Posted on in Education

A Quick Micro View: 2018-2019 NYS ELA Data

I finally had time to sit down to review recently released 2018-2019 ELA State Assessment data for schools other than the school I teach at. Naturally, I went back to where it all started: the middle school I graduated from 13 years ago, MS 53 Brian Piccolo in Far Rockaway, Queens. Bare with me on this data dive.

Unfortunately, of the 216 students who were tested across grades 6-8, only a dismal 11% were proficient. Zooming in closer, 9% of scholars tested scored a level 3 and only 2% of scholars tested scored a level 4. And while one could fantasize that most of the remaining students resided at the cusp of proficiency with a high level 2, the reality is a saddening 65% fall under the level 1 category.

90% of scholars at MS 53 fall under the economically disadvantage category, which means they are eligible to receive free or reduced school lunch and live below the poverty-line. Of the 90% of scholars in this category, only 10% or 21 students were proficient. Lastly, 95% of the student body are students of color. This simply means that my middle school is a micro data-based view that students of color continue to not get the support they need to succeed.

More than that for me, my community needs to come together and do something to start and maintain a path to academic excellence. I know for sure that I need to be more active in playing a role in this special but much needed undertaking.

MS 53 ELA data: https://data.nysed.gov/assessment38.php?instid=800000042964&year=2019&subject=ELA&grades%5B%5D=6&grades%5B%5D=7&grades%5B%5D=8&prof24=0

Have fun digging through NYS assessment data here: https://data.nysed.gov/

 

Posted on in Education

Soho Forum Debate on School Choice

Tonight I attended a Soho Forum debate that focused on the following statement:

“Parents should have the choice to opt out of public schools and redirect the taxpayer tuition money for their children to other approved schools or educational options.”

Bob Bowdon, the executive director of ChoiceMedia.TV, an investigative video website devoted to education reform, argued in favor of the statement and Samuel Abrams, Director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University, argued against the statement. Bowdon gave an impassioned argument filled with the horror stories that undisputedly exist in the public school system: 

  • Unions that put teacher needs before students;
  • Miserably low test scores; and 
  • Low graduation rates

I have written about each of these topics  (see here, here and here) and Abrams acknowledges these issues in the public education system as truths. However, Bowdon’s argument for the increase in charter schools and voucher programs failed to admit that there are many charter schools and voucher programs currently in place that find students performing worse than the local public schools. He also did not note that both for-profit and non-profit charter networks and private schools that receive tax dollars through voucher programs  (Indiana is a good example) can go years with consistently dismal grades but remain open (see here); there’s little accountability. And if you are thinking that this is what is happening in the public school system also, then you are right. However, one of the crucial differences between the programs pushed by the Trump administration and Bob Bowdon and Sam Abrams and Diane Ravitch are that public schools are obligated to uphold certain student protections at BOTH the federal and state levels AND public schools are not making huge profits off of students. Yes, there can be gross mismanagement of funds. It does happen. But there is a certain level of accountability, exposure, auditing, and student-centered protections that are in place in the public school system that does not required of charter schools and private schools thar could receive tax dollars. 

To be clear, and I have said this several times in past posts, I do not think charter schools are inherently bad; they are not. I just care deeply about teacher protections (they have an exceptionally difficult job, especially teachers who work with students living in poverty).  But student protection, learning, opportunity, academic engagement,  social engagement,  and emotional well being should be the number one priority by a large margin.Whether an individual or company makes a profit should not be leveled with any this.

But back to the issues. I reckon Bob Bowdon did not mention these problems because, he, like many others, are conflating more school options with better quality schools (which I wrote about here). I think people hear the words “private school” and equate it with something that is inherently good. Bowdon mentioned that the Obama’s are not pro-school choice but choose not to send their daughters to public schools. He notes that they are more or less a part of an elitist group of people who, by there actions say, “choice is the best option for my children  but your students should be zoned to their local failing public school.” Bowdon’s point was that parents who can afford to choose do just that, but they also deny other families that right. Once again, I would argue that mere options is not enough. For Abrams, the problem lies with choosing to aggressively fund charter and voucher programs only ignores, and takes away from, the real root cause of bad schools, which is poverty. 

Poverty is a huge issue. Poverty and its relationship to schools is evident  (see here for a surface level and anecdotal example).  If you combine treating poverty as a non-issue with teacher unions that focus on protecting teachers at all costs (both Abrams and Bowdon provided examples of this–see here and here), you will get a failing system, to some degree. However,  we have enough evidence to show that charters and voucher funded private schools do not outperform traditonal schools. We have proof that both for-profit and non-profit schools abuse tax dollars and that CMOs and stakeholders come first (see here). And while there are students who are successful in charter schools and voucher programs, the only positive aspect to Bowdon’s argument was that families would have more control in what school their kids attend. But my long-standing questions surrounding quality and student protections have not been answered.

With that said, because Bowdon did not explain just how parents and students would be protected or that serious abuses occur in school choice expansion, I voted in favor of Abrams.

Posted on in Education

On AIR’s “Did School Improvement Grants Work Anywhere?”

The American Institute for Research published an article last month about why looking at the performance results for the Student Improvement Grant (commonly known as SIG) on a national level may not tell the whole story of SIG’s impact at the school or district level.

His point is that there are other factors that a national perspective needs to take into consideration, such as the role states and schools districts played into SIG’s success. AIR’s own study found that some districts were supportive and engaged with implementing the SIG policies that led to student improvement, while other districts in the program did not have the neccessary time commitment to make the program a success. With that said, it is hard to say that the program itself is not a a success, as the program, in some cases was not effectively implemented. AIR encourages the reader to dig a little deeper than SIG’s overall performance on a national level, and in doing so, we may find beneficial feedback on what parts of SIG worked for what types of schools. Just as important, a closer look would tell us what did not work and why.

This article brings to mind a larger issue with regard to data analysis and conclusions. To get a certain, probably biased, point across, policy makers, researchers, politicians, and journalists look at surface data that confirms their beliefs and then disseminate the information to the masses as truth. The clear danger in this is that we do not question what the story is not telling us. A basic example of this would be if a company ranks teacher salaries across a certain state or between the most populace cities. In this hypothetical situation, the site does not mention the cost of living in their results, which is a crucial component to understanding how teachers must use their salaries in order to teach. A more nuanced look at what teachers in each city or state have to spend would tell the reader that some teachers with the highest salaries have to to spend more than half of their net income on housing alone.

As a basis, students should constantly be taught ways to challenge and question how data and arguments are being presented. If this were done, would Trump be president?

Posted on in Education

People Are More Than Grades

A student’s academic ability is important. The fact that a student works hard to make progress is more important than her/his academic ability. In today’s testing society, in today’s environment where a student sits in a single-teacher classroom with 30 other students for 40 minutes of rushed geometry, in a society where someone as blatantly insecure and self-involved as Donald Trump is the commander-in-chief, it is also imperative that students continuously learn to care for themselves as individuals whose value is more than their academic abilities. This is not to say that academic performance is not important. It is just noting that academic performance is not the only factor in a student’s long-term, overall success in life. As a nation, we need to work on finding the balance between encouraging academic excellence, creativity, & growth and self love & love for others. In fact, an active conversation on any education policy change should consciously explore and deliberately discuss this balance.

I found the below on Twitter (I do not know who the author is):

Posted on in Education

More on Informing Parents on School Choice

According to a Times article published last week, Betsy DeVos said the following: “My faith motivates me to really try to work on behalf of and advocate for those who are least able to advocate for themselves.”

I keep asking myself how does this apply to families that do not have the resources to assess different schools available to their child? Whether it is tax dollars funding public schools, religious schools, or private schools, who should be accountable to objectively informing parents and guardians of school options?

Posted on in Education

We Need More Student Loan Education

The below quote was featured in the New York Times this week. It is absurd that people have been allowed to take out this much money in federal loans to attend a for- profit school that had a history of less than dismal performance. We are not doing enough tho educate people on all things related to student loans/ tax funded loans.

​Another borrower, Victoria Linssen, applied in October for forgiveness on the $50,000 in federal loans that she had taken out to study photography at the Brooks Institute in Ventura, Calif., a for-profit college that shut down last year after extensive regulatory criticism and penalties. The college lied about its accreditation, its job placement rate and the wages its graduates earned, Ms. Linssen said. (emphasis mine)

Posted on in Education

The Issue with Parent Choice

As I mentioned in my previous post, three weeks ago, Besty DeVos spoke before congress for the first time since her confirmation. Of course, the topic of school choice was consistently brought up. In her responses, DeVos kept framing school choice as parent choice, which is the idea that local governments and parents, above all, know whats best for their child, and they should decide exactly which schools are deserving of those tax dollars. 

But is that true? In theory, it sounds nice, but do all parents inherently know what is best for their child? What i mean to ask is are all parents equipped with tools that will inform them on different types of schools, curriculum, education policy, and school culture that exist? Most middle and upper income families probably have the resources necessary to make an informed decision about their children’s education. But what about families who have a history of/ currently live in poverty? You know, the  families that voucher programs and school choice advocates claim they want to protect? Are these families, who have been exposed to and may only have access to low-performing schools, given the right tools to make a just decision for their children? 

School/parent choice reform assumes that if students are allowed to move around more freely from school to school, then that means they will go to a high quality school. Parents mean well. Parents want the best for the children. But if parents simply do not have the resources to investigate whether or not a school is actually the best school for their child, as opposed to whether the school seems like the best school for their child (via accessible marketing and school representatives who know how to sell a dream), is parent choice, in this respect, more harmful than beneficial? Of course, parents who send their child to what they thought was a good school but turns out to be a bad fit for their child can will send their child to another school. But at that point, the damage is done, and switching from school to school has its own negative effects. So the  real questions are:

  1. What will the Trump/DeVos adminitration do to better inform parents on school choice? 
  2. Is informing parents on educational opportunities yet another issue for states to deal with, if states deem it important? 

Unfortunately, while parents are well intentioned, there are for-profit schools, like k-12, Inc., that prey on those good natured but vulnerable parents. We need to talk about parent and family protections when it comes to school choice. We need to not regard parent education and awareness as a taboo issue. And, yes, we need to be careful to inform parents of options and not push our opinions on whatever we think are the best options.

Posted on in Education

DeVos: States Role to Protect Vulnerable Voucher Students 

In her first public hearing since her highly contested confirmation, Besty DeVos advocated for a budget that would allow all types of schools to both receive federal tax dollars and discriminate against minority students, if a school’s state allows it. Actually, as indicated in her confirmation hearing, the budget gives states most of the power when it comes to protecting students. The budget simutaneously slashes the DoE’s Office for Civil Rights. DeVos’ whole agenda is to give power to states and parents, but without intervention and proper oversight, this proposal opens itself up for us to see some of the most vulnerable student populations lose much needed protection.

Watch the full hearing:

Posted on in Uncategorized

de Blasio to Expand Community School Initiative

Mayor de Blasio announced earlier this month that the DoE will expand the number of schools participating in his Community School Program, a program that provides low-performing schools with added resources, such as mental health, additional instruction time during the school day, and concentrated parental outreach. The program has only been an existence for two years, and while peformance results of those years have been mixed, the expansion seems worth it.

Students in participating schools are years below appropriate reading and/math levels. Depending on what grade a student is in, she could have been exposed to as much as 12 years of less than sub-par teaching/social support (or lack thereof). The impact of those years could be deleterious to the point that two years of support is likely not enough to rectify that damage. That is not to say that it would take 12 years to make up for the neglect but just that a mere two years is not sufficient to notice real positive change . During the time of a school’s poor performance, students are consistently experiencing, dealing with, and internalizing any combination of mental, social, familial, economic, and academic issues, which make up who they are at the moment these additional services come into play.

With that said, what is so admirable about the program is that it aims to help alleviate some of the burden that poverty places on students. The program acknowledges that poverty is an issue. Expanding the program would only provide researchers with a wider data set to validate the program’s level of success; whatever success is defined as.The Bloomberg administration, on the other hand, focused more at the macro-level: closing entire schools and replacing them with smaller traditional public or charter schools. Though I don’t enitrely disagree with this method, perhaps a combination of both closing schools and providing additonal support could be the way to go. Creating smaller classes sizes (not neccessarily smaller schools), revamping the faults of a failing school’s culture and providing additional support, seems to be a more cohesive, well rounded solution that treats school reform as more of a complex issue than de Blasio or Bloomberg’s policies do their own.

“Reforming schools is a complex, slow process. To rush it is to ruin it” – Pasi Sahlberg

Posted on in Education, Opinions on Politics

Politicians Give Public “Confession” on American “Sins” in Capitol

This week, the “A Man of Prayer” event  was hosted in Washington, D.C. For some, the title of the event says it all: surely the event, at the very least, is celebrating religion(s) of some sort and attendees are probably religious. If one takes a look at speakers and attendees, she would recognize the names/faces of several senators and congressman, if not by name then by their honorific title. This, in and of itself, doesn’t say much, though some may find their participation as a little less innocuous than others. The fact that the event was held in the U.S. Capitol raises a red flag but maybe not one of a pronounced Crayola marker.

But if you dig a little deeper by watching speeches of some of the event’s speakers, reading the outlined event’s purpose, and knowing the event was streamed live to churches across the country, you may immediately Google “separation of church and state” to ensure that the Establishment Clause was not made unlawful in the few hours since you last checked the news. Of course the issue is not that politicians are religious or that they say as much. After all, they too have the right to freedom of religion and speech. The issue here is that politicians are using their positions to push the agenda of their particular religion. Randy Weber, a Texan congressman demonstrates this in a disturbing “speech,” which is nothing less than a confession on behalf the United States that outlines all of our country’s perceived “sins,” such as not requiring the bible as part of public school students’ curriculum and gay marriage. His confession states that he believes he tried to prevent those “sins” but have failed God, his God, a Christian God. Weber states:

“Lord thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth, here in the halls of congress in our nation’s capital, Lord may your will be done….Lord, I’m confessing several of the sins our nation has been embolden to embark upon…we have endeavored to try to kick your word out of public schools. Father, we have endeavored to take the bible out of classrooms, the Ten Commandments off the walls. Father, forgive us…” 

There is not a single mention or allusion to figures, literature, or laws of other religions. He could have mentioned Judaism’s King David or Islam’s prophet Muhammad or Hindu’s Veda, for example. The use of Christian verbiage and the exclusion of all non-Christian verbiage makes it clear that he is does not have an intersectional perspective. It does not bare in mind all religions or any other one religion, for that matter; just the one. So when he says, “…here in the halls of congress in our nation’s capital, Lord may your will be done…”

Furthermore, Speaker of the House of Representative Paul Ryan gave a religious-infused speech that, much like Rep. Weber’s confession, was laden with Christian components, such as scriptures from the New Testament, which, like Rep. Weber, disregards and outcasts other religions practiced in this country. The speech was then, as required, posted  on Ryan’s government website. One highlight includes the following:

“But in these days after Easter, we reflect on the power of resurrection…on the ultimate truth that our lives are transformed by our belief in God.”

It’s blatant that these politicians use their political positions as a vehicle to work on behalf of practitioners of their own religion. To do so is to simultaneously impose their specific religious beliefs on those who do not believe in that religion. Put simply, these politicians are not representing the people, as they said they would. They’re representing a particular religious group of people and working to apply those beliefs to all people, regardless of religion.

How is this constitutional? What I really care about is why haven’t they been penalized in some way, if not fired? I do not understand how someone in their role as politicians can use federal government space to publicly broadcast a specific religion’s beliefs is not a clear and direct violation of the Establishment Clause.

In any other professional setting, acts like this, one that goes against and is in violation of the fundamental responsibility of the employee, people are fired or reprimanded in some way. And while politicians have the right to practice whatever faith they believe in and represent their constituents, the law requires they not impose their religion on another. What politicians at the “A Man of Prayer” event demonstrated is akin to a Christian being hired by a Jewish, secular, or Muslim organization to fulfill the requirements of that organizations beliefs but instead the Christian persistent to apply Christian beliefs in an environment that explicitly asked him to do otherwise. The employee’s goal for the job does not match the employers. This contention can be resolved by letting the Christian employee go or by said employee to fulfill the wishes of his employers. Politicians, in fact, have secular role. It is a politician’s job to separate religion and government. Here, we have politicians doing just the opposite. Laws should be passed and advocated for based on logic and not simply because a religious text says it should be passed.

Why do we allow politicians to carry out the needs of one religious group, as if there are not laws in place that prohibit this?

The upside is that not all politicians disregard their right to respect the multitude of religions in this country. Joe Biden had an exemplary response during a 2012 VP debate.

I hope that all schools, public, private, religious, and others, are using this as a current example of how the a government officials can abuse their position for their own benefit.