Cuomo Proposes Sweeping Education Reforms

[DeniseNY]

nypost.com/2015/01/21/cuomo-proposes-sweeping-education-reforms/

Cuomo conceded he was picking a high-stakes fight with powerful interests, but said it was a necessary battle to improve the state’s schools.

Under Cuomo’s new accountability measures, half of teachers’ evaluation ratings would be tied to how well their students perform on state standardized exams, up from the current 20 percent.

Classroom observations by school officials and an independent educator would account for the other 50 percent.

The Cuomo plan also seeks to block school districts from giving failing teachers a pass.

I find it really hard to disagree with him on this.

 

[robwar]

Standardize tests are not the end all/be all in education. What will happen is that teachers will teach towards the standardized test not towards what students need to learn. You are placing too much emphasis on standardize testing and there are a number of hidden issues with that such as some students actually do not test well, standardized testing is problematic for students with special needs and finally who really is behind the making of standardize tests and what should be included on the test. It sound real good to “hold teachers accountable” but his plan is just another smoke screen and power grab in education.

 

[revert_jen]

Another problem with that plan is that it penalizes teachers (further) for working in impoverished areas, where the teacher has less control than usual on how well students do on standardized tests.

–Jen

 

[meltzerboy]

Standardize tests are not the end all/be all in education. What will happen is that teachers will teach towards the standardized test not towards what students need to learn. You are placing too much emphasis on standardize testing and there are a number of hidden issues with that such as some students actually do not test well, standardized testing is problematic for students with special needs and finally who really is behind the making of standardize tests and what should be included on the test. It sound real good to “hold teachers accountable” but his plan is just another smoke screen and power grab in education.

As an instructor, I completely agree with you. Some teachers are already teaching towards the standardized test, and this has in fact been an issue of contention for several decades, as I remember when my mother was a public school teacher. Of course teachers who are failing according to multiple criteria–including a combination of student performance, principals’ evaluations, parents’ complaints, and so on–have no business remaining in the system. There is nothing surprising about this. At the same time, however, teacher unions (not a dirty word, necessarily) do fight for teachers in case they are wrongly accused or subject to political bias by supervisors or administrators for whatever reason. This is important as well. Andrew Cuomo has drastically cut state budgets to education, including higher education, at a time when both teachers and administrators need more money for equipment such as computers as well as for hiring new full-time teachers, guidance counselors, and learning specialists to help special-needs students. I’m sorry but this Governor is no friend to public education.

 

[DeniseNY]

Standardize tests are not the end all/be all in education. What will happen is that teachers will teach towards the standardized test not towards what students need to learn. You are placing too much emphasis on standardize testing and there are a number of hidden issues with that such as some students actually do not test well, standardized testing is problematic for students with special needs and finally who really is behind the making of standardize tests and what should be included on the test. It sound real good to “hold teachers accountable” but his plan is just another smoke screen and power grab in education.

Power grab by whom and from whom is the power being grabbed? That’s not a snarky question, by the way. Would really like you to expand on this, and what you think the rationale behind it is.

 

[robwar]

Power grab by whom and from whom is the power being grabbed? That’s not a snarky question, by the way. Would really like you to expand on this, and what you think the rationale behind it is.

school districts should be locally controlled. When the state starts to over emphasize the things that Cuomo is pushing which is holding teachers accountable by the use of standardize tests, that is a state power grab and ignores local issues and differences between different areas of the state. There are going to be differences in the student population between different parts of any state. Looking at NY, there is going to be a different type of student from NYC to Buffalo to Lake Placid and it isn’t fair to make some one size fits all in a standardize type of test and have everyone succeed at it and if not, it’s the teachers fault so off with their head. This doesn’t serve anyone bu those that make up these tests and push them on stupid politicians.

 

[JimG]

Those in control of schools should be parents, not the state, not the governor.

 

[powerofk]

As an instructor, I completely agree with you. Some teachers are already teaching towards the standardized test, and this has in fact been an issue of contention for several decades, as I remember when my mother was a public school teacher. Of course teachers who are failing according to multiple criteria–including a combination of student performance, principals’ evaluations, parents’ complaints, and so on–have no business remaining in the system. There is nothing surprising about this. At the same time, however, teacher unions (not a dirty word, necessarily) do fight for teachers in case they are wrongly accused or subject to political bias by supervisors or administrators for whatever reason. This is important as well. Andrew Cuomo has drastically cut state budgets to education, including higher education, at a time when both teachers and administrators need more money for equipment such as computers as well as for hiring new full-time teachers, guidance counselors, and learning specialists to help special-needs students. I’m sorry but this Governor is no friend to public education.

Seriously, this has been going on around the country. New Mexico already has this in place. But the biggest problem? According to NCLB, only math and reading are tested. Teachers who do not teach math or reading have half of their evaluation based on elements largely out of their control. This is especially true in high school, where the students are only given the test once in their entire high school careers. There are many teachers who never even meet most of the students that they are being graded on, especially if the teachers teach a senior-level class. In real-world corporation terms, this would be like a person from accounts payable having half his/her evaluation based upon gross receipts from the sales department. It doesn’t make sense.

Also, standardized tests should only be one of many measures to determine student learning, especially due to the fact that, if schools really met the objectives of NCLB (100% proficient), the testmakers would consider the tests invalid! Test designers actually try to design the tests so that the scores naturally fall upon the normal distribution (bell curve), with the median/mode/mean all being about the same, at about a 50% score. Should the distribution vary significantly from the normal distribution, the test designers decide that the test is not a valid test. And - the corporations that make the tests are also the same corporations that write most school textbooks (this is especially true now, as the PARCC - the Internet-based test aligned to Common Core - is written by Pearson Education, the #1 textbook publisher in the US; Common Core is pretty much a way for Pearson to have a virtual monopoly in the K-12 textbook market).

Honestly, if I had my way, I would put in a 3-year cycle regarding testing, and not test in 3rd grade or below (testing now is every year from 3rd-8th grade and once in HS - at minimum). 4th, 7th, and 10th grade would have testing in reading, writing, and math. 5th, 8th, and 11th grade would have testing in science and social studies (including US, state, and world history and geography; US, state, and local government, etc.), and 6th, 9th, and 12th grade would put together project-based portfolios to demonstrate their learning and how it connects across content areas. And - only one testing period per year. We need to eliminate short-cycle assesments (which don’t even align to the state tests), twice-a-year language assessments, and the like.

 

[Neofight]

nypost.com/2015/01/21/cuomo-proposes-sweeping-education-reforms/

I find it really hard to disagree with him on this.

If your child takes a one hour music lesson a week, and does not pick up the instrument until the next lesson, he will fail.

The problem is teachers only have students 6 hours a day, and parents have them for 18 hours…teachers can teach, but if parents don’t encourage or mandate application of what is taught, the student is likely to fail.

A better solution might be to require parent of failing students to refund to tax payers the cost of the wasted money spent on education.

 

[SWolf]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Those in control of schools should be parents, not the state, not the governor.

Yup.

The local school board should be the end of discussions. The parents should ultimately decide the administrator and teacher competence. Not a test.

 

[meltzerboy]

Those in control of schools should be parents, not the state, not the governor.

What degree in education or specific content area do parents have to be in control of schools? And do most parents have time for this additional job? Perhaps teachers should be in administrative control of schools. They’re the ones who teach the material, have the education and subject matter credits as part of their training to be instructors, and are the professionals who are in charge of the students’ learning during most of the school day.

 

[St_Francis]

The ones who should be penalized for poor test outcomes ought to be (gasp!!!) the students. Letting people who can’t read graduate indicates a major problem all along the line.

 

[meltzerboy]

The ones who should be penalized for poor test outcomes ought to be (gasp!!!) the students. Letting people who can’t read graduate indicates a major problem all along the line.

What? Not the teachers, not the administrators, not the parents? No passing the buck? Students actually have to study hard and learn? What a novel and strange idea!

 

[LisaA]

Standardize tests are not the end all/be all in education. What will happen is that teachers will teach towards the standardized test not towards what students need to learn. You are placing too much emphasis on standardize testing and there are a number of hidden issues with that such as some students actually do not test well, standardized testing is problematic for students with special needs and finally who really is behind the making of standardize tests and what should be included on the test. It sound real good to “hold teachers accountable” but his plan is just another smoke screen and power grab in education.

But what is your solution? These schools are FAILING the children. There is plenty of blame to go around…teacher’s unions, unmotivated or uninvolved parents, children arriving at kindergarten not even knowing numbers and the alphabet.

Further what is wrong to “teaching to the test.” If one of the criteria is that children learn to add, subtract, multiply and divide by grade X then their ability to achieve these goals not only demonstrates the teachers’ skills they provide the building blocks for future learning. I think people get too much into the cliche of “teaching to the test” as if that not what teachers have done for hundreds of years!

My suggestion is let the dollars follow the child and not force kids to stay in an area of dreadful schools. Geography shouldn’t be destiny

 

[DeniseNY]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Yup.

The local school board should be the end of discussions. The parents should ultimately decide the administrator and teacher competence. Not a test.

The state already sets the qualification and licensing standards. Better the individual states than the Feds…

In reality, how would a model like this work, and not be completely arbitrary? I also can’t imagine the teachers union being ok with this (I’m basing this on the assumption that in all/most states the removal of a teacher goes to abritration above the local level and they are subject to state labor laws. Could be wrong on this; however)

I appreciate everyone’s feedback and points of view on this

 

[LisaA]

Although I hate to put too much emphasis on studies, I did hear of one that said no influence has more impact than the quality of the teacher. An effective teacher can help move children’s level of knowledge significantly and a bad teacher’s students will be static if not decline.

One fair way to test teachers is not to compare each child to a standard model (is this was NCLB or Common Core do?) but to test the children at the beginning and end of the year and see the difference. This demonstrates what the teacher can and cannot control. If the kids get to Mrs Smith ill prepared then she has to start at a lower level and shouldn’t be penalized if they don’t move as swiftly as those from a teacher who did a better job getting the students on track.

I still believe that giving every kid a voucher to be used whereever they want would improve schools. Competition improves all parties and if some failing school knew it had to compete to keep students, it might be more proactive in promoting great teachers and dismissing bad teachers.

 

[powerofk]

Although I hate to put too much emphasis on studies, I did hear of one that said no influence has more impact than the quality of the teacher. An effective teacher can help move children’s level of knowledge significantly and a bad teacher’s students will be static if not decline.

One fair way to test teachers is not to compare each child to a standard model (is this was NCLB or Common Core do?) but to test the children at the beginning and end of the year and see the difference. This demonstrates what the teacher can and cannot control. If the kids get to Mrs Smith ill prepared then she has to start at a lower level and shouldn’t be penalized if they don’t move as swiftly as those from a teacher who did a better job getting the students on track.

I still believe that giving every kid a voucher to be used whereever they want would improve schools. Competition improves all parties and if some failing school knew it had to compete to keep students, it might be more proactive in promoting great teachers and dismissing bad teachers.

First, yes, once-a-year testing is what NCLB requires (Common Core actually started as a multi-state-based attempt to try to save money on the testing mandated by NCLB and to make better comparisons regarding education across the states; Obama then decided to use Common Core in his “Race to the Top” initiative - and it’s Obama’s use of Common Core in his “Race to the Top” initiative that made Common Core unpopular with the GOP, as Common Core was originally a GOP idea). Some states (like New Mexico) have added 3-times-per-year benchmark testing in addition to the NCLB-mandated tests. The problem? The benchmark testing does not align with the NCLB-mandated tests or the Common Core standards. And yet teachers are graded on both how well their students improve from one year to the next on both the NCLB-mandated tests (now the PARCC-the test designed for the Common Core test) AND on the benchmark testing.

Another problem is that the PARCC test is computer-based. Most schools do not have the computer access for all students to take this test at the same time, so they are rotating in shifts when their students take the test. This ends up giving the teachers whose students test later in the testing window a slight advantage, as there is more time to teach material taught on the test.

A third problem is how to grade teachers who do not teach subjects tested in the NCLB-mandated tests. Only math and reading are mandated to be tested under NCLB. As such, middle-school & high school science and social studies teachers (along with elective teachers at every level) do not teach classes tested under NCLB. If we are going to grade teachers based on how their students do on the test, there are only a few options. Either we hold these teachers accountable for circumstances outside their control (by grading them based on how the students in the school do on the NCLB-mandated tests), design tests specifically for their subject areas (which means even more testing for the students), or change NCLB so that it mandates testing in science and social studies, as well.

Finally, Common Core means a common test (the PARCC). This means the test is written by one company (Pearson Education). Since Pearson has a monopoly on the test, they can charge how ever much they want to the states to purchase the test - wiping out about half of a state’s education budget. In addition, Pearson is also the country’s number 1 textbook publisher - and since they write the PARCC, they can use the knowledge of what is on the test to push textbook sales, giving them also a near-monopoly in textbook sales. This means trying to push a nearly universal line of thinking across state lines. Honestly, in theory, Common Core seems like a good idea - but in practice, it’s not.

 

[LisaA]

First, yes, once-a-year testing is what NCLB requires (Common Core actually started as a multi-state-based attempt to try to save money on the testing mandated by NCLB and to make better comparisons regarding education across the states; Obama then decided to use Common Core in his “Race to the Top” initiative - and it’s Obama’s use of Common Core in his “Race to the Top” initiative that made Common Core unpopular with the GOP, as Common Core was originally a GOP idea). Some states (like New Mexico) have added 3-times-per-year benchmark testing in addition to the NCLB-mandated tests. The problem? The benchmark testing does not align with the NCLB-mandated tests or the Common Core standards. And yet teachers are graded on both how well their students improve from one year to the next on both the NCLB-mandated tests (now the PARCC-the test designed for the Common Core test) AND on the benchmark testing.

Another problem is that the PARCC test is computer-based. Most schools do not have the computer access for all students to take this test at the same time, so they are rotating in shifts when their students take the test. This ends up giving the teachers whose students test later in the testing window a slight advantage, as there is more time to teach material taught on the test.

A third problem is how to grade teachers who do not teach subjects tested in the NCLB-mandated tests. Only math and reading are mandated to be tested under NCLB. As such, middle-school & high school science and social studies teachers (along with elective teachers at every level) do not teach classes tested under NCLB. If we are going to grade teachers based on how their students do on the test, there are only a few options. Either we hold these teachers accountable for circumstances outside their control (by grading them based on how the students in the school do on the NCLB-mandated tests), design tests specifically for their subject areas (which means even more testing for the students), or change NCLB so that it mandates testing in science and social studies, as well.

Finally, Common Core means a common test (the PARCC). This means the test is written by one company (Pearson Education). Since Pearson has a monopoly on the test, they can charge how ever much they want to the states to purchase the test - wiping out about half of a state’s education budget. In addition, Pearson is also the country’s number 1 textbook publisher - and since they write the PARCC, they can use the knowledge of what is on the test to push textbook sales, giving them also a near-monopoly in textbook sales. This means trying to push a nearly universal line of thinking across state lines. Honestly, in theory, Common Core seems like a good idea - but in practice, it’s not.

Believe me, I am NOT a fan of NCLB or Common Core. I do know its genisis and that it is still championed by a number of Republicans although for most it’s anathema.

I am opposed to ANY national testing, particularly when there are monopolies on the tests.

Would you address my suggestion that school choice might be a major step to improving schools as we continue to work to dismantle CC? I am not in education so I don’t know from the trenches, only from what I have seen in practice…that schools outside the stranglehold of public education seem to have better results, particularly when placed in minority communities…the Christo Rey schools and the De La Salle schools. Preventing every child from the opportunity to attend the best school for him or for her is evil and panders to the adults not the children.

Frankly I was SHOCKED by the display of violence, nastiness, and frankly illiteracy among teachers from Chicago who went on strike for more money despite their cushy salaries and the ABYSMAL record of their students. I am pro teacher but not pro teacher union. I think they should go away completely.

 

[powerofk]

Believe me, I am NOT a fan of NCLB or Common Core. I do know its genisis and that it is still championed by a number of Republicans although for most it’s anathema.

I am opposed to ANY national testing, particularly when there are monopolies on the tests.

Would you address my suggestion that school choice might be a major step to improving schools as we continue to work to dismantle CC? I am not in education so I don’t know from the trenches, only from what I have seen in practice…that schools outside the stranglehold of public education seem to have better results, particularly when placed in minority communities…the Christo Rey schools and the De La Salle schools. Preventing every child from the opportunity to attend the best school for him or for her is evil and panders to the adults not the children.

Frankly I was SHOCKED by the display of violence, nastiness, and frankly illiteracy among teachers from Chicago who went on strike for more money despite their cushy salaries and the ABYSMAL record of their students. I am pro teacher but not pro teacher union. I think they should go away completely.

Albuquerque has a multitude of school choices - not only are students in-district allowed to transfer to any other school in the district (should it have space), but there is also a plethora of charter schools, “schools-of-choice” (alternative high schools with different focuses), and private schools (mostly Catholic and other religious-based schools, but some secular private schools as well). What’s happened to the quality of the neighborhood public schools? Not a whole lot. And though there are students going to the other schools available, it’s just not a feasable option for the majority of parents. Why? Because the other schools (a) don’t have transportation available (all of them), (b) have enrollment limits (charter schools & private schools), (c) have entrance exams (the private schools), (d) require tuition (private schools), (e) do not have special education services (all of them, though charter schools are required by law to have SpEd services, it is minimal), (f) often do not have bilingual/ESL services (some charter schools have this service as part of the charter, but it is rare among other schools).

As for vouchers - most of the people asking for vouchers are parents who send their students to private school anyway and want it to be cheaper for them. Unless a voucher were to cover ALL of the tuition at a private school, it wouldn’t matter to the millions of families who rely on their education to be free (in fact, if public education weren’t free, their children wouldn’t go to school at all).

As for the union, tenure, & other stuff - primarily tenure is in place to protect teachers from new bosses firing the teachers who were there before them and stacking the staff with the new bosses’ friends (believe me, this used to be extremely rampant). And the union is a double-edged sword. Not all teachers or education staff lives the high life. I’m working as an educational assistant, and would make more money working at Wal-Mart full time. Last year, I got my first real raise in 5 years (I had a small raise the year before, though it was less than a cost-of-living-adjustment) - and am not expecting another one for quite some time due to the state spending half of its education budget on the PARCC.

 

[LisaA]

P

Albuquerque has a multitude of school choices - not only are students in-district allowed to transfer to any other school in the district (should it have space), but there is also a plethora of charter schools, “schools-of-choice” (alternative high schools with different focuses), and private schools (mostly Catholic and other religious-based schools, but some secular private schools as well). What’s happened to the quality of the neighborhood public schools? Not a whole lot. And though there are students going to the other schools available, it’s just not a feasable option for the majority of parents. Why? Because the other schools (a) don’t have transportation available (all of them), (b) have enrollment limits (charter schools & private schools), (c) have entrance exams (the private schools), (d) require tuition (private schools), (e) do not have special education services (all of them, though charter schools are required by law to have SpEd services, it is minimal), (f) often do not have bilingual/ESL services (some charter schools have this service as part of the charter, but it is rare among other schools).

As for vouchers - most of the people asking for vouchers are parents who send their students to private school anyway and want it to be cheaper for them. Unless a voucher were to cover ALL of the tuition at a private school, it wouldn’t matter to the millions of families who rely on their education to be free (in fact, if public education weren’t free, their children wouldn’t go to school at all).

As for the union, tenure, & other stuff - primarily tenure is in place to protect teachers from new bosses firing the teachers who were there before them and stacking the staff with the new bosses’ friends (believe me, this used to be extremely rampant). And the union is a double-edged sword. Not all teachers or education staff lives the high life. I’m working as an educational assistant, and would make more money working at Wal-Mart full time. Last year, I got my first real raise in 5 years (I had a small raise the year before, though it was less than a cost-of-living-adjustment) - and am not expecting another one for quite some time due to the state spending half of its education budget on the PARCC.

Perhaps I didn’t explain myself in calling them vouchers. In our county it costs $XXXX dollars per year, per child in public schools. I suggest giving every child the allowance of those same dollars and attend the school of choice. I believe it is not simply rich people who want their kids out of failing public schools. Have you watched “Waiting for Superman?” and see the anguish of parents whose kids didn’t get in via the lottery system. Inner city parents also want a way out and yes there are obstacles of transportation but they can be overcome. Heck there was FORCED bussing for integration for many years.

It may be a while before the dust settles and the competition changes public schools but my objective is to focus on the students and do the best thing for as many as we can. If allowing kids to get out of their failing schools and succeed in getting a good education doesn’t change the public schools, at least some of the kids have benefitted by transferring out.

You’re right teacher’s unions are a double edged sword but again, if competition were part of the system and good teachers were rewarded with higher compensation based on merit not just length of service, I think more people would be attracted to teaching.

Please educators do not take this wrong but the reality is that when I was a little girl, all the smart girls said they wanted to be teachers or nurses. Now the smart girls can and do want to be doctors and attorneys and stockbrokers because there is more money in it. I think this has made the standards for teachers entering and exiting the schools of education drop over the years. I remember the absolutely brilliant teachers I had as a child but I assure you they were mostly wives of professionals and professors who had few other career paths in those days. Something needs to be done to attract bright ambitious and caring people back into this profession and the system now does NOT provide those incentives. Teaching is seen as something that allows you summers off, cushy benefits and a good retirement, even if it isn’t the best paying job now. That does not attract the best and brightest students for the most part. I had contact with education majors during college in various sociology and history classes. I was pretty underwhelmed to say the least.

Again not a rip on all teachers but to say the system is failing our kids for multiple reasons and this is yet another obstacle to improving our schools.