Yet More Influence of Money

The Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights just keeps on pushing standardized testing. Two articles in particular are troubling. This one from Vox, and this one from International Business Times (IBT). Both highlight the lobbying by big civil and disability rights groups for Congress to maintain high stakes testing in an effort to close achievement gaps of poor, minority, and disabled students. 

It's a noble thought that, in practice, is a disaster for those groups. I know I sound like a broken record, but please, someone, anyone, show me the data that demonstrates the closing of those gaps. Show me how tests given to students who have NEVER seen the material on the tests demonstrate anything worthwhile. Anything! Please. 

I recognize the place from which these civil and disability rights groups argue. That pre-ESEA, or IDEA, the people they represent were left out. Districts we not obliged to educate them. I'd like to think that in 2015 the thought of not educating someone in this country is utterly abhorrent. There are better ways to demonstrate growth, progress, achievement, rather than issuing poorly designed standardized tests and narrowing curriculum for the sole purpose of taking those tests. I don't care where you live in the US, that's exactly what's happened -- all in the name of "college and career ready," a term that no one has bothered to define, but, heck, it sure sounds good. 

The other day, Steven Singer noted on his blog that many of the civil rights groups had been asking for relief from standardized testing as late as last October. Now they want it. Politics and money are tricky, I guess. 

Once again, I've been obliged to go poking through the Gates, Broad, and Walton Foundations' websites and 990's looking for grants provided to the groups that signed on to not one, but two, press releases from The Leadership Conference in the last week. There were a couple of new faces on these two lists. 

I have written about the money here, here, and here. The money from just these three foundations is staggering.  

Here is the list from the 14th July 2105 Leadership Conference advocacy letter to the US Senate.

	Gates	Walton	Broad
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights	$2,930,868	----	----
Alliance for Education Excellence	$17,740,140	----	-----
American Association of University Women	----	----	----
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee	----	----	----
Association of University Centers on Disabilities	----	----	----
Center for American Progress	$6,448,809	$200,000	$771,676
Children’s Defense Fund	$433,178	----	$4,000
Council of Parent Attorneys & Advocates	----	----	----
Democrats for Education Reform	----	----	----
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund	----	----	----
Easter Seals	$384,747	----	----
Judge David L. Brazelon Center for Mental Health Law	----	----	----
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law	----	----	----
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)	$943,687	----	----
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)	$1,325,077	----	----
NAACP	$2,456,106	----	----
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund	----	----	----
National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities	----	----	----
National Center for Learning Disabilities	$124,315	----	----
National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools	----	----	----
National Center on Time & Learning	$1,311,003	----	$1,571,500
National Council on La Raza (NCLR)	$33,331,260	$2,419,330	----
National Disabilities Rights Network	----	----	----
National Down Syndrome Congress	----	----	----
National Indian Education Association	$1,944,230	----	----
National Urban League	$5,156,017	$40,000	----
National Women’s Law Center	----	----	----
New Leaders	$20,718,314	$1,800,000	$2,653,000
PolicyLink	$1,882,828	----	----
Southeast Asian Resource Action Center (SEARAC)	$1,680,105	----	----
Southern Education Foundation	$500,056	----	----
Southern Poverty Law Center	----	----	----
Stand for Children	$13,449,716	$3,136,134	----
Teach for America	$12,405,267	$77,109,586	$20,855,440
Teach Plus	$17,094,388	$250,000	----
The Education Trust	$15,291,817	$1,283,000	$582,785
The New Teacher Project (TNTP)	$23,000,280	12,191,239	----
UNCF	$1,587,347,363	$3,535,030	----
Total	$1,767,899,571	$101,964,319	$26,438,401

Here is the list from the 16th July 2015 Leadership Conference other advocacy letter to the US Senate.

	Gates	Walton	Broad
The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights	$2,930,868	----	----
Alliance for Education Excellence	$17,740,140	----	-----
Association of University Centers on Disabilities	----	----	----
Children’s Defense Fund	$433,178	----	4,000
Council of Parent Attorneys & Advocates	----	----	----
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund	----	----	----
Judge David L. Brazelon Center for Mental Health Law	----	----	----
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law	----	----	----
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)	$943,687	----	----
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF)	$1,325,077	----	----
NAACP	$2,456,106	----	----
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund	----	----	----
National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools	----	----	----
National Disabilities Rights Network	----	----	----
National Down Syndrome Congress	----	----	----
National Urban League	$5,156,017	$40,000	----
Southeast Asian Resource Action Center (SEARAC)	$1,680,105	----	----
Southern Education Foundation	$500,056	----	----
Southern Poverty Law Center	----	----	----
TASH	----	----	----
The New Teacher Project (TNTP)	$23,000,280	12,191,239	----
Total	$56,165,332	$12,231,239	$4,000

Delran Education Association's Statement on NJDOE's Teacher Evaluation Data

You may have seen this week that the New Jersey Department of Education released teacher evaluation data from the 2013-14 school year. There have been headlines like "Which NJ School Districts Have The Most "Ineffective" Teachers?" and "Hundreds of Teachers in Monmouth, Ocean Counties Rate Poorly on State Teacher Evaluations."  They really get your attention, right? Sounds like the paper should have been delivered with a free pitchfork. 

But what do the ratings actually mean? What are the circumstances of the students in those districts? Will this have any bearing, at all, on how your child does in school? Can a teacher be "effective" one year and not the next? Is your child's special ed teacher measured the same way as the gifted & talented teacher, or for that matter, the regular ed teacher? Does it matter? 

Given the kind of blog I have, you won't be surprised that I think the teacher evaluation process is deeply flawed. I am horrified that anyone thinks they can quantify my daughter's annual progress, without actually looking at her work, and just using formulas and standardized tests, call it the "effectiveness" of her teachers. It sounds ridiculous because it is. 

Fortunately, in New Jersey, there are some very sane voices to counter the crazy and the hysterical. The collective voice of the Delran Education Association being among them. They released a statement yesterday on the evaluation system. For the folks who are fortunate enough to live in the sparkly districts of this state, you won't find many teachers being classified as "ineffective." Delran is no different. What does set this Education Association apart is strong leadership and the willingness to not sit down and shut up. They are fighting for their profession and for the education of your children. Please read their statement, consider it, and share it.

On Wednesday, July 15th, the New Jersey Department of Education released the 2013-2014 results of the state’s new teacher evaluation system.

As educators and members of the Delran Education Association, we are deeply committed to providing the best education possible to every child in our care—and the data published on Wednesday suggests that we are successful in doing so.

However, the new teacher evaluation system is so inherently flawed that the “results” released for schools across the state are not, in any way, an accurate representation of educator or district effectiveness. As such, any comparisons between school districts, between schools within districts, or even between teachers in the very same building are virtually meaningless.

There are many variables that have been consistently proven to affect a student’s ability to learn, and the Department of Education’s report ignores virtually all of them. The report does not show, for example, how many students with special needs each district serves–or whether or not those students receive the supports they need. It does not show how many students in any given district are non-native English speakers. It does not show whether schools are underfunded or adequately funded. It does not show whether the majority of a district’s students are living above or below the poverty line. And it does not show whether classes are overcrowded or adequately-sized. Already, and not surprisingly, news stories have emerged with headlines asking, “Which N.J. School Districts Have the Most ‘Ineffective’ Teachers?” It is no coincidence that most of the districts at the top of the list are grossly underfunded and understaffed, serve many students who live in poverty, have high numbers of special-needs and ELL students, and are in areas in which privatization efforts—driven by the narrative that teachers and schools are “failing”—are evident at every turn. No one should be surprised when the results from this meaningless evaluation report are used to justify such privatization efforts.

Further, the Department of Education’s report does not acknowledge the subjectivity involved in the interpretation of the approved evaluation frameworks (i.e. Danielson, McRel, Stronge, Marshall, etc.). Even within a single building and using the same evaluation model, there can exist great inconsistency among the administrators tasked with “evaluating” teachers by subjectively interpreting generic rubrics that reduce the art of teaching and learning to a checklist. Indeed, two administrators watching the same teacher and referring to the same rubric often arrive at and assign very different scores, since interpretation of even the most specific—or standardized—rubrics involves subjectivity. An administrative team can certainly manipulate a rubric to achieve the types of scores they would like to see, and teachers across the state have reported such practices in their own buildings. Many teachers report being evaluated by an administrator who prides him/herself as being the “lowest scorer” among the administrative team, for instance, while others receive predictably-good marks from administrators who consistently assign high scores. For this reason, many local associations, like our own, have begun to track patterns in evaluators’ scoring—and have found unequivocal evidence that many evaluators’ scores can be predicted fairly accurately to a certain extent. According to the Department of Education’s report, one Mercer county school district rated 94% of its teachers as highly effective—whereas in our district, only 30% attained this level. Is either of these statistics meaningful or accurate if we can document and demonstrate evaluator bias?

Make no mistake: the solution to this problem is not to rely more heavily on the use of scores on equally flawed standardized tests to evaluate teachers–because ultimately, just as standardized test scores are not accurate or appropriate measures of student learning, they cannot and should not be used to determine teacher effectiveness. (Unfortunately, some teachers were evaluated using students’ scores on the NJASK—a test the Department of Education now says was virtually worthless—in the 2013-2014 academic year: another flawed aspect of the new teacher evaluation system.)

Ultimately, we believe that the best way for parents, taxpayers, and other stakeholders to determine the degree to which students are thriving in school is to examine students’ work regularly over the course of an academic year to see progress; maintain contact with students’ teachers to discuss students’ strengths and areas for improvement; and visit school regularly to see the kinds of programs—both academic and extracurricular–in which students participate on a daily basis. These authentic measures of student achievement and overall well-being are certainly more meaningful than unreliable numbers on a Department of Education spreadsheet.

The members of the Delran Education Association will continue to advocate for an evaluation system that is meaningful, consistent, fair, and aimed solely at improving teacher practice and student learning for the benefit of the children in our immediate care—instead of one designed primarily to rank and compare schools and teachers by oversimplifying the teaching and learning process and ignoring the many variables that influence student achievement and teacher effectiveness.

New Jersey’s Standards Review Committee

Maybe it’s just me, but it seems that the favorite way for the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE)/Gov. Christie to blow off immediate responsibility for anything is to create a Committee. The latest being the New Jersey Standards Review Committee. I can’t help the feeling of “here we go again.” Of course, since Gov. Christie announced (blindsided CCSS ardent supporters?) that New Jersey would be taking a formal look at the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), we were all wondering who would have seat at that particular table.

Following several weeks of speculation, NJDOE released the outline of the Committee. While there are actual educator seats and some new faces, like PTO, so are there the usual suspects: PTA, NJSBA, NJPSA, Chamber of Commerce, BIA, etc. I’m still not clear why two precious seats should ever go to entities that know nothing about education. Sorry, folks, the Chamber and BIA should have absolutely no say in what a first grade student learns or how.

Of course, as a special ed parent, my concern is the inclusion of our voices. When do special ed parents get a seat at the table? Initially, I was really pleased to see SPAN listed under the Parent seats. I wrote and asked if I could be the SPAN representative, hopeful that a leadership award bestowed upon me earlier this year by them might help my prospects. Unfortunately, SPAN said no, only an employee of SPAN can represent them. So, the one required special ed parent seat will be going to an employee of SPAN – not as a representative of parents, but of SPAN.

Effectively, that is also the issue with PTA. And, unfortunately, we all know where PTA’s allegiances lie. It’s not a difficult guess to think that PTA will fully support doing absolutely nothing to the standards when they take millions from the Gates Foundation.

So, what about PTO? Even having been on my district’s K-8 PTO board a few years ago, I didn’t really know the structure of PTO. It always struck me that there never appeared to be any position or direction from outside of our district’s organization. Turns out that’s because, according to the PTO website, the definition of a PTO is, “An independent parent group; in other words, any non-PTA group. Many acronyms—such as HSA, PCC, PTO, and more—fall under the independent group umbrella. (In this chart, we use “PTO” generically to mean any independent parent group.)”

This leads to the question…how does a parent from a PTO get chosen? SPAN will be using their own employee. PTA will likely do the same or choose someone from their state level board. No such structure exists for PTO. If your district has an HSA, SEPAC, PFO, etc. how are they going to know to nominate anyone for that seat?

For those of you wondering why a parent, who presumably does not have the professional credentials to evaluate standards or curriculum (not that that criteria has stopped the Chamber or BIA from serving on Committees), should have a seat at the table at all…we can be the ones, without political attachment, who can ask the really difficult questions and demand answers. Our “skin in the game” is our (collective) children’s future, not a pay check, not a political endorsement, and we have no fear of a job loss or gubernatorial appointment being withdrawn.

Remember the Rogers Commission on the Challenger disaster? There was ONE person, a Caltech professor, not affiliated with NASA, USAF, or any other government agency. He was able to ask the tough questions, and his fellow Committee members, including Sally Ride, fed him information behind closed doors, so he could investigate and ultimately (dramatically) demonstrated the O-rings’ lack of resilience to cold. He was able to get to the truth when no one else, regardless of their personal intentions, could do so.

The long-winded point is, once again, parents are out of the loop. Nominations are supposed to take place over the next couple of weeks. I’m guessing your local PTO is not buzzing with the latest news from around the state and they will miss this opportunity.

Newark Residents Should Select Their Next Superintendent

We believe that the people of Newark should be able to democratically govern their public schools. 

Fortunately, Mark Biedron, President of NJ’s State Board of Education, seems to agree.  Mr. Biedron recently told the Star Ledger that “the people of Newark having local control over the school district…is a good thing.” 

On Wednesday, Mr. Biedron will have an opportunity to act on this belief when the State Board votes on whether Chris Cerf should become Newark’s next Superintendent. 
If the State Board approves Mr. Cerf, it will be continuing a 20 year history of disenfranchisement for Newark’s nearly 300,000 residents, who have had no say in this decision.

If the Board rejects Mr. Cerf and instead approves a candidate selected by Newark’s popularly-elected Board of Education, it will be putting Mr. Biedron’s admirable philosophy into practice.

There is plenty of precedent for allowing Newark to select its own superintendent.
Newark, Jersey City, and Paterson are all state-controlled school districts.  Yet Jersey City’s popularly-elected Board of Education selected its Superintendent, Marcia Lyles.  Paterson’s Superintendent, Dr. Donnie Evans, was selected by a committee that included members of Paterson’s popularly-elected Board of Education, along with other community leaders.  In contrast, Newark’s popularly-elected Board of Education has had no voice in selecting Mr. Cerf, who was nominated for this position by Governor Christie.

Approving Mr. Cerf is also difficult to justify because Mr. Cerf lacks the qualifications necessary to run New Jersey’s largest school district.  Unlike Jersey City’s and Paterson’s leaders, Mr. Cerf has no prior experience as a superintendent. 

Nor is there a record of success in related public-education positions on which to base Mr. Cerf’s nomination.  In fact, Mr. Cerf’s tenure as New Jersey’s Commissioner of Education was marked by numerous poor decisions regarding Newark, including:

• Appointing and continuing to support Newark’s prior Superintendent, Cami Anderson, whose policies and behaviors generated broad-based rejection and rebellion from Newark residents;
• Improperly giving in to a demand from Ms. Anderson “to allow her to retain full control over 28 low-performing schools, which resulted in New Jersey failing to comply with federal requirements; and
• Forcibly maintaining State control of Newark's schools by dramatically lowering the district’s scores on the State’s monitoring system (QSAC) from the scores that Mr. Cerf had given the district less than a year earlier. 

The people of Newark deserve the right to select their next Superintendent.  They also deserve an experienced public education leader with a proven record of success.  Mr. Cerf’s candidacy fails on all these counts.

We encourage Mr. Biedron and the other State Board of Education members to vote no on Mr. Cerf’s nomination and to allow Newark’s popularly-elected Board of Education to nominate the district’s next Superintendent. 

Newark’s residents have been deprived of their right to democratically control their public schools for 20 years.  It is long past time to correct this wrong!

If you agree, please sign and share. Save Our Schools New Jersey will share the letter and list of people who have signed with the State Board of Education before Wednesday's vote. 

Rosie Grant, Piscataway, NJ

Parent and nonprofit leader

Michelle Fine, Montclair, NJ

Parent and professor

Judy DeHaven, Red Bank, NJ

Parent and writer

Valerie Trujillo, Jersey City, NJ

Parent and public education advocate

Jacklyn Brown, Manalapan, NJ

Parent and educator

Julia Sass Rubin, Princeton, NJ

Parent and professor

Linda Reid, Paterson, NJ

Parent and nonprofit leader

Melissa Katz, South Brunswick, NJ

Future educator

Bobbie Theivakumaran, Metuchen, NJ

Parent and investment banker

Lisa Winter, Basking Ridge, NJ

Parent, technology manager and former Board of Education member

Marcella Simadiris, Montclair, NJ

Parent and educator

Michelle McFadden-DiNicola, Highland Park, NJ

Parent and public education advocate

Bill Michaelson, Lawrence Township, NJ

Parent and computer scientist

Marie Hughes Corfield, Flemington, NJ

Parent and educator

Rita McClellan, Cherry Hill, NJ

Parent and administrator

Sarah Blaine, Montclair, NJ

Parent, attorney, and blogger

Susan Cauldwell, Spring Lake, NJ

Parent and nonprofit leader

Heidi Maria Brown, Pitman, NJ

Parent and educator

Julie Borst, Allendale, NJ

Parent and special education advocate

Susan Berkey, Howell, NJ

Parent and educator

Darcie Cimarusti, Highland Park, NJ

Parent and Board of Education member

Amnet Ramos, North Plainfield, NJ

Parent and educator

Elana Halberstadt, Montclair, NJ

Parent and writer/artist

Ani McHugh, Delran, NJ

Parent and educator

Jill DeMaio, Monroe, NJ

Parent

Tamar Wyschogrod, Morristown, NJ

Parent and journalist

Lauren Freedman, Maplewood, NJ

Parent and public education advocate

Lisa Rodgers, South Brunswick, NJ

Parent and business owner

Laurie Orosz, Montclair, NJ

Parent and public education advocate

Michael Kaminski, Mount Laurel, NJ

Parent and educator

Ronen Kauffman, Union City, NJ

Parent and educator

Frankie Adao, Newark, NJ

Parent and social media specialist

Kathleen Nolan, Princeton, NJ

Parent, researcher and lecturer

Sue Altman, Camden, NJ

Educator

Jennifer Cohan, Princeton, NJ

Parent and publicist

Daniel Anderson, Bloomfield, NJ

Parent and Board of Education member

Debbie Baer, Robbinsville, NJ

Parent and educator

Dan Masi, Roxbury Township, NJ

Parent and engineer

Susan Schutt, Ridgewood, NJ

Assistant principal and public education advocate

Karin Szotak, Madison NJ

Parent and business owner

Tiombe Gibson, Deptford, NJ

Parent and educator

Lisa Marcus Levine, Princeton, NJ

Parent and architect

Kristen Carr Jandoli, Haddon, NJ

Parent and public education advocate

Jean Schutt McTavish, Ridgewood, NJ

Parent and high school principal

Virginia Manzari, West Windsor, NJ.

Parent and businesswoman

Stephanie LeGrand, Haddonfield, NJ

Parent and public education advocate

Melanie McDermott, Highland Park, NJ

Parent and sustainability researcher

Nora Hyland, Asbury Park, NJ

Parent and professor

Beth O'Donnell-Fischer, Verona, NJ

Parent

Susie Welkovits, Highland Park, NJ

Parent and Borough Council President

Gregory M. Stankiewicz, Princeton, NJ

Parent and nonprofit leader

Margot Embree Fisher, Teaneck, NJ

Parent and former Board of Education member

Stephanie Petriello, Dumont, NJ

Parent, educator and business owner

Laura Begg, Bernards Township, NJ

Parent and public education advocate

Gary C. Frazier, Camden, NJ

Parent and community activist

Debbie Reyes, Florence Township, NJ

Parent

Christine McGoey, Montclair, NJ

Parent

Regan Kaiden, Collingswood, NJ

Parent and educator

Moneke Singleton-Ragsdale, Camden, NJ

Parent and administrator

Liz Mulholland, Westfield, NJ

Parent and former educator

Mary Shaughnessy, Bloomfield, NJ

Parent and writer

Toby Sanders, Trenton, NJ

Parent, pastor and educator