This fiscal gyration wipes out the current year shortfall and should make the promised increase in education spending more likely, so the result is an agreeable one. It makes me wonder if the governor’s flexibility might be adopted by others.
In October, SAANYS wrote to Commissioner King and the members of the Board of Regents asking that the State Education Department apply to the U.S. Department of Education for a one-year extension of the RTTT requirement for the implementation of the APPR law. The State of Delaware did so and had its application granted. Regardless, there seems to be little interest at SED in pursuing this course of action.

It seems to me to be increasingly difficult to engage in thoughtful discussion around the practical impact and the validity of our new APPR system. It is my observation that too many people are too quick to place an individual in one philosophical corner (“education reformer”) or another (“defender of the status quo”). Each label is frequently tagged with allegedly having unflattering characteristics (blindly attacking public education despite limited public education experience versus defending the lazy and inept despite the adverse effect on children), which may or may not be true, and most often are not.

Reasonable people may, and do, debate whether student growth scores are a valid means of measuring teacher or principal effectiveness, but being on one side or another does not equate to some kind of moral failure. One may argue that having 20 percent of an evaluation based on student growth scores is insufficient, or to the contrary, that 20 percent is far too high. In either case, the position adopted does not reveal an improper motive. A concern over the method of being held accountable does not equate to opposition to accountability. The state assessment system has an unstable past, and it is not unreasonable to want an accountability system that is built on a firm foundation, and not on 80 percent of one.

It is my hope that we can have informed discussions about the costs and practical front-line implementation issues without being labeled as obstructionists. I hope that those who create a system that they believe will help children will remain humble enough to accept that they too can learn from those who face life’s often unpleasant realities in our schools on a daily basis. I hope that there will be evaluations of the evaluation system as it is implemented, and that proponents of the system will have the courage to make changes should they be warranted. Let our governor serve as our guide; if circumstances call for a modification of earlier positions, let us not be afraid to ‘restructure’ ourselves to the right result.

“Change is only a mirage unless people actually experience the reality of improvement” (Fullan, p. 57).

Change is something we have become quite accustomed to over the past few years, but we are unsure whether those changes will lead to improvement in our school systems. Dr. Michael Fullan, internationally known for his work in educational leadership, knows how to move forward during the toughest of times. In his new book, Change Leader (2011, Jossey-Bass), Fullan offers educators ideas on how they can move forward during one of the most difficult financial times we have seen in our educational history. The keys? Reflection and Collaboration.

Fullan suggests that educators look within their own practice first before they read books and articles. That reflective practice has to be honest. They need to look at their practice through a critical lens that focuses on both the positive and the negative attributes of their practice. Lastly, those educators who are focused enough to move forward cannot do it alone. They must work collaboratively, across buildings and job responsibilities. That said, Fullan believes that school leaders have been forced to lead with the wrong drivers. The four wrong drivers are external accountability, focus on individuals, technology, and piecemeal reform efforts. He believes we should be focusing on: capacity building, teamwork, and other forms of collaboration, pedagogy, and systemic strategies. Basically, we should not be moving forward alone. We need our collective wisdom to get us through these difficult times.

Full story in the Fall issue of SAANYS Vanguard Magazine.

Anyone familiar with the APPR can point to numerous practical difficulties
in its implementation, untested assumptions in its premise, and a slew of
unfunded or under-funded mandates imposed upon districts at a time when
districts are suffering unprecedented financial stress. It is beyond the
scope and intent of this column to cite all of the problems informed
educators can identify in the APPR law. Instead, especially since current
litigation has put the legality of many of the critical implementing
regulations in doubt, it seems appropriate to slow down and reflect upon
where we are now, and if we should adjust some of our implementation goals.
We can readily draw parallels with the NCLB implementation.

When NCLB was introduced, many educators said that the inexorable graduated
climb to the academic nirvana of 100 percent proficiency of all students in
all districts (including all sub-groups) was a fallacy. Politically, it was
easier to say every child would be proficient than to say 100 percent
proficiency is not a realistic goal. It was overly simplistic posturing. The
hard truth is that we don’t know how to make every child proficient, for if
we did, well-meaning educators would not need the threat of sanctions to
implement an educational plan that would serve all children well. Good
politics trumped realistic analysis and the law was implemented.

As we move closer to the date when 100 percent proficiency is supposed to be
attained, the politicians realize they need to backpedal. Absent statutory
and regulatory change, the number of schools that will fall into
accountability status is about to explode because AYP is no longer
realistically attainable for most. For many, sanctions will be triggered,
such as mandatory school choice, 20 percent SES set-aside and Title I
penalties. We are now hearing about NCLB waiver applications from the states
being accepted by the United States Department of Education. The cynical
part of me characterizes this as a solicitation by the feds for political
cover of their earlier folly.

I think there is a lesson here for the hurried implementation of an
evaluation system that is clearly unsettled. The APPR law says it is to
begin to be applied in the 2011-12 school year, but also says it is subject
to collective bargaining in many critical areas. Current bargaining efforts
are stymied because the legality of the implementing regulations are
unsettled. On the state law side, let the bargaining process run its course
once it is known what may be bargained. As for New York’s RTTT plan for
submission to the feds, follow Delaware’s lead and apply for a one-year
extension of the APPR component of the RTTT plan. Delaware’s application was
granted. Could it be that the DOE (or the politicians) learned a lesson from
the NCLB implementation?  One can only hope.

The philosophical drivers are from many sources, but are commonly grouped together under the umbrella banner of the “education reform movement.” This movement includes any number of well-financed foundations (Gates, Walton, Broad, Wallace…), businesses, politicians, charter school advocates, individual philanthropists, as well as those such as New York City Mayor Bloomberg, who may fall into multiple categories.

The motives of those philosophically opposed to the status quo presumably are diverse, ranging from a heartfelt desire to do good to a pure profit motive, but there is no reasonable denial of their impact. They manifest themselves in many ways, some of which seem a little too cozy. Consider the
following:

1) Wireless Generation, a company that has worked with the New York City school system in the past, has a current $1.5 million no-bid contract with the New York City schools. Just this past June, Wireless Generation was set to receive a $27 million no-bid contract from the State Education Department to be funded from RTTT money until the state comptroller stepped in. Wireless Generation is owned by Robert Murdoch’s News Corp., which in turn employs Joel Klein, former Chancellor of the New York City Department of Education as the CEO of its education division.
2) In February, the regents approved the Relay School of Education, the first new education school it has approved in 80 years, to train teachers in a non-traditional manner. The Relay School grew out of Teacher U, a partnership between three charter school management companies and Hunter
College, whose dean of education is David Steiner, formerly the New York State commissioner of education.
3) Despite the RTTT dollars, the January Regents exams were on the chopping block until Mayor Bloomberg and several anonymous donors contributed enough money to finance some of the exams this January. While our state education department gleefully announces receipt of a federal grant in excess of $28 million to provide incentives for new charter schools, the students who need the administration of the January regents are dependent upon the goodwill of Mayor Bloomberg and his friends. Excuse me if I decline to celebrate the re-direction to charter schools of more public education dollars.

4) The Regents Research Foundation, funded by many of the private foundations mentioned above, as well as by the Tisch family and the National Association of Charter School Administrators, has privately hired research fellows to “advise” the commissioner. The eleven research fellows together have one year of principalship experience and ten years of teaching experience. They essen-tially act as shadow senior SED staff, playing a central role in policy development. I do not know who they report to.

It truly seems as if public education is being hijacked right in front of our eyes. It is being purchased by those few with the financial resources to do so. If the legislature won’t intervene by providing adequate funding for public education, and a majority of the Board of Regents is willing to allow the increasing influence of those who can afford to purchase it (at the expense of the Regents’ own influence and authority), then the blurring of private and public education will continue, and we can only hope that the motives of the buyers are not profit driven.

“Everyone should have at least one time in their life when they feel chosen, wanted, held up for some kind of special treatment. The times are rare, life is short, others have only a given amount of real need and generosity. It is good to be philosophical when we are not chosen, but it is a vital, precious, almost scintillating thing to be young, to be excited, to be wanted specifically for some task, and to feel a possible dream is on the edge of fulfillment. It is vital for there to be an experience of morning in our lives and for this experience to be called on in the memory of other, more difficult mornings to come. There is no mercy in this world if at least once in our lives we do not feel the privilege of being wanted where we also want to be wanted.”

—David Whyte, “Crossing the Unknown Sea: Work as a Pilgrimage of Identity”

Read full article in the spring issue mailing now or email mhebert@saanys.org for a copy of this issue.

Bullying is a popular word these days.  It doesn’t matter if it’s a one-time issue or an ongoing issue that has been happening for years, we hear many adults and children using the word bullying.  As administrators we are bombarded on a daily basis with the word, whether it’s from our staff, students, parents or the media. …

One of the most bullied group of students in our public school system come from the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered (GLBT) community.  “84.6% of GLBT students reported being verbally harassed, 40.1% reported being physically harassed and 18.8% reported being physically assaulted at school in the past year because of their sexual orientation.  72.4% heard homophobic remarks, such as “faggot” or “dyke,” frequently or often at school (GLSEN, 2009, p. 26). …

GLBT students are teased and tormented on a daily basis, both in person and on the internet, but they are not the only students who are at risk of being bullied.  Along with 21^st century skills meant to prepare our students for the future, come 21^st century tools that are used to torment kids at home as well as at school.  Social networking sites, e-mail, and negative blogs can make any victim feel as if there is no escape from a bully, and many sexually diverse students go through their high school career feeling unprotected from this sort of abuse. Byard says, “The dignity bill addresses a requirement for professional development which is very important.  Educators need to be trained about the policy and what their responsibilities are.  It comes down to four areas, which is naming the problem by enumerating the policy, training staff about the policy, reporting to keep track of progress, and holding people accountable and funding to the work possible.”

MassMutual sponsored this documentary which was produced by public television station WGBY (Springfield, MA) to help raise awareness of the challenges faced by individuals with autism and their families. Learn more at http://www.massmutual.com/planningtools/additional-resources/special-needs/special-care/autism-coming-of-age

The Central New York Agency/MassMutual Financial Group is a SAANYS corporate sponsor

In addition to these statistics, teachers and administrator from the elementary level on up to high school encounter the problem daily. The gender gap is plain to see in ways large and small. One can observe it in the fidgety boys in the back of the classroom who can’t seem to sit still during a quiet reading session and tap their pencils on the desk, flick the head of the boy in front of them, or simply stare out the window. One sees it in the line, made up of nearly all boys, forming outside the principal’s office for acting out in class, disrupting the teacher and causing various disciplinary problems. It’s not surprising that the number of boys who said they didn’t like school rose 71 percent between 1980 and 2001, according to a University of Michigan study.

“The problem is that the world has become more verbal, but boys have not,” said Whitmire, a former USA Today education reporter and editorial writer who served two years as president of the National Education Writers Association. “A kindergartner today is asked to handle reading and writing assignments that a 2nd grader would have done 25 years ago. The girls have quickly picked up these more complex verbal skills at a young age, but the boys have not. In the past, the boys used to catch up to the girls in middle school. But that’s not happening as much anymore. Every subject now requires heightened verbal schools and the boys are falling so far behind that by the time they reach high school they’re become discipline problems or they simply give up and drop out.”

Read the rest of the story and interview in the Spring 2011 issue of the SAANYS Vanguard magazine, mailing to members soon. Also featured, the Hillside Work-Scholarship Connection, bullying in our schools, and other submissions from practitioners on supporting students at risk.

Keynotes:

Anthony S. Muhammad – Transforming School Culture: How to Overcome Staff Division
This address will deal head on with the issue of conflicting agendas within schools. Successful schools have a very clear purpose – learning for all students. We will examine the barriers to aligning adult agendas with the school agenda and what leaders must do and what teachers must do to develop the synergy necessary to guarantee learning and transform every school into a healthy school culture.

Jeff Livingston -The Enlightened Administrators Guide to the Future of the American High School
Senior vice president of College and Career Readiness for McGraw-Hill Education, will discuss how the Movement for Career and College Readiness is partnering with advances in Digital Technology to challenge what we thought we knew about how high school works.

About the film:

A concerned mother turned filmmaker aims her camera at the high-stakes, high-pressure culture that she says has invaded our schools and our children’s lives – in what she calls a “race to nowhere.”

CNN video of interview with the film’s producer:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed_edition&videoId=living/2011/04/18/nr.teachers.race.to.nowhere.cnn