cockamamie schemes he and his puppets at the DOE come up with to cut that money from school budgets—especially those most in need. The 'status quo' is drill and kill, punish students, punish teachers, close schools, flip 'em to charters, and hold us all accountable for their failures.

The status quo is not professional educators being given the resources and support to do great things in the classroom. No, the status quo is Gov. Christie telling the world how horrible our poorest and neediest schools and students are, how "greedy and selfish" their educators are, and us fighting him tooth and nail.

The only things standing between Gov. Christie and the complete annihilation of public education in New Jersey are the unions— NJEA and AFT—and the sensible and reasonable elected officials in Trenton who know that he is nothing more than a shill for the corporate 'reform' movement.

So, when I look at my paycheck and see that dues deduction, I know it's a small price to pay for the continued welfare of our students and our state's future.

402 more days until Gov. Christie's reign of terror comes to an end. We can do this.

Wishing you all a successful and fulfilling 2016-2017 school year.

 

Study Commission Pt.3: What Public Testimony?

In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I dissected the report issued by the Study Commission on the Use of Student Assessments in New Jersey. In Parts 3 and 4 (coming tomorrow), education activist Sue Altman reports on the public testimony that was not only downplayed in the final report in terms of numbers of persons who testified, but completely ignored in the commission's recommendations.

Here's Sue's report:

On three separate dates in early 2015, in three locations in New Jersey, over 200 individuals testified on the issue of high stakes testing in New Jersey as part of the Study Commission on the Use of Student Assessments in New Jersey.  It took a full year for the report to be published to the public; in fact, while the original document was dated November 30, 2015, the document was not released to the public until January 11, 2016.  This was the same day as a Board of Education meeting at which I spoke on this very issue:

​.  

So, who testified?

The Department held testimony at three locations, and also provided an opportunity for people to submit testimony via email.

Submitted Written Testimony	118
Jersey City	26
Jackson	42
Blackwood	23
TOTAL:	209

(The State report states there were 100.)

Jerseyans from all walks of life took part in this democractic exercise, and that in itself is inspirational.  There were people who identified themselves as parents, teachers, businesspeople, concerned citizens, students, representatives from other groups, and more.  (Note: some people double-affiliated, such as "I am a parent of two girls and a business owner.")  

What did the testimonies say?  

The testimonies were OVERWHELMINGLY anti-PARCC, anti-testing.  I coded each testimony as "Overall supportive of PARCC/high-stakes testing," "Overall negative on PARCC/high-stakes testing," and "Mixed."

Of the 209 testimonies, THREE were "pro-testing," THREE were "mixed" and 204 were "negative."

Let me repeat that.  97.1% of people who drove to all corners of NJ in the midst of a polar vortex were NEGATIVE AGAINST HIGH-STAKES TESTING and PARCC.   

I can't think of anything else in the whole universe that 97.1% of New Jerseyans would agree on, except maybe that the world is better with Bruce Springsteen in it, the Shore is fun in the summer, or that traffic sucks.  I mean, really, challenge yourself to think of something less controversial.  For those of us who are visual learners, I kid you not

​:​

And yet, when they published the report, the State barely acknowledged this outcry.  They only admitted to three themes from the testimonies (time spent testing, accountability concerns and technical difficulties).  But, these are not the biggest concerns raised, and are a bit of a strawman. (Strawmen?) Of course the time spent testing is a concern, but the concerns are not limited to the actual time, and are much deeper than that. And, accountability concerns, especially the ones mentioned in the report (teachers being evaluated on material they don't even teach) is a no-brainer. I'm embarrassed for them that they admitted to learning about this only through public testimony. Mentioning

​

technical difficulties— well, that was a bit of a humblebrag given that Hespe has already said there were fewer than they expected.  The other ideas in these testimonies, the stuff that parents and citizens actually witness in their day-to-day lives with their own children,

​the stuff that ​

would be incredibly useful if someone were actually interested in learning about the effect PARCC is having on children and families—was ignored.

The state even went out of their way to claim, "In this report, the Study Commission seeks to clearly demonstrate it has listened to and considered the comments and has responded and provided clarification, as appropriate. The Study Commission acknowledges the concerns that have been voiced about the issue of overtesting in the State’s public schools and its impact on instruction."

And yet, what makes this so difficult to swallow is that the recommendations issued do NOTHING to remedy this concern at all, and in fact have made it much, much worse. So ok, you "demonstrated" you "listened to" the comments, but you sure did not demonstrate you cared about democracy or public opinion. Has there ever been a more clear-cut case of tokenism?

So listen up NJ: The state never wanted to hear your opinions, they just wanted to say they held a commission, they "listened," so they could publish this report. It was a foregone conclusion all along; we were all duped.

But I still think the testimonies are worthwhile. In my next post I'll publish the themes from the testimonies, and bit about why it all really

​ ​

matters.  

Update on One Parent vs. #OneNewark

Yesterday I wrote about Frankie Adao of Newark's Parent Power Movement infiltrating a One Newark enrollment center to gain information for parents who are not being provided with it. 

Frankie just posted this on Facebook (emphasis mine): 

This is some of the crap charters in Newark are pulling. I also spoke to another parent at the Enrollment Center today. First her daughter, without parental guidance, picked where she wanted to go to high school. [This girl was on the] honor roll from 5th - 8th grade, but didn't score too well on testing. One choice she picked was a charter. The charter told her she didn't have the stamina to keep up with the pace of the school and would be best served in a traditional public school. 

The struggle continues...

Charter schools in Newark are cherry picking their students, and yet, they have the nerve to call themselves 'public schools'. And Christie, Cerf, Hespe and all the rest of the ed 'reformers' who sit in their plush offices in their expensive suits and collect their big +6 figure salaries and never, ever have to worry about where their next meal is coming from or if they can pay the rent or who will watch their kids while they work the graveyard shift have the unmitigated gaul to say the expansion of charter schools is the miracle cure for Newark's 'failing' schools because it offers parents and students 'choice'. 

What a load of crap! The expansion of charter schools is doing one thing and one thing only: lining the pockets of investors by culling the easiest and least expensive students to educate from the public schools so as to drain them of money and 'success'.

The parents and students of Newark are fighting the good fight. Please follow them on social media and support their efforts.

Follow the Newark Parent Power Movement on Facebook and Twitter @ParentPowerMov. Follow the Newark Students Union on Facebook and Twitter @NewarkStudents.

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.

Guest Post: NJ Legislators Need To Stand Up For Our Children

By Christopher Tienken, Ed.D. and Julia Sass Rubin, Ph.D.

(Note from Marie: The Assembly sponsors of A4165/S2767 are listed at the end of this post. A link to contact information for every NJ state legislator is on the right side of this page. Please read the following, then click on the link and contact your legislator.)

The first administration of the experimental new PARCC high-stakes standardized tests is only weeks away and parents are increasingly concerned. Hundreds of families have notified their school districts that their children will not be taking the PARCC tests. 

Approximately one-fifth of all New Jersey school districts have responded by assuring parents who refuse the test that their children will be provided with an alternative location, or at least the ability to read in class, while their classmates take the test.

Other districts, however, have taken a much more punitive approach, threatening to force children as young as eight to remain in the testing room with no other activities except sitting and staring for the two-week duration of the test.  Some districts have even threatened students whose parents refuse the test with disciplinary actions. 

In response, parents are asking the New Jersey legislature to intervene and pass A4165/S2767. This legislation requires all districts and charter schools to provide consistent, humane treatment for children whose parents refuse standardized tests.

As growing numbers of legislators indicate their support for A4165/S2767, officials within the New Jersey Department of Education have apparently initiated a campaign to block its passage by claiming that the proposed legislation would cost districts precious dollars. Specifically, the NJDOE is arguing that the US Department of Education would use powers it has under the No Child Left Behind law to cut Title I funding for any schools that fall below 95 percent student participation levels on the PARCC. 

Keep in the mind that the proposed legislation does not direct parents to have their children opt-out or refuse the state mandated tests. The proposed legislation simply asks for a consistent statewide policy of humane treatment for children whose parents choose to refuse the testing. As more school administrators decide to make students needlessly “sit and stare” for two weeks of testing, plus up to two additional weeks of make-up testing, it is imperative that the legislature act to protect children from such treatment.

So will the US Department of Education take your school's Title 1 funds if this legislation becomes law?

The answer is NO, and here are some reasons why.

1. There is no federal or state law that requires financial penalties to schools’ Title I funds if parents refuse to allow their children to take the PARCC tests. 

The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law did include a mandate that required schools to have a 95 percent participation rate on state tests or face sanctions. The intent of that law was to prevent schools from hiding subgroups of students from the accountability structure and was not aimed at preventing parents from refusing to have their children tested. 

However, since 2012, NJ has had a waiver to NCLB that replaces those sanctions with a new accountability system.

Under the waiver, only schools designated “priority” or “focus” schools face direct intervention for missing state targets. New Jersey’s 250 priority and focus schools can have up to 30 percent of their federal Title I funds re-directed by the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) for specific “interventions,” but even these funds are supposed to be used for school improvement, not taken away.  And the NJDOE already has the ability to redirect a part of the Title I allocations received by priority and focus schools.

2. No federal financial penalties related to Title I instructional funds have been imposed on any New Jersey school for missing the 95 percent participation rate. 

And missing the 95 percent participation rate at the school level is not unusual in New Jersey. 

According to NJDOE data, last spring, nine schools in seven New Jersey districts had overall schoolwide NJ ASK participation rates below 95 percent; 175 schools in 104 districts had participation rates below 95 percent for at least one of the student subgroups (e.g., special needs, Limited English Proficient, economically disadvantaged, etc.).[i]

None of those schools experienced any federal financial repercussions to Title I funds. In fact, no school has ever lost Title I funds due to punishment by the federal government for missing the 95 percent participation rate.

3. Other states have laws that protect parents’ right to opt their children out or refuse high-stakes standardized testing and no federal financial penalties of any sort have been imposed on schools in those states as a result of these laws. 

For example, in Wisconsin “Upon the request of a pupil's parent or guardian, the school board shall excuse the pupil from taking an examination administered under sub. (1m).” [ii]

In California, a “parent or guardian may submit to the school a written request to excuse his or her child from any or all parts of any test provided pursuant to Ed Code Section 60640.” [iii] 

4. The US Congress is rewriting the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) – the federal legislation that mandates annual standardized testing. 

A reauthorized ESEA may completely eliminate the federal interventions that are in the current version of ESEA and is likely to give individual states much more decision-making authority when it comes to accountability and testing mandates. 

So the NJDOE’s threat of Title I funding cuts at local schools seems premature at best given the past practice of the United States Department of Education to not sanction NJ schools’ Title I Funds for missing the 95 percent participation rate. The moral imperative for the NJDOE, the NJ Legislature and for individual school districts should be to act in the best interests of New Jersey children, and that means treating students humanely if their parents choose to participate in the democratic tradition of dissent.

Christopher Tienken is an Associate Professor of Education Leadership, Management, and Policy at the College of Education and Human Services at Seton Hall University. .

Julia Sass Rubin is an Associate Professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University and one of the founding members of the all-volunteer pro-public education group Save Our Schools NJ.

---

[i] http://www.state.nj.us/education/schools/achievement/index.html

[ii]  http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/118/30

[iii] Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, Division 1, Chapter 2, Subchapter 3.75.

A4165 Sponsors:   Diegnan, Patrick J., Jr.   as Primary Sponsor Jasey, Mila M.   as Primary Sponsor Caputo, Ralph R.   as Primary Sponsor Auth, Robert   as Primary Sponsor Benson, Daniel R.   as Primary Sponsor Rible, David P.   as Primary Sponsor Eustace, Tim   as Primary Sponsor Vainieri Huttle, Valerie   as Primary Sponsor Gusciora, Reed   as Primary Sponsor Pinkin, Nancy J.   as Primary Sponsor McKeon, John F.   as Primary Sponsor Garcia, Carmelo G.   as Co-Sponsor Giblin, Thomas P.   as Co-Sponsor Caride, Marlene   as Co-Sponsor DeCroce, BettyLou   as Co-Sponsor Identical Bill Number: S2767   Turner, Shirley K.   as Primary Sponsor

'College and Career Ready': the big, fat myth of standardized testing

Hats off to Delran, NJ Education Association President Mike Kaminsky (@MKaminskiNJ) and his leadership team! They are doing excellent work in the push back against education 'reform'. Not only did they recently host both a showing of "Standardized" (trailer above), and a Take the PARCC night, Delran also threw down the gauntlet with this very powerful statement against standardized testing, posted on DEA member and fellow ed blogger, Ani McHugh's Teacherbiz blog:

We, the members of the Delran Education Association, believe that authentic, teacher-created assessments are an important component of any successful instructional program. However, we stand in defiant opposition to the New Jersey Department of Education’s obsession with the use of high-stakes standardized testing, both in our own district and in districts across this state. 

And that's just the beginning. It's a perfect overview of education 'reform' and standardized testing for folks who haven't read every book that's been published on the subject over the past few years.  

Show me the money!

Along with about 350 other concerned parents and educators, I attended the Take the PARCC event, which was a BYOPD affair. The first half hour was spent trying to get everyone in the room logged on to the Pearson website to take the sample test. I'm hoping that all works out statewide on actual testing days because Acting Commissioner Hespe assures us that over 90% of school districts across the state are tech ready. And for those that aren't, he's got about $1.3 million in grant money... for the whole state. 

Gov. Christie has cut close to $5 billion in education funding since he was first elected, and the devastating effects are still being felt. So I'm happy that the state managed to scrape together a few bucks for cash-strapped school districts. I'm sure the good people of Bernards Township, one of NJ's many affluent and successful suburban districts, are thrilled that, despite their hefty property tax bills, they will have to raise about $900,000 to replace their turf fields, which have a shelf life of 10 years, because the state could only cough up $58K to help 'em out with their tech upgrades. That's a whole lotta bake sales.

Source: Bernards Twp. School District website

The state itself has spent about $27 million so far to gear up on their end. Where'd they get that money? The pension system and the transportation trust fund have been raided to the bone, but we magically have $27 mil to—oh silly me! The money must be found because this is for the edupreneures children.

Angry Birds? No, Angry Parents!

Once everyone was logged on, Ani and Mike led the audience through some of the nuances of the platform, and it quickly became clear that this test is first and foremost about computer skills. If the students don't have them, they won't do well—period. The size of a Chromebook screen isn't much bigger than an iPad. Students have to read passages and mathematical equations, answer questions, keystroke essays and scroll through text on something with which many have very little experience. And it starts in third grade. Many administrators know this, so they're scrambling to get as many of these devices into the hands of as many students as possible. I don't care how much time the average 8-year-old spends on the computer, playing Angry Birds for hours is a whole lot different than this:

That's 9 days of testing, folks: 5 in March and 4 in May. Once that sunk in, the demeanor of the room quickly changed. The Q&A session progressed rapidly from 'how can this happen?' to 'how can I opt my kid out?' Several parents stood up to announce community groups and Facebook pages they've started in order to organize and inform other parents. So much for Hespe telling us at the NJEA Convention that he isn't "aware of any opt out movement in the state." By the end of the night, I think there were more interpersonal connections made than Internet connections.  

The biggest takeaway of the night was this: Parents have to lead this revolution. Teachers can and do lead the fight on other ed 'reform' battles, but the front lines on testing must be filled with parents. And my money is on the parents of special needs children because they always have to fight, and this one's gonna be particularly ugly.

The big, fat myth

The bottom line is that Common Core and the PARCC will not magically make every child #CACR—'college and career ready'. It's not about developing a generation of super students or magically lifting every single child out of poverty. It's all about money, and the money is the hostage. The message Arne Duncan sends to school districts all across the country is this: if your students don't hit their cut scores, you don't get your money. If it really, truly were about helping all students succeed, K-12 educators would not have been given a seat at the table, we would have been given the whole damned table. If it really, truly were about helping all students succeed, K-12 educators would be able to rely on their own assessments to guide their instruction, instead of assessments developed by people who are not necessarily K-12 educators and that may be scored by Craig's List hires or robots (yea, don't get me started). 

Case in point: I was recently interviewed by New Jersey News12 on the state's gear-up for the PARCC. Commissioner Hespe was also interviewed. To be fair, much of an interview gets left on the cutting room floor. The reporter spent about a half hour interviewing me for what amounted to a 30 second sound bite. But, listen to Hespe's comment at the 2:28 mark:

[PARCC is] going to prepare students for the tests of the future.

That is what Hespe thinks the PARCC will do, and I don't know about you, but that scares the bejeezus outta me. The flawed tests are based on a flawed set of standards that the teachers must teach so the students can get better and better at taking flawed tests. 

For all the data mining that now happens to our children, the founding fathers of CCSS and PARCC refuse to acknowledge some startling data from the US Census Bureau, brought to you by ed blogger extraordinaire, Lloyd Lofthouse: 

• 26% of [US] jobs do not require a high school degree, but only 11.8% of the adults who dropped out of high school are qualified for these jobs. More than half are overqualified.
• 40% of the jobs require a high school degree, but more than 88% of Americans have a high school degree—more than double the jobs that require this much education.
• For the sake of simplicity, I’m going to combine everyone with a college degree—associate degree, BA, masters, professional and doctorate—and only 27% of the jobs in America require one of these college degrees, but 53% of the adult population might be qualified for these jobs—more than twice the number required. 

This means a large sector of the American work force is highly over educated and working in jobs that don’t require the education they earned, because those jobs do not exist. 

In addition, if there are shortages of skilled workers in some fields, how can that be blamed on the public schools, teachers and teachers’ unions? After all, Americans pride themselves on the freedom of choice regarding their lifestyles, and our children and adults make academic choices as they age. For whatever reason, these choices lead to dropping out of high school or staying in school to graduate and/or go on to earn an associate, BA, professional or doctorate degree. If an individual majors in the wrong field, do we blame K–12 teachers for that, too? (emphasis mine)

Another ed blogger, Leonard Isenberg, who writes at perdaily.com summed it up this way:

50% of recent college graduates with degrees are working at jobs that do not require one, e.g. waiter. Add to this the fact that the total capacity of all colleges and universities in the U.S. is just 30% of high school graduates and one wonders what the rest of students are supposed to do in a privatizing education culture that has closed public school industrial arts and other alternative career and trade programs.

So, students are graduating college with Cadillac degrees only to find work in the Edsel factory. The CCSS and PARCC will not solve that problem, but they will make a boatload of money for the testing industry. And while college debt is at record highs, that debt, unlike corporate debt, isn't erased in bankruptcy.  

Essential questions

Parents, before you make sure your child is well-rested and well-fed for test days ('cause the other 171 days aren't really important), blogger Peter Greene, has put together this handy list of questions for you to bring to the next NJ State Board of Ed meeting January 7th:

The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers... is a magical magical test. It can tell with absolute precision, how prepared your student is for college or career because, magic. And who wouldn't want to know more about the powerful juju contained in the PARCC test. 

So if Mr. Hespe and any of his friends come to explain how crucial PARCC testing is for your child's future, you might try asking some questions.

• Exactly what is the correspondence between PARCC results and college readiness. Given the precise data, can you tell me what score my eight year old needs to get on the test to be guaranteed at least a 3.75 GPA at college?
• Does it matter which college he attends, or will test results guarantee he is ready for all colleges?
• Can you show me the research and data that led you to conclude that Test Result A = College Result X? How exactly do you know that meeting the state's politically chosen cut score means that my child is prepared to be a college success?
• Since the PARCC tests math and language, will it still tell me if my child is ready to be a history or music major? How about geology or women's studies?
• My daughter plans to be a stay-at-home mom. Can she skip the test? Since that's her chosen career, is there a portion of the PARCC that tests her lady parts and their ability to make babies?
• Which section of the PARCC tests a student's readiness to start a career as a welder? Is it the same part that tests readiness to become a ski instructor, pro football player, or dental assistant?
• I see that the PARCC will be used to "customize instruction." Does that mean you're giving the test tomorrow (because it'a almost November already)? How soon will the teacher get the detailed customizing information-- one week? Ten days? How will the PARCC results help my child's choir director and phys ed teacher customize instruction?
• Is it possible that the PARCC will soon be able to tell me if my eight year old is on track for a happy marriage and nice hair?
• Why do you suppose you keep using the word "utilize" when "using" is a perfectly good plain English substitute?
• To quote the immortal Will Smith in Independence Day, "You really think you can do all that bullshit you just said?"

The PARCC may look like just one more poorly-constructed standardized math and language test, but it is apparently super-duper magical, with the ability to measure every aspect of a child's education and tell whether the child is ready for college and career, regardless of which college, which major, which career, and which child we are talking about. By looking at your eight year old's standardized math and language test, we can tell whether she's on track to be a philosophy major at Harvard or an airline pilot! It's absolutely magical!

Never has a single standardized test claimed so much magical power with so little actual data to back up its assertions. Mr. Hespe would be further ahead to skip his fancy final paragraph and just tell his people to look parents in the eye and say, "Because the state says so." It's not any more educationally convincing than the magical CACR bullshit, but at least it would be honest. (emphasis mine)

But for all its promises of miraculously making every single child in the United States 'college and career ready', the PARCC test is quickly wilting under the bright lights of scrutiny. As of this writing, only 12 of the original 26 states that signed on, plus the District of Columbia, are participating. When K-12 educators do not take an active role in designing the curriculum and the accompanying assessments, the result is a deeply flawed, poorly executed grand experiment that will ultimately crash and burn.

Final thoughts

As the US moves more and more toward an education system like China's, China has seen the error of its truly rigorous ways and is moving more toward a system like what ours used to be—one that embraced minds like Einstein's as something to be celebrated and nurtured, not standardized. 

.@pasi_sahlberg & David Hespe: A Tale of Two Education Leaders

Lest anyone think I was a fat-cat, lazy teacher, raking in the chips at a high-rollers roulette table at the Borgata last week, I actually attended the NJEA Convention—the largest professional development convention for educators in the United States.

There are no coincidences

I don't believe in coincidence. Too many things have happened in my life for that word to be relevant. Case in point: here's what happened last week:

• I read an article in the Star Ledger about why Dutch children are happier than ours
• I listened to Pasi Sahlberg's keynote address at the NJEA Convention in Atlantic City—a town whose economic fortunes seem to change like the tides that wash its shores every day, and right now, the tide is out 
• I attended the meeting with Acting NJ Education Commissioner, David Hespe, also at the Convention
• I read this post on Wallet Hub ranking the best and worst school systems in the country. 

Please excuse me while I puff up my chest with pride... Lookie who's #1:

... and look who's at the bottom: some of the highest concentrations of poverty in the country, including Michelle Rhee's 'miracle'—Washington, DC:

About the Dutch 

According to the article,

UNICEF recently conducted a study of twenty-nine industrialized nations and found that the Netherlands ranked highest in three out of five areas: educational well being, material well being, and behavior and risks. This study, named Child Well Being in Rich Countries, correlates with the findings of numerous other studies noting that Dutch children are seemingly happier.

Among the study's notable findings:

• The Netherlands retains its position as the clear leader, and is the only country ranked among the top five countries in all dimensions of child well-being: material well-being, health and safety, education, behaviors and risks, and housing and environment.
• Four Nordic countries — Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden — sit just below the Netherlands at the top of the child well-being table.
• The bottom four places in the table are occupied by three of the poorest countries in the survey — Latvia, Lithuania and Romania, and by one of the richest, the United States.
• Indeed, the United States and Romania were the only two countries out of 29 surveyed to rank in the bottom third on all five measurements of childhood well-being. (emphasis mine)

The wealthiest nation in the industrialized world does not value the health and well-being of its children. 

That, dear readers, should be plastered over every picture of every jackpot bonanza on every billboard leading into this city-on-life-support. And it should be on the cover of every standardized test booklet Pearson prints.

Yea, so that won't happen. But I bring you the next best thing: Pasi Sahlberg's keynote speech and David Hespe's Q&(non)A with teachers—all within 24 hours! If you're not sure who Sahlberg is, read his bio here. Blogger Ani McHugh (TeacherBiz) wrote an excellent review of his talk. You can view his Power Point presentation here. Pull both up on your screen as a comparison to what follows. 

Before we get into the meat of Hespe's session, here's a handy little pocket guide to Finnish vs. US education (all quotes are Sahlberg's):

Before Hespe took questions, he talked about where we were, where we are and where we're going. As he talked, the groans, murmuring and comments from the audience increased. In the interest of readability, I've interspersed audience questions with his presentation comments.

So, do you have Ani's blog post open? Ok, here we go!

On 'college and career readiness' (whatever that means)

He started by acknowledging that there is an achievement gap between the rich and poor in NJ—finally! We are one of the highest-achieving states in the nation, and we should be proud of that, but our bar is set too low. He showed a slide of 4-year college graduation rates in NJ which he said aren't good enough. I'm sorry, I don't have a photo of this slide. It was tough to photograph in that room. If anyone has it, please post. He blamed this on students not being 'college and career ready'. Too many college freshmen have to take remedial math and language arts classes. 

Not being satisfied with the data he provided, I did a little research of my own and found a nifty little website chock full of all sorts of data. 

Consider this overview of NJ's state universities:

Not too shabby.

Or this comparison with the rest of the country:

I am not an education researcher, but I do know that data is often manipulated to tell a certain side of a story. These links to nj.gov websites provide additional info on NJ higher education. I invite you to do your own research:

• Enrollment numbers 2001-2011
• Retention numbers 2011 and 2012 

While Hespe and his ilk are quick to blame 'bad teachers', not enough 'rigor' and not enough standardized testing, the students themselves have a different take:

Students say they are delaying their degrees because of class-scheduling difficulties and overcrowded courses or the pressures of juggling part-time jobs and financial problems. That means many full-time undergraduates are taking five, six or more years to get a bachelor’s degree, if they finish at all.

Hmmm... the state hasn't fully funded our community colleges as per the law for years. Could there be a correlation? Call me crazy, but isn't it possible that this generation of college students—the first to go through some or all of their K-12 education in the NCLB years—is simply a product of that failed policy? Have the language arts and math college placement exams ever been evaluated? Do we know that they are true measures of what students should know? How much money do colleges and universities make on them? So many questions; no answers. 

On tech readiness for PARCC

Hespe claimed that over 90% of schools are technologically ready for PARCC testing. Cue audible groans and protestations from the audience. During the Q&(non)A, several educators told him their horror stories with practice PARCC tests: servers crashed, answers lost, not enough equipment, students not ready or able to keystroke essay answers. Even though school budgets have been slashed and staff laid off, the tests must go on! So districts are scrambling to find money to pay for all the upgrades which can cost anywhere from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Many are simply not ready because they don't have the money. But Hespe wasn't concerned. He said the DOE has about $1.3 million to give to districts throughout the whole state!  Yipee!! I feel so much better.

One educator wanted to know when the state was going to provide money to rehire all the lost staff. Pshaw! What a silly question! Why should districts re-hire bad teachers when data will solve every educational problem? 

On the opt-out movement

"I'm not seeing an opt-out movement in New Jersey."

"About 1/10 of 1% of parents are opting out."

"I see no opt-out movement in New Jersey."

Hey, Commish, check this out, and this, and this on Long Island. 

The PARCC was only piloted on about 10% of NJ students. It's only November. Once the rest of the state's parents see how much of their child's school year is spent on test prep, once they participate in the various 'Take the PARCC' events that are quickly popping up all over the state, once students are tested and their scores plummet (is anyone doubting they won't?), this movement is going to grow very quickly. This is not, as Arne Duncan said, 

white suburban moms who — all of a sudden — [realized] their child isn’t as brilliant as they thought they were, and their school isn’t quite as good as they thought they were.

This is a movement of concerned parents all across the state who are fed up with their child's education being hijacked by data collection and profit-making.

Data Dave, standardized testing and the CCSS

It is abundantly clear that data is Hespe's friend. I think he loves data more than he loves students. I can't tell you how many times he used that word. He was giddy with anticipation about how all the data the NJDOE collects will be used to solve all our socioeconomic problems and manufacture a super human workforce! He was adamant that parents are hungry for data! Yea, and standardized testing and data were huge parts of FDR's New Deal, and LBJ's Civil Rights Act, and Brown v. Board of Education, and Abbott v. Burke, and...

Questions and comments from educators on data, testing and the CCSS: 

"We do not need data! We know what to do for our students!" 

"You have more than a decade of data. What are you doing with it?"

"My child isn't failing standardized tests. Standardized tests are failing my child. What will you do?" 

"The data teachers are expected to manage is unmanageable! Data is garbage collection!" 

"There is no correlation between standardized tests and student achievement. Why not scrap the tests and go back to teaching?"

"Where are the accommodations for special education students on PARCC?" 

 "There is no data that says the Common Core State Standards are effective. How can you support them when they're not proven?"

"Other than test scores, how do we define and measure success?"

"Our kids aren't 'college and career ready' because we are a culture of testing!" 

  

Cuts to related arts and other programs

Comment: We need leadership from you to preserve the arts.
Answer: Teach across the curriculum.

On Camden

Questions and comments from educators:

"Since the state takeover of Camden, teachers do not have the materials and curriculum to do their job. The materials are coming from North Star Academy [charter school]." 

"How do you support teachers when you appoint a Camden superintendent with no teaching experience?"

"When will you come to low-income communities to see what's going on?" 

Hespe actually answered this last question. He simply said, "Done!" I hope the person who asked that question holds him to it.

On Student Growth Objectives

When he asked the crowd of several hundred how many wrote their SGO collaboratively with their administrator, less than 10 people raised their hands. 

A ray of hope?

To his credit, NJEA President Wendell Steinhauer did his best to keep the questions to 30 seconds and the crowd from wielding pitchforks and torches. There was a lot of calling out when a question or comment was cut off, or simply not answered—and there was a lot of that. Hespe is first and foremost a politician. As a Christie appointee, he is there to do his bidding. He may have taught college classes, but he has absolutely no concept of K-12 education. 

The one sign of hope is the new board president, Mark Biedron. In September the Garden State Alliance for Strengthening Education held a symposium to "present a statewide action plan to connect critical elements supporting New Jersey public school educators and effective teaching." The coalition's founding members are:

• NJ Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
• NJ Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
• NJ Education Association
• NJ Field Directors Forum
• NJ Parent-Teacher Association
• NJ Principals and Supervisors Association

In the audience were educators, legislators, NJ State Board of Ed members and DOE employees. I attended, and it was excellent. Too much to go into here, but suffice to say that it's a real plan to strengthen teacher training and retention in the state. Biedron and many in the state legislature are very excited about its implementation.

Final thoughts

The United States is indeed the most powerful country in the world. We can obliterate just about any other nation with the push of a button. But, can we really call ourselves the "greatest" when the plain, simple truth is we are neglecting our future—our children— because competition and profits are more important? 

Jesus said, "That which you do to the least of my brothers, you do unto me." No matter what your beliefs about him—whether the Son of God, a really smart guy or a fictional character—he was absolutely right. 

When it comes to educating our children, the US and NJ are absolutely wrong.