A Core Issue: Teaching Experience - Does It Matter?

Diana Senechal writes in Gotham Schools that experience counts in any discussion of teacher effectiveness.


Why Teaching Experience Matters
by Diana Senechal, Gotham Schools

Teacher layoffs in New York State are about to begin, and they will not be pretty. There is no ideal approach to them; one can only hope to do as little harm as possible. But how do we set our priorities? Who should stay, and why?

Currently, the teachers contract requires layoffs to be done according to seniority, following the basic principle of “last hired, first fired.” In a recent City Journal op-ed, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow Marcus Winters objects to the idea of laying newer teachers off first:

Basing layoffs on seniority would make sense if it were true that more experienced teachers were always more effective. But a wide and uncontroversial body of research says that’s not the case. We know that after only a couple of years in the classroom, a teacher’s additional experience has no bearing on the amount her students learn.

Unfortunately this is one of those “research has shown” statements that distort what the research has actually shown. It is far from true that “after only a couple of years in the classroom, a teacher’s additional experience has no bearing on the amount her students learn.” With respect to test scores alone, the statement is inaccurate — and a teacher’s influence on learning (as any teacher knows) goes far beyond test scores.

What does the “body of research” actually say? A few leading studies indicate that the effect of teacher experience on student achievement is greatest in the first few years. In “Photo Finish” (Education Next, Winter 2007), Thomas J. Kane, Jonah E. Rockoff and Douglas O. Staiger report:

New York’s teachers are no different from other teachers around the country. Teachers make long strides in their first three years, with very little experience-related improvement after that. The students of third-year teachers score 6 percent and 3 percent of a standard deviation higher in math and reading, respectively, than students of first-year teachers.

This does not mean that additional teaching experience has no effect. Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd and Jacob L. Vigdor (2007) have found that teacher experience has a significant positive effect on student achievement, with more than half of the gains occurring during the teacher’s first few years, but substantial gains occurring over subsequent years, albeit at a slower rate. They write:

Compared to a teacher with no experience, the benefits of experience rise monotonically to a peak in the range of 0.092 (from model 4) to 0.119 (from model 5) standard deviations after 21-27 years of experience, with more than half of the gain occurring during the first couple of years of teaching.

None of this is a surprise. Novice teachers are often thrown into chaotic situations; it may take them a year to get their bearings. They may be asked to teach a subject outside of their field, or to teach more than one subject. They may be assigned the lowest-performing students. After a few years, not only do they get a handle on their everyday duties, but their assignments may be slightly easier or closer to what they know.

One would expect, even hope, that a teacher’s effect on test scores would slow down at a certain point. Students have a role in their own achievement, after all. A teacher typically has a mix of students: those who work hard at their subject and those who don’t, those who find the subject easy and those who struggle with it. Yes, a teacher’s instruction has a great effect on students, and teachers should do all they can. But if years of teacher experience had a linear correspondence with gains on test scores, the teacher would essentially control student performance. What would this say for human choice and responsibility? What role would students play in their own education?

Beyond this, there is more to education than test scores in math and reading. It seems silly to belabor the point, but it eludes many policy makers and think-tankers. State tests are low-level tests of skills and strategies. They involve very little subject matter knowledge; to pass a reading test, one need not have read any excellent literature. One doesn’t even need to know how to write a grammatical sentence. An excellent teacher goes far beyond the test in rigor, substance, and understanding, and life experience and teaching experience enrich this.

Besides teaching the actual subject (which is much richer than the stuff on the tests), a teacher offers insight, knowledge, experience, and wisdom, whether directly or indirectly. Over time, a teacher comes to see the education field and his or her subject in perspective. Newer teachers may be excited about new discoveries, but teachers with more experience can distinguish valuable ideas from passing fads. There are exceptions, of course, on both ends. But experience can bring humility, good judgment, and an ability to see and hear the larger story.

A student gleans these things. They affect the sounds in the room, the tenor of the lesson, the way the subject matter comes through. They can be sensed in the tones of the words. I remember how a teacher read Robert Frost’s “Never Again Would Birds’ Song Be the Same,” and the strange mixture of triumph, humor, and sadness in the last line, “And to do that to birds was why she came.” A younger teacher might have read it beautifully but without quite the same mixtures.

The point is not that veteran teachers simply read poems with more feeling. The point is that life experience and the immersion in the subject affect the teaching in all sorts of ways, large and small. Repetition brings not only fluency, but insight; when you teach a subject over and over (especially a subject you know and love), you see more in it and find different ways of presenting it. Your repertoire grows; you have more materials, ideas, and lessons in your mind and file cabinets. You know how to reach your students; you are less severely affected by the day’s or the year’s ups and downs, distractions, and interruptions. Experienced teachers are also a great asset to novice teachers who need advice, encouragement, and guidance. When a school goes through upheavals every few years — discarding one model for another, or firing half its staff–a veteran teacher can help keep the school and its purpose intact.

At the end of his piece, Winters acknowledges that decisions should not depend solely on test scores. But this qualification comes a bit late. Even at their best, tests are confined to the short term and reflect only a fraction of what students learn. Teacher experience — even after the first few years — does affect test scores, but it affects much more than that. What the student turns into habit or remembers years down the road, what continues to play in the mind long after the test is done — that is the stuff of education. That is the stuff that veteran teachers teach well, having learned to sort out the flashy from the true.

Do you think that factors other than seniority should be considered in deciding layoffs?

There is a new comment on the post "Why Teaching Experience Matters".
http://gothamschools.org/2010/04/06/why-teaching-experience-matters/

Author: Julie Cavanagh
Comment:
Ken,
In response to, "I’ve always been surprised that more teachers don’t speak out about the issue of ineffective teachers. In private, of course, many teachers will complain about it. In public, though, very few. It might be the biggest piece of evidence that makes me wonder about my assumptions and encourages me to dig deeper."
As as been mentioned here many times the term "ineffective" is a complicated one. As an "effective" teacher, (with humility I say this knowing those who know me in addition to the parents and students I serve who would agree) I think the reason we do not shout from the rooftops about "ineffective" teachers is because there is no real space to do so, we have no influence, we have no power, and in the current reform debate any thing we would say would be used against us as a whole.
In response to, "In any case, I hear you and others (over and over again… it’s finally sinking in!) to look closer at the management side of the equation to better understand school dynamics." I would insert into this conversation the idea of 'peer review'. If we went to a system where teachers are evaluated and supervised by their peers, therefore giving teachers the space to hold eachother accountable, I think we would see far more of a positive impact on the quality of teachers and the profession rather than what we have now, which is a top down, blame based, ineffective evaluation model that is riddled with flaws that encourage political favor, supervisors who are not instructional leaders, and a system that struggles with how to elevate the teaching profession. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of teachers are effective. I work with an amazing group of educators at PS 15 and other education advocates across the city. I am humbled whenever I am in their prese
nce. It is immensely frustrating that the overwhelming majority of us are under attack for the very few who do the bare minimum or perhaps should even choose another profession. This is what is most concerning to me and points to a larger agenda to undermine public education. If 'ed deformers' were really concerned about how to attract and keep quality teachers or 'effective' teachers, they would not be attacking all of us, but seeking authentic ways to weed out the few, and those authentic methods certainly would not be based on test scores, merit pay, and getting rid of tenure. No data and research supports those methods as effective, but yet they are the cornerstone of the current reform debate.
Michael F, thank you for your kind words about our work. We all have different roles to play in this movement, but I certainly am always in awe of your precise, informed and eloquent writings on these issues.

Arthur Goldstein April 6th, 2010
4:23 pm
Thanks for writing this, Diana. With so many tomatoes being thrown at us on a regular basis, it’s nice to know there are some reasonable people writing about education from time to time.

Being a teacher encompasses much more than simply getting kids to pass tests. When you have 34 teenagers in front of you, you really never know what may happen. But here’s a fact–every time you deal with a crisis, you have a little better idea what to do during the next one. And the longer you do it, the better you get at it.

It’s ridiculous to say teachers do not get better after three years. Maybe I’m a slow learner, but I’m much, much better than I was as a three year teacher. If you can’t learn anything after three years, you likely couldn’t learn anything before either. And if that’s the case, you may as well give up teaching and get some no-challenge gig like writing op-eds for the New York Post.

leonie haimson April 6th, 2010
5:14 pm
The most important thing a teacher can do is to inspire a student to want to learn more.

Diana Senechal April 6th, 2010
5:58 pm
Ken,

That is a difficult question. I would say, offer an excellent layoff package and ask for volunteers first. There may be many who would like to take a break, provided they could afford it and provided they could leave in good standing, with no stigma attached to the layoff.

Of course this has problems. A good layoff package is expensive, and you can’t guarantee that these volunteers wouldn’t be stigmatized for leaving. In fact, like any of the solutions, it’s probably badly flawed.

No solution that I can think of is really fair. But whatever course is taken, the DoE should admit to the unfairness of it and do something to honor and help those who have to leave. And this should not be an opportunity to hurt veteran teachers, push value-added assessment, or do anything other than cope with the crisis in the way that will do the least harm.

And the DoE could cut costs in other areas–for instance, hire fewer consultants. That could save many teacher jobs. Consultants often make more in a day than teachers in a week.

Much is affected by the spirit in which this is done. Rationalizations like Winters’ misrepresent what veteran teachers have to offer. This attitude has been growing more pervasive, and affects the school and the kids. Is it good for kids to see (relatively) older teachers treated as though they were less worthy? What does this tell the kids about how they should treat their teachers and parents? What does it tell them about their own futures? Doesn’t it send the message, “after 40 you don’t count any more”? That is no way to live, no way to be educated, and not true to reality.

Arthur, thanks for the kind words and comment.

Leonie, I agree, that’s one of the most important things a teacher can do. There are other important things and things that overlap with it–but in any case we shouldn’t lose sight of it.

Florida Passes Teacher Merit-Pay Bill

Is this a sign of something coming to New York?


Teachers and other opponents of the merit pay legislation protest in a walk from Lee Middle School to the CTA/OESPA office in Orlando on April 8, 2010. (JACOB LANGSTON, ORLANDO SENTINEL / April 8, 2010)

House passes landmark teacher merit-pay bill
After more than nine hours of debate, lawmakers vote along party lines in approving historic bill. But will Crist sign it?
By Josh Hafenbrack and Leslie Postal , Orlando Sentinel, April 9, 2010
LINK

TALLAHASSEE

The Florida House passed a landmark teacher merit-pay bill early this morning that aims to put the state at the forefront of a controversial national push to tie teacher compensation to student performance.

The bill (SB6), identical to the Senate version that passed two weeks ago, upends the current salary system based on years worked and advanced degrees earned. In its place, it creates a new, complicated plan that eliminates tenure for beginning teachers and ties teacher pay largely to student learning gains on standardized tests

Before a marathon debate on merit pay that lasted more than nine hours, the House sent three other major education bills to Gov. Charlie Crist on Thursday that would:

• Add tough, new graduation requirements (SB 4) mandating students take harder math and science courses and pass new end-of-course exams to earn diplomas.

• Ask voters to scale back the state's class-size law (SJR 2) they approved in 2002. If voters agreed in November, it would leave class sizes in Florida pretty much where they are today.

• Expand a voucher program (SB 2126) that gives poor children scholarships to attend private schools.

But the sweeping teacher merit-pay plan is the reform that has generated the most controversy – sparking outrage among Florida's teachers.

Florida would become the first state in the nation to enact such a broadside on teacher tenure, which Republicans said would reward excellent teachers with higher salaries and get rid of a system that promotes mediocrity

The House began debating the merit-pay measure at 5 p.m. Thursday and didn't take a final vote until 2:26 a.m. today, after 69 House members debated for 10 or 15 minutes each with dueling talking points. The final vote: 64-55.

Speaker-designate Dean Cannon, R-Winter Park, called it one of the most "transformational policy changes that our state and our nation has ever seen."

"It is tough and it is scary and does make you do a gut check and ask, is this right?" Cannon said. "And the answer is, it absolutely is right."

Every House Democrat and 11 Republicans opposed the measure, but the GOP's lopsided majorities in Tallahassee provided just enough cushion to push it through. Now, it's up to an undecided Gov. Charlie Crist on whether to veto the bill or sign it into law.

Under the bill, pay raises for Florida's 167,000 teachers would be based primarily on student test scores. No longer would years of experience and degrees dictate teacher salary. Instead, pay would hinge on student "learning gains," as charted by standardized tests, and principal reviews.

In addition, the bill would eliminate tenure job protections for teachers hired after July. New teachers would work on one-year contracts, which would be renewed only if their students show testing gains two out of every three years.

Advocates say it will improve Florida's public schools by rewarding good teachers with bigger paychecks and weeding out ineffective instructors.

"This is what I like about the bill…If you do a good job, you make more money," said Rep. Mike Horner, R -Kissimmee, arguing it would motivate teachers and have a "profound effect on the students in this state."

Many teachers, however, view it as unfair, unrealistic and unworkable.

"The Legislature truly just doesn't care about public schools," thundered Andy Ford, president of the Florida Education Association, the teachers union. "The 2010 legislative session turned back the clock to the 1960s in Florida. They've truly just undone everything we've accomplished since Reubin Askew was governor."

If it becomes law with Crist's signature, the Florida Education Association may challenge the legislation in court, arguing that it interferes with collective bargaining and leaves too many details to be worked out later by the Florida Department of Education.

The late-night session was rare, especially to decide such a weighty issue. But in a chamber with 120-members, many who love giving speeches, the hours dragged on.

Some legislators ticked off as many of their teachers as they could remember. Just before midnight, one representative performed a symbolic burial of the bill – stuffing it in a trash can. A few minutes laters, at 11:45 p.m. Thursday, House Speaker Larry Cretul announced there were still 20 scheduled speakers left. Legislators let out an audible gasp, then settled in for three more hours.

Democrats were "bordering on fury," in the words of Rep. Evan Jenne, D-Davie. Critics expressed alarm about linking teacher livelihoods to student scores, even though teachers can't control external factors such as student's home life or socioeconomic status.

The bill is "discouraging and insulting" to reachers, said Rep. Keith Fitzgerald, D-Sarasota.

"The impact of this bill could well be devastating to the morale of teachers around this state," he said. "It amounts to a gigantic social experiment" on testing and teachers.

"Teachers are teachers -- not miracle workers," said Rep. Julio Robaina, R-Miami, one of the Republicans to cross party lines and oppose the bill.

Most Republicans said it's essential to get rid of teacher tenure. The system means "no matter how bad you are, once you've been there for three years, short of committing some heinous crime, you can't be fired," said Rep. Paige Kreegel, R-Punta Gorda. "Tenure means never having to say you're sorry."

But teachers dislike that the bill ends the job security of "continuing contracts" and fear it would hold their paychecks hostage to students whose academic performance can be impacted by their world outside the classroom.

Some also question how the state and the school districts, as the bill requires, can develop so many new tests to cover teachers whose work is not tested on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test or national exams such as Advanced Placement.

Orange County teacher Regina Hellinger was so upset by the bill that she went to Tallahassee to testify against it at a March 25 House panel hearing.

A pay system tied so tightly to student academic performance will force teachers to abandon other activities that enrich students' education and will be "devastating" to public education, she said.

"It's so counter-productive to what we need to do, which is address the whole child," she said.

Hellinger, who teachers gifted students at Endeavor Elementary, said she has never seen her colleagues so angry and upset by Tallahassee-based decisions.

"I think teachers are going to react by actively campaigning against people who voted for this," she said. " This is going to bring us to the point where we're not going to be complacent anymore."

Teachers unions in both Orange and Volusia counties staged rallies this evening to show their opposition to the bill.

Osceola County teacher Marylee Chavez moved to Florida from Wisconsin six years ago. She said the proposal would make Florida unattractive to out-of-state teachers, who just a few years ago were actively recruited to work here.

"This is going to scare a lot of really great teachers who have been in the system a long time," said the second-grade teacher at Kissimmee Elementary. "It's going to make them say, ‘Why on earth would I want to be in Florida?'"

The big question now: What will Crist do? Although he'd previously expressed support, Crist is now considering a veto, citing teacher concerns. The governor said before Thursday's vote he hasn't decided what he'll do, but added he's "listening to the people of Florida, my boss." He has a week to act.

Crist's office has been inundated by opponents of the bill: 6,161 phone calls, 6,597 e-mails and another 3,358 "organized campaign" e-mails as of Wednesday. By comparison, 53 residents called or e-mailed the governor to voice support.

Republican legislators are furious about Crist's shift. "He's told me he's going to sign it, and I take him at his word," said Senate sponsor John Thrasher, R-St. Augustine.

Leslie Postal can be reached at lpostal@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5273.

Florida's merit-pay plan for teachers prompts debate
A measure moving through the Legislature would make performance paramount in deciding a teacher's pay raise.
BY HANNAH SAMPSON AND KATHLEEN McGRORY
hsampson@MiamiHerald.com
LINK

High school teacher Kathy Pham has earned two master's degrees and advanced certification over her 27 years in the classroom -- and thousands of dollars in extra pay.

Nicole Singleton Greenberg, a nine-year teacher, is planning to get her master's degree in elementary education.

If a bill speeding through the Florida Legislature becomes law, the Boulevard Heights Elementary teacher will likely not see any additional pay for that degree.

``It's definitely disheartening,'' she said.

The measure, which has passed the Florida Senate and one committee in the House, would base teacher pay in part on student achievement rather than the current system of years of teaching experience and credentials.

Some education experts say Florida districts could struggle to recruit new teachers if the bill becomes law, and fewer existing teachers would seek higher education or extra certification.

Performance-based pay is a polarizing concept, with supporters saying it will boost pay for highly effective teachers and provide young educators with a quicker way to earn more.

But opponents say it would result in an even stronger reliance on standardized tests and, by eliminating tenure in the future, leave new teachers without any hope for job security.

Districts would have to make their teacher contracts conform to the law or risk losing state money.

``We all want to have better teachers and improve education for everyone,'' said Marilyn Neff, an associate dean at the University of Miami School of Education. ``But some of the provisions in the bill aren't going to have that effect.''

Spurred by powerful teacher unions, thousands of teachers, students and parents have marched against the bill and flooded legislators' and Gov. Charlie Crist's in boxes with protests.

While the bill is backed by many Republicans, some GOP lawmakers are speaking out against it.

``We're trying to encourage Florida to have the best teachers,'' said state Rep. Julio Robaina, R-Miami, who has planned a Monday news conference to oppose the bill. ``It discourages anyone from wanting to come to Florida to teach.''

If signed into law, the new bill would make teacher performance paramount in deciding a teacher's pay raise. For classroom teachers, at least half of their pay would be based on student improvement on the FCAT and other standardized tests. Principals and other instructional personnel would use the average improvement for the entire school. Teachers whose students don't make learning gains could lose their jobs.

The proposed law, parts of which would go into effect in 2014, would eliminate tenure for new teachers, who would instead be on single-year contracts.

Wayne Driscoll, the dean of the faculty at Nova Southeastern University's Fischler School of Education and Human Services, worries the bill might discourage teachers from pursuing advanced degrees.

That, he said, could have an adverse effect on teacher quality in Florida.

``Masters and specialist courses give teachers the chance to talk about the profession, to look at trends and data,'' he said. ``Teachers can't be counted upon, in the busy day that they have, to sit there and go searching for new techniques and new methods. They just don't have the time.''

But Florida Education Commissioner Eric Smith said the vast majority of teachers who get advanced degrees do so in fields like administration, not the area they teach.

If the bill becomes law, he said, ``it'll change the market out there dramatically.'' He predicted teachers would seek out programs that would ``make a difference in their ability to be successful with kids.''

Sandi Jacobs, vice president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, a teacher advocacy group, said the impact on teacher recruitment would likely be mixed, with some attracted to the idea of merit-based pay and others getting scared off. The council supports the bill.

``Hopefully, what they'll see is that this isn't a gotcha system meant to gut every teacher in Florida,'' she said. ``It's meant to identify the best performers and identify the weakest and help everybody in between to develop and improve.''

One way that teachers have boosted their pay is to go through the rigorous and expensive National Board Certification process, which they must complete over the course of a school year. The state used to cover 90 percent of the $2,500 application fee. Now it covers nothing. The state has also cut back on salary incentives for teachers who are certified, though teachers still get a bonus of up to 10 percent of the average teacher salary every year for 10 years.

Florida has the second-highest number of teachers in the nation who have been certified; Broward is the country's top district.

Teachers who aren't certified by 2010 would not receive any compensation under the bill.

Karen Garr, regional outreach director for the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, said she believes fewer teachers would seek certification without the incentive -- which, she said, would be detrimental.

``If we can hang onto these people by giving them this career growth opportunity, and one that we know makes a difference to kids, then that seems to be a boost for the schools, the communities, the state as a whole.''

Pham, who got her certification in 2001 and is getting recertified now, said she would have gone through the process even without the extra pay.

``It's important, it's valuable, it makes you a better teacher,'' said the Hialeah Senior High language arts teacher. ``My students benefit.''

Jack Jennings, president and CEO of the Center on Education Policy, a Washington, D.C.-based research group, said Florida would suffer if fewer teachers sought the ``well-developed, nationally recognized'' certification.

``That would be a loss,'' he said.

Jennings said changing to a performance pay system is tricky because research has not proved that performance pay is effective.

``There's a nub of truth in this in trying to look at test scores to see how well teachers do,'' he said. ``It's something that has to be done very carefully before it destroys the teaching profession.''

In Chicago, The "Excellence In Teaching Program" Is Tested

Katie Loveland, a fifth-grade teacher at the George B. Swift Specialty School, took a one-on-one approach in explaining fractions.

The issue that has created the problem of the "Rubber Rooms" is that Joel Klein and Mike Bloomberg have given principals, and the retired policemen and policewomen who are now working with OSI and SCI, the right to say "Jane/John Doe is a 'bad' teacher and I want her/him out of my school". Proving this statement comes later, or not at all.

In order to escape accountability for making false claims against NYC BOE employees, education administrators threaten and harass their victims to the point where they have to decide to prove their innocence, or give up, pay the fine offered by the Gotcha Squad, and agree never to sue the NYC BOE/DOE.

If you are the victim, here are my suggestions:

(1) if you are guilty of what you are accused of, settle, pay the fine, take the punishment (as long as the punishment fits the crime);

(2) if you are not guilty, stand your ground, gather your evidence, request that your advocate/lawyer contact your witness(es) and fight to prove your innocence.

Submission to threats and false claims about you/your character will follow you wherever you go for the rest of your career and your life.

Who is a 'bad' teacher? Who gave Joel Klein the right to say to principals and fake investigators that they could evaluate teachers and make a determination of their teaching abilities without, in most cases, ever having been a teacher themselves?
Click here for Klein's statement about teaching at a January 2004 breakfast.

Did big money, as in The Broad Foundation, change America's perspective on who could evaluate teachers?

Louis V. Gerstner Jr. thought he knew when he and others formed The Teaching Commission in 2003. Their report on obtaining "the best" teachers, "Teaching At Risk", reminded me of China's Chairman Mao's Little Red Book (which I picked up in Chinese when I visited Hong Kong in 1968) was followed by "Teaching At Risk: Progress and Potholes" in which Mr. Gerstner closed the doors on his Commission with some final comments.

April 8, 2010
Schools Test a New Tool for Improving Evaluation of Teachers
By CRYSTAL YEDNAK, NY TIMES
LINK

In a Chicago Public Schools system where half the schools are on probation yet 93 percent of teachers are rated “excellent” or “superior,” administrators are testing an evaluation process to more accurately measure a teacher’s classroom performance — with an eye toward closing the huge gap.

A pilot program called Excellence in Teaching, now being tested in 100 Chicago schools, seeks to produce an honest conversation about performance, useful feedback to teachers from principals and more realistic evaluations of performance in the classroom. Instead of a vague checklist that principals use to rate teacher effectiveness, the new program aims to define good and bad teaching, gives principals and teachers a common language to discuss frankly how to make improvements, and requires evidence that teachers meet certain criteria.

The Chicago Teachers Union has indicated support for the concept behind Excellence in Teaching, but specifics of any new evaluation system will have to be negotiated with the district.

“We’ve gone far too long without a definition of what good teaching looks like,” said Sheri Frost Leo, a manager in the Chicago Public Schools’ Office of Human Capital.

The pilot program is “trying to shift the conversation from opinion, judgment and surface-level conversations around a checklist to deeper-level conversation,” Ms. Leo said.

As the Obama administration pushes for assessments tied to student achievement with its Race to the Top program, school districts nationwide are under pressure to redesign their teacher evaluations. But for teachers and students to improve, educators say an evaluation system must go beyond just stamping each teacher with a rating.

“It’s not sufficient to say your kids aren’t learning fractions well. The teacher needs to know, What do I do differently to teach the kids fractions?” said Charlotte Danielson, an educator who developed the Framework for Teaching criteria that Chicago Public Schools and other Illinois districts are using to define effective or ineffective teaching.

Currently, Chicago principals evaluate teachers using a one-page list of general questions about teacher practices. Next to each category the principal can mark “strength,” “weakness” or “does not apply.”

Provides written lesson plans? Check.

Presents an appearance that does not adversely affect the students’ ability to learn? Check.

Keeps up-to-date records? Check.

Some principals argue that, because of the checklist’s limitations, they may end up marking an entry as “strength” when it really belongs in a lesser category. A teacher may present a lesson plan that satisfies the checklist criteria, but that same plan may not necessarily engage students and help them learn.

For their part, teachers complain about the lack of feedback about their work. In some cases, principals do not even observe teachers in their classrooms, with some saying they just “know” good teaching.

“Our current process is a flawed process,” said Connee R. Fitch-Blanks, who coordinates professional development programs for the Chicago Teachers Union. “It does not lend itself to teacher growth or student achievement.”

As it builds a new system, Chicago Public Schools is also looking to the Chicago Teacher Advancement Program, a pilot project that awards bonuses to teachers whose students improve academically, as well as Fresh Start, another experimental program that features intensive peer review and mentoring for struggling teachers. State law requires the district to have a new system in 300 of its schools by Sept. 1, 2012.

In 2007-8, the school administration and the union settled on the criteria developed by Ms. Danielson to create Chicago’s Excellence in Teaching pilot. Teachers are rated in 22 categories. For example, an “unsatisfactory” rating is given to teachers who elicit “recitation rather than discussion” with their questions to students. Ms. Danielson’s assessment system also defines “basic” and “proficient” teaching. According to the ratings system, teachers are rated “distinguished” if “students formulate many of the high-level questions.”

The teachers’ union withdrew from the project because of disagreements about the nonrenewal of teachers without tenure. But Dr. Fitch-Blanks said the union was otherwise in favor of including Excellence in Teaching in the district’s new evaluation system in part because it offered an opportunity to develop a process in which teachers could grow professionally.

Because of the disagreement with the union, the district started the Excellence in Teaching project in 2008-9 as a supplement to the checklist, which is still the official system.

At the George B. Swift Specialty School in the Edgewater neighborhood recently, Harlee Till, the principal, took notes on a clipboard in the back of Katie Loveland’s fifth-grade classroom as the teacher drew circles on a white board to illustrate whole numbers.

Ms. Loveland, in her seventh year of teaching, has struggled to get her students to understand the concept of equivalent fractions. Instead of having Ms. Till observe a lesson that Ms. Loveland knows she can ace, she has asked the principal to critique this lesson about adding and subtracting fractions.

As part of the pilot project, Ms. Loveland and Ms. Till had a conference before the observation session to discuss her lesson plan. Later, they discussed the lesson, what Ms. Loveland is doing right and, more importantly to both, what she could do better.

“With just a checklist, a lot of teachers feel like ‘I know what’s on the checklist — I have to do this, this and this,’ ” Ms. Loveland said. “This is a more effective tool to communicate with the principal and how they can help you to better serve the students.”

According to an evaluation of the first year of Excellence in Teaching by the Consortium on Chicago School Research, about half the participating principals noted improvements in teachers’ instructional approach.

Since the Swift school started using the pilot program, Ms. Till said she had seen a positive shift toward more student involvement. The school was moving along, test scores were on the rise, she said, but it was all predicated on teachers’ pushing students in that direction.

“With the pilot,” she said, “the only way you can get the highest marking is if the kids have ownership, if the kids are the ones helping manage behavior in the classroom, asking the right questions.”

If problems are identified, schools can bring in professional-development support, including mentoring, to push teachers forward. But in cases where performance is exceptionally low, school leaders expect that a more accurate and consistent system of evaluating classroom performance will provide better evidence to justify removing some low-performing teachers, something rarely done in Chicago.

In 2008-9, 0.16 percent of teachers — a total of 35 of about 22,500 teachers — were removed, resigned or retired after performance-related dismissal proceedings were started, according to district figures.

The consortium’s report on Excellence in Teaching shows that the new ratings for teachers are starting to spread across a wider range. Of the ratings given to Excellence in Teaching teachers through March 5, 3 percent were “unsatisfactory,” 21 percent fell into the “basic” category, 55 percent were “proficient” and 21 percent were “distinguished.”

Under the checklist system, 0.3 percent of teachers are found to be “unsatisfactory.” Consortium researchers pointed out that more teachers would be identified as low-performing under the new system, as 8 percent of teachers in the sample for the first year report received at least one finding of “unsatisfactory,” which is described as hindering students’ learning.

Of the teachers in the pilot program who received the top rating, “superior,” under the checklist, independent observers found only 1 percent to be worthy of the top rating under the new system. A few of the teachers were even rated “unsatisfactory,” according to the consortium study.

Lauren Sartain, an author of the consortium report, said the checklist system did not provide clear criteria for finding teachers to be excellent or superior. “Those labels are applied arbitrarily,” Ms. Sartain said, “and this data backs that up.”

Some principals told researchers that the new framework made them realize how subjective they had been in past evaluations, that more training was needed and that the district needed to address how time-consuming the new program was.

Sylvia Baime, going on her 20th year as a teacher in the district, said most teachers wanted constructive critiques to improve.

“Someone comes in, actually observes you and gives their feedback — rather than just saying ‘Oh, here you go. You’re a wonderful teacher. Goodbye,’ ” Ms. Baime said.

Two ComData Consulting, Inc. Employees Are Charged With Violations of the H1-B Visa Program

Teachers with H1-B visas should be careful.

Feds Struggle with H-1B Case
LINK

A court finds federal investigators acted recklessly in the aftermath of last year's bust of an alleged nationwide H-1B scam ring, arresting 11 people in seven states and bringing a 10-count indictment against a New Jersey IT services firm, Vision Systems Group.....

Two Employees Arrested For Extortion And Attempting To Intimidate A Whistleblower
by BCheung on April 6, 2010

Sateesh Yalamanchili and Trinath Chigurupati, two employees from ComData Consulting Inc. were arrested and charged with extortion and scheming to obstruct federal investigation within the New York area.

ComData Consulting Inc. typically hires and sponsors foreign workers through their H1-B Visa Program, to work within their IT field. Under the H1-B Visa Program, the employer is required to pay certain wages and other benefits to their foreign workers by United States Department of Labor.

On January 15, 2010, the United States Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (DOL-WHD) commenced an investigation on ComData‘s alleged violation of failure to pay required wages to its foreign workers, which both defendants were responsible for. ComData allegedly owe approximately $142,000 in back wages to 4 of its foreign employees.

Between January and February 2010, Yalamanchili and Chigurupati, purportedly exerted threats and $5,000 of bribery to one of the employees ComData owes wages to, to recant statements made to DOL-WHD.

A consensually recorded video by this employee, during one of the meetings with Yalamanchili and Chigurupati, indicated acts of extortion. Chigurupati reached an agreement with the employee that if the employee lied to DOL-WHD stating that he has no issues with his wages with ComData, he will receive $5,000 in exchange, and that his H-1B Visa would not be revoked.

If convicted, Chigurupati and Yalamanchili each face a maximum penalty of 25 years of imprisonment and a fine of $250,000 for one count of extortion and one count of attempting to obstruct federal investigation.Two N.J. men charged with extortion, obstruction in case of Illinois firm that allegedly intimidated whistle-blower

Two N.J. men charged with extortion, obstruction in case of Illinois firm that allegedly intimidated whistle-blower
By Star-Ledger Staff, April 05, 2010, 7:52PM
LINK

MIDDLESEX COUNTY — Shortly after a foreign computer consultant complained he had been lured to the United States on a promise of a job and cheated out of $53,000, he received a late-night visit from two hostile men, according to authorities.
He was pulled from his Middlesex County house on Jan. 22, forced into a car and taken for a long ride on a cold night while the two men threaten to "take care" him. They wanted the consultant to withdraw complaints he made to federal labor investigators about their employer, an Illinois company that recruited the consultant to come to the United States, according to a federal indictment unsealed today.
Now, two employees of the firm are facing extortion and obstruction of justice charges, which carry up to 20 years in prison.
Trinath Chigurupati, a 36-year-old Indian citizen living in Monmouth Junction, was arrested at his home Wednesday and released on $150,000 bail. Sateesh Yalamanchili, 38, who recently moved from New Jersey to Wood Dale, Ill., surrendered today before U.S. Magistrate Judge Michael Shipp in Newark, who set his bail at $150,000.

The intimidated consultant, said federal prosecutors, is a witness in a year-old probe by the U.S. Department of Labor into the suspects’ employer, ComData Consulting Inc. of Rolling Meadows, Ill., which recruits foreign workers with an expertise in web development, information technology and software development. The firm generally outsources the employees to other companies after sponsoring them for entry into the United States on special temporary visas, known as H-1Bs, reserved for foreign workers with specialized skills.

On Jan. 15, labor officials filed a civil complaint accusing ComData of failing to pay and underpaying four immigrant workers, including the consultant, about $142,000 after recruiting them under the H-1B program. Harassment of the computer consultant by Chigurupati and Yalamanchili began five days later, federal prosecutors said.
ComData was not named in the indictment, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Anthony Moscato declined in court today to discuss whether his office is probing the firm or other witnesses have been harassed. ComData failed to return multiple telephone calls.
Chigurupati and Yalamanchili initially pressured the consultant on Jan. 20, after inviting him to a restaurant for what was supposed to be a job interview, authorities said. The threatening car ride followed two days later, and on a third night, the two men entered the consultant’s home, rousing him from sleep with slaps to the chest and shoulders, according to the charges.

On Feb. 4, the two men met him again at a restaurant and offered to pay $5,000 for him to recant his story, authorities said, adding the consultant had gone to federal authorities by then and was outfitted with a hidden recorder that captured every threat.

Yalamanchili and his lawyer, William Lundsten, declined comment on the charges today. Chigurupati’s lawyer, James A. Plaisted, said he was still reviewing the charges and called Chigurupati a "respectable hard-working individual."

UFT And NAACP Sue The NYC BOE For Voting To Close 19 Schools, And Win

The UFT and NAACP sued the NYC BOE for closing 19 schools without adequate community input, and New York State Supreme Court Judge Lobis agreed. Then, Joel Klein disregarded the decision and sent out the acceptance letters to NYC's 8th graders as if there was no decision, without including the 19 schools he ordered closed.

Another example of how lawless the NYC BOE is right now, and how Joel Klein believes that he is above the Law.

On April 2, 2010, the New York Times published an editorial that is surprisingly correct:

April 2, 2010
New York Times Editorial
This Time, Listen

The New York State Legislature made a much-needed change when it reauthorized the law that gave Mayor Michael Bloomberg direct control of New York City schools. It required him to confer more closely with parents, community groups and other stakeholders before closing schools. We have long been concerned about Mr. Bloomberg’s commitment to that process — and a recent ruling by the State Supreme Court made us worry more.

The court said the city has violated the new law and continues to “trivialize the whole notion of community involvement in decisions regarding the closing or phasing out of schools.”

The ruling, which has blocked the closing of 19 schools cited for poor performance, requires the city to start the process again. This time, it must give the affected communities a meaningful opportunity to comment.

Before closing or phasing out a school, the schools chancellor must prepare a detailed impact statement that describes, among other things, changes in how the building would be used, the effects on the surrounding community and the ability of other schools in the area to absorb new students.

The impact statement is to be filed with several entities, including local community boards, community superintendents and school-based management teams at least six months before the start of the new school year. Soon afterward, the chancellor is supposed to hold public hearings where groups specified in the law can raise concerns that might alter the closure plan.

The judge ruled that the city failed to comply with these provisions, depriving parents of important information and the right to comment meaningfully on the closure plan. Unless this decision is overturned, the 19 schools are to remain open until the city reissues the impact statements and complies with other aspects of the law.

Beyond that, the city needs to make sure that the rules under which it decides to close some schools are fair, transparent and understandable to everyone who has a stake in the process.

Instead of dismissing the lawsuit as an act of sabotage by the teachers’ union, which was party to it, city officials should be building bridges to the parents, community leaders and the angry state lawmakers who joined this suit out of frustration with the city’s tactics.

Judge Blocks Controversial School Closings
By Jaisal Noor
The Indypendent, April 2, 2010
LINK

On March 26, New York State Supreme Court Judge Joan B. Lobis reversed a controversial decision to shut down 19 New York City public schools. The ruling, in response to a lawsuit jointly filed by the United Federation of Teachers and the NAACP, came two months to the day after Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s handpicked schoolboard approved the closures.

In the sharply worded ruling, Lobis wrote that the Panel for Education Policy carried out “significant violations of the Education Law” by ignoring outspoken opposition to the school closings. Further, Lobis wrote, the Department of Education (DOE) “appeared to trivialize the whole notion of community involvement in decisions regarding the closing or phasing out of schools.”

This decision is the first of its kind since the state legislature renewed Bloomberg’s control of the city’s public school system last summer. The ruling mandates that the DOE submit Educational Impact Statements and hold public hearings before closing or colocating schools.

David Bloomfield, a Brooklyn College professor of education, law and policy, commented on gothamschools.org that the ruling “will be difficult to overturn on appeal,” because “the decision is squarely based on facts admitted by both parties and established law about Environmental Impact Statements.”

However, there are still concerns about the extent to which Judge Lobis’ decision will actually loosen Bloomberg’s grasp on public schools.

Seung Ok, a teacher at Maxwell High School in East New York, Brooklyn, one of the 19 schools slated for closure, said he is cautiously optimistic about the decision.

“This gives us a chance to mobilize further and get the word out that the DOE does break laws, but it does not try to support the schools,” Ok said, who is also an organizer with the Grassroots Education Movement, a citywide network of teachers and parents that has protested the closings.

According to Leonie Haimson, executive director of the educational advocacy group Class Size Matters, while the ruling does require the DOE to conduct more through Educational Impact Statements, once it receives Panel for Education approval on a decision, there is nothing to stop the DOE from closing more schools — or opening new ones.

“A more independent Panel for Educational Policy and making DOE subject to city law are important checks and balances that should have been incorporated into the law. In the end, if they clean up the public process, it will slow them down, but they will likely get to the same end,” Haimson said.

The DOE still plans to open 15 new, smaller schools in the buildings of the schools that were slated to begin to be phased out this fall.

Closing large public schools and opening smaller, often privately run charter schools, has been a centerpiece of Bloomberg’s educational agenda, with the DOE closing 91 schools since he was granted direct control of the city’s school system in 2002.

The closings, which would affect 13,000 students, primarily targeted schools in people-of-color neighborhoods.

NEW YORK, March 26 (UPI) -- New York City's effort to close 19 schools for poor performance has been halted by a judge who said education officials violated state law in closing them.

State Supreme Court Judge Joan B. Lobis cited "significant violations" of state education law and ruled school officials ignored proper process in closing the institutions, The New York Times reported Friday.

The ruling came in a suit filed by the United Federation of Teachers and the NAACP to stop the closings, the Times said.

Lobis ruled the city, in its required Educational Impact Statements, offered insufficient detail on how closings would affect surrounding communities.

The city, she said, "failed to provide the detailed analysis an impact statement mandates."

Impact statements for the affected facilities must be reissued, Lobis ruled, before the city can continue its plans to find alternate schools for the 8,500 students at the 19 campuses, the newspaper said.

Admitting it would "create inconvenience" for those students, the judge said the court "cannot overlook what it reluctantly concludes are significant violations of the education law by respondents."

Notice of Petition and Petition

Decision and Order

DOE Is Told School Closings Were Done Improperly
March 29, 2010 by Ahmed

A 9-4 vote by the Panel of Education Policy taken on January 26th to close 19 poorly performing schools was overturned this past Friday in a Manhattan courtroom.

State Supreme Court Judge Joan B. Lobis cited multiple violations made by the New York City of Department of Education specifically their failure “to provide the detailed analysis an impact statement mandates.” Judge Lobis was referring to an Educational Impact Statement, a document required by law that assesses how changes of this magnitude will affect the surrounding community. After reviewing the evidence, the judge believed the DOE failed to adequately explain to parents and local advocates how extensive the effect of these closings would be in their respective neighborhoods.

While City officials scramble to prepare a speedy appeal and opponents celebrate this victory, 8,500 students remain in limbo as to what school they’ll be attending next fall – though the DOE has already said that they have begun to send out acceptance letters for the other 80,000 students beginning this past weekend. GothamSchools has put together a great analysis on their website asking what’s next for the students and details about a possible backup plan available to Chancellor Klein in case this appeal process drags out.

Here are statements from both sides made after the ruling:

Michael A. Cardozo, City’s Corporation counsel:

“We are disappointed by today’s ruling, which, unless it is reversed, requires the Department of Education to keep open schools that are failing our children…Contrary to the ruling, we believe that the Department of Education complied with the notice and public hearing requirements in the new law. The Court did not take into account the extra efforts made by the Department to supply the relevant facts and to keep all interested parties informed of the process.”



Michael Mulgrew, UFT President :

“That’s what the community was saying throughout this process, they continuously said they’re not doing this right,” saidAnd no one was listening and no one would stop them from what they were doing, and it’s sad that we had to go to court to get relief.”

CHAIRGATE: New York State Wants To Buy New Furniture With Race To The Top Funds

An executive seat that may be similar to the chairs coveted by New York State officials

This story, revealed by NY POST reporter Yoav Gonan (see below), is almost too outrageous to be true. Yet the immense stupidity of New York State officials who applied for the TttT grant money with a request for new furniture validates everything that the bloggers have written for years: New York State is the top of the line in terms of corruption (and, I might add, sheer arrogance). Our New York State education officials - with a helping hand of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senator John Sampson - slipped into the New York State application for federal Race To The Top an appropriation of $200,000 for desks and chairs for their offices. Were they thinking that perhaps the public would never find out?

I called NYSED up the day that the application was reported as finished, and asked for a copy. I was told that there would be no copies released to the public.

No wonder.

Betsy Combier

This $550 exec seat cost kids millions
By YOAV GONEN Education Reporter, NY POST, March 31, 2010
LINK

The state failed to get a penny in education funds doled out by Washington this week after clueless bureaucrats were dopey enough to admit to the feds they would have blown more than $200,000 on expensive furniture for their offices.

They apparently thought designer chairs, desks and bookcases for themselves were more important than training teachers or turning around failing schools.

The bizarre equipment wish list was so outrageous that three of the five judges who reviewed New York's "Race to the Top" application blasted it in written comments -- focusing on 24 "executive chairs" that cost $550 each, or more than $13,000 total.

State officials also sought 15 regular desks at $3,000 each, nine L-shaped desks at $1,800 a pop and 15 printers that each cost more than $1,500. "There are projected expenses (e.g. $550 for executive chairs) that call into question NY's judgment on responsible stewardship of funds," wrote one reviewer.

Another judge wrote, "These inclusions compromise the state's narrative as a careful steward of public funds."

The officials also wanted four computer stations at $2,500 each and two bookcases -- at a steep $3,000 each -- they said would go into new offices they'd create to support the educational initiatives.

New York's submission for reforming its education agenda -- produced by the state Education Department and the governor's office -- placed 15th out of 16 finalists in the national competition for $4.4 billion.

Losing states will get a second crack at the leftover funds later this spring.


Senator John Sampson on the right, with New York State Comptroller Tom Napoli (at left), Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, and Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch

State education officials said they were hampered by Albany's purchasing rules, which forced them to order supplies from a vendor named CorCraft -- whose goods are made by New York prison inmates.

"It's not a state Education Department decision -- it's a state procurement issue," said Deputy Commissioner John King Jr. "We are mandated to purchase from CorCraft,"

But the state did not have to use a federal grant for office furniture or equipment. It could have spent the money on things like more social workers or longer class hours.

"It reminds you of rearranging executive chairs on the Titanic. The problem isn't with the chairs -- it's that our ship has hit an iceberg," said Joe Williams, executive director of Democrats for Education Reform. "The application had a lot of problems -- and the chairs are the least of it."

According to the reviewers' comments, New York's application was also hindered by a lack of union support, the looming charter-schools cap of 200, and a data system that has barely gotten off the ground.

yoav.gonen@nypost.com

NYSED Revised version of the application for RTTT funds

NYC Education Officials Lie, Says Diana Ravich

I have posted before, and will again, comments on the pseudo-educational public school system that we have right now in New York City. This "house of straws" founded by Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Joel Klein (with the help of Dennis Walcott and all the Senators eager to curry favor) is built on a hill of lies about the reforms, improvements, and achievements of children in the public schools of NYC. Education icon Diane Ravich has her own thoughts on New York City's public schools, and here they are:



Cheating kids
By DIANE RAVITCH, NY POST, Dec. 10, 2009
LINK

National math scores were released this week for 18 cities, including New York City, and we learned that our state tests are a complete sham. The National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is administered by a federal agency, is considered the gold standard of education testing. The big lesson: Our state test scores are grossly inflated.

For the last several years, state education officials have held an annual press conference to boast about dramatic improvements in scores. But the NAEP scores tell a very different story.

According to state officials, the scores for New York City have soared year after year. From 2003 to 2009, they said, the proportion of fourth-grade students who met the state standard for proficiency leapt from 66.7 percent in 2003 to 84.9 percent in 2009. In eighth grade, where test scores had long been flat, the proportion who reached proficiency soared from 34.4 percent to an astonishing 71.3 percent. These amazing changes seemed too good to be true.

They were. The national scores show that the proportion of fourth-grade students who reached proficiency rose from 21 percent to 35 percent. That is solid, and Chancellor Joel Klein can certainly take pride in that improvement. But it certainly doesn't support the state's claim that 84.9 percent are proficient.

The eighth-graders showed modest improvement in the six-year span, from 21 percent proficient to 26 percent. Again, commendable progress, but it is far from the 71.3 percent that the state announced.

As a result of the state's manipulation of test scores, many students aren't getting the attention that they need, and school officials are led to believe that programs are working when they're not. Schools can't help students who are far behind in math when the state mistakenly says they're "proficient."

New York City has a policy of "no social promotion" for students who score only Level 1 (the bottom rank) on the state tests. But the number of students who score that low has been mysteriously shrinking. In 2007, 5,765 (or 8.1 percent) of fourth-grade students were Level 1, but by 2009, only 3,206 (or 4.6 percent) were.

Among eighth-grade students, the number of Level 1 students dropped from 14,099 (or 18.8 percent) in 2007 to only 3,263 (or 4.5 percent) in 2009. City officials attributed the decline to successful programs, but the federal tests again tell a different story.

NAEP found that 21 percent of fourth-grade students -- not 4.6 percent -- in New York City are "below basic," which is equivalent to Level 1 on the federal test. Worse, among eighth-grade students, a shocking 40 percent are "below basic," not the 4.5 percent that the state reported.

Congress intended that the federal tests would serve as an audit for the claims made by states, which are required to take the NAEP tests, and by those districts that volunteered to take them. What we've learned from this audit is that the New York state test program is broken. It's giving us false information about student progress, which leads not only to complacency and false pride, but to failure to acknowledge the actual situation and set a strong course of action.

We also learned from the federal tests that New York City made no progress for the last two years, and there was no narrowing of the achievement gap between black and white students or between Hispanic and white students.

But NAEP shows that over six years, the city made slow and steady gains in both the fourth and eighth grades. There is a lesson here for the city's Department of Education. If a school made no progress for two straight years, Tweed would give it an F and perhaps close it down. The department should learn from its own experience and recognize that it is unfair to measure progress based on only one or two years of scores.

For now, the challenge facing state education officials is to fix the state testing system. Not only is it broken, not only is it an embarrassment to the state, but the rosy misinformation that it provides is harming children.

Diane Ravitch, a research pro fessor of education at New York University, is author of the forth coming "The Death and Life of the Great American School System."

New York education officials are lying to the state's schoolkids
BY Diane Ravitch, NY Daily News, Wednesday, March 31st 2010, 4:00 AM
LINK

Education Secretary Arne Duncan (pictured below) says that when states lower their standards, "We are



lying to our children." He must be talking about New York State, which has a well-established record of lying to our children about their progress in school.

Every year, state officials announce another set of dramatic gains on state tests for the children of New York.

And every year, state officials lie to our children.

According to the state, the percentage of fourth-grade students who were proficient readers soared from 48% in 1999 to 77% last year, an impressive feat. Eighth-grade students made no progress from 1999, when only 48% were proficient, until 2006. Then their achievement soared and, by last year, the state proudly announced that 69% of eighth-graders had achieved proficiency on state tests.

In math, the percentage of fourth-graders who were proficient by New York State standards shot up from 67% in 1999 to 87% in 1999. The eighth-grade math scores skyrocketed from 38% in 1999 to 80% last year.

But last week, the federal government released scores for the nation and the states, and New York did not fare well. In fact, almost all of New York's reported gains for the past seven years disappeared into thin air.

The federal test - the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP - is the gold standard of testing. Congress requires all states to take NAEP tests to audit state claims. The federal audit was an embarrassment for New York.

The reading scores released last week show that 36% of New York's fourth-graders - not 77% - are proficient. And unlike the state scores, which have gone up every year without fail, the state scores on NAEP for fourth-graders have been flat since 2002. The federal test continues to show huge achievement gaps: 45% of white students are proficient, as are 52% of Asians. This contrasts with 18% of black students and 22% of Hispanic students.

In eighth grade, the picture is no better. On the NAEP test, 33% of our students are proficient in reading, not the 69% claimed by the state. The federal test shows zero improvement at this grade since 1998. And the racial achievement gap is shocking: 44% of whites are proficient, as are 49% of Asians, but only 13% of blacks and 16% of Hispanics.

In math, the state does slightly better, but not much. The federal tests show 40% of our fourth-grade students are proficient, while the state says it is 87%. Over time, the federal scores have improved for this grade, but not for eighth grade. There, only 34% are proficient, not the 80% claimed by the state. And, unlike the state, which has boasted of big improvements in the eighth grade, the federal tests reveal that there have been no gains in eighth grade since 2003.

If students in New York made no gains on the national tests, why did state tests report spectacular progress every year? The people of the state deserve an honest answer.

Fortunately, there is new leadership in Albany. Merryl Tisch, the

new chancellor of the Board of Regents, and David Steiner, the new state commissioner of education, have pledged to review the entire testing program. Surely they will determine how standards dropped so low that the public was regularly misinformed about student progress.

Now is the time for honesty, integrity and transparency.

Ravitch, a historian of education, is the author of "The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education."

A new agenda for school reform
By Diane Ravitch
Friday, April 2, 2010; A17
LINK

I used to be a strong supporter of school accountability and choice. But in recent years, it became clear to me that these strategies were not working. The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) program enacted in 2002 did not produce large gains in reading and math. The gains in math were larger before the law was implemented, and the most recent national tests showed that eighth-grade students have made no improvement in reading since 1998. By mandating a utopian goal of 100 percent proficiency, the law encouraged states to lower their standards and make false claims of progress. Worse, the law stigmatized schools that could not meet its unrealistic expectation.

Choice, too, has been disappointing. We now know that choice is no panacea. The districts with the most choice for the longest period -- Cleveland and Milwaukee -- have seen no improvement in their public schools nor in their choice schools. Charter schools have been compared to regular public schools on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009, and have never outperformed them. Nationally, only 3 percent of public school students are enrolled in charters, and no one is giving much thought to improving the system that enrolls the other 97 percent.

It is time to change course.

To begin with, let's agree that a good education encompasses far more than just basic skills. A good education involves learning history, geography, civics, the arts, science, literature and foreign language. Schools should be expected to teach these subjects even if students are not tested on them.

Everyone agrees that good education requires good teachers. To get good teachers, states should insist -- and the federal government should demand -- that all new teachers have a major in the subject they expect to teach or preferably a strong educational background in two subjects, such as mathematics and music or history and literature. Every state should expect teachers to pass a rigorous examination in the subjects they will teach, as well as a general examination to demonstrate their literacy and numeracy.

We need principals who are master teachers, not inexperienced teachers who took a course called "How to Be a Leader." The principal is expected to evaluate teachers, to decide who deserves tenure and to help those who are struggling and trying to improve. If the principal is not a master teacher, he or she will not be able to perform the most crucial functions of the job.

We need superintendents who are experienced educators because their decisions about personnel, curriculum and instruction affect the entire school system. If they lack experience, they will not be qualified to select the best principals or the best curricula for their districts.

We need assessments that gauge students' understanding and require them to demonstrate what they know, not tests that allow students to rely solely on guessing and picking one among four canned answers.

We should stop using the term "failing schools" to describe schools where test scores are low. Usually, a school has low test scores because it enrolls a disproportionately large number of low-performing students. Among its students may be many who do not speak or read English, who live in poverty, who miss school frequently because they must baby-sit while their parents look for work, or who have disabilities that interfere with their learning. These are not excuses for their low scores but facts about their lives.

Instead of closing such schools and firing their staffs, every state should have inspection teams that spend time in every low-performing school and diagnose its problems. Some may be mitigated with extra teachers, extra bilingual staff, an after-school program or other resources. The inspection team may find that the school was turned into a dumping ground by district officials to make other schools look better. It may find a heroic staff that is doing well under adverse circumstances and needs help. Whatever the cause of low performance, the inspection team should create a plan to improve the school.

Only in rare circumstances should a school be closed. In many poor communities, schools are the most stable institution. Closing them destroys the fabric of the community.

We must break free of the NCLB mind-set that makes accountability synonymous with punishment. As we seek to rebuild our education system, we must improve the schools where performance is poor, not punish them.

If we are serious about school reform, we will look for long-term solutions, not quick fixes.

We wasted eight years with the "measure and punish" strategy of NCLB. Let's not waste the next eight years.

Diane Ravitch is a historian of education. Her most recent book is "The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice Are Undermining Education."

Mike Bloomberg and Joel Klein, Inc.

I have posted below a story about Tiger Woods and the lies that his handlers and associates have published in the media as an example of the yellow journalism and public relations industry established for the benefit of Mike Bloomberg and Joel Klein. If you talk to politicians and news people in New York City, as I do, you will hear that they all agree on one thing: the New York City Board of Education is corrupt, and no one is focusing on the community, parents, or children. The media has a vested interest in making the public believe otherwise, that Mike Bloomberg and Joel Klein are the "Education Mayor" and the "Chancellor of the New York City public school system and the Children First Network". Sorry, folks, but a trillion stories published with these titles wont make it so.

As you read the article below, replace the name "Tiger Woods" with either "Michael Bloomberg" or "Joel Klein". We must understand that hundreds of people have been paid to ignore the lies of raised scores, improved school grades, "statistics" on student improvement, etc. Just read the following article along with "Kleingate" and you will understand what I'm saying.

I might suggest the following headline:
"Mike Bloomberg/Joel Klein, Inc: the Greatest Political Media Marketing Swindle Ever"

Betsy

Tiger Woods, Inc.: Greatest Sports Marketing Swindle Ever
By Clay Travis, Golf.fanhouse.com, 3/31/10
LINK

In 1998, Ken Starr released his report on the tawdry details of President Bill Clinton's affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. I was in Washington, D.C., working on Capitol Hill the day the report was released. After months of breathless coverage and leaks, suddenly all the sordid details were public. Everyone in the congressman's office quit work for the day and spent hours poring over the explicit details. From the cigar to the telephone calls with congressmen during the time he was engaged in sexual acts, to the blue dress and beyond.

Ken Starr's report was so detailed it made everyone wince. Especially anyone who thought about what life might be like for Chelsea Clinton, then in college at Stanford University. Suddenly her father's detailed sex life is available for review by everyone living in her dorm?

It was every teenager's worst nightmare.

Until this winter, Bill Clinton could lay claim to the title of most sexually investigated person in the history of mankind. No longer. Because Wednesday's blockbuster Tiger Woods revelations from Vanity Fair magazine, The Sporting News version of the Starr report, make Bill Clinton look like a sheepish choir boy hiding a Playboy under his mattress.

From sex with menstruating waitresses against his car, to paying for escorts, to following in the celebrity lifestyle of Michael Jordan and Charles Barkley when it came to gambling and women, the Tiger Woods that we were sold and turned into the world's first sports billionaire was nothing like the real Tiger Woods.

Indeed, let's call the marketing of Tiger Woods what it is, the greatest individual con job in the history of sports.

And that's really where things get interesting. Because what we're now learning is that everyone knew about Tiger Woods' affairs, that Woods surrounded himself with a team of enablers, men who covered for his flaws. This wasn't a surprise, it was a conspiracy of silence.

From his agents to the employees of his foundation, to the travel agents to the women who procured other women for him, it was impossible that everyone in Woods' inner circle didn't know what was going on in his life. But here's the deal, we don't make a playboy cheater sports' first billionaire. And we don't make these same employees of a billionaire, multi-millionaires if Tiger Woods' affairs become public knowledge.

So what ensues?

Everyone enables the Tiger that lays the golden egg. Because they have to. In fact, and this is where it gets even more interesting, those close to Tiger actually owe their jobs to the fact he has these foibles, that he needs someone to help cover up his personal indiscretions.

Get him help?

Hell, every time Tiger gets into a deeper mess, these handlers become even more indispensable. They know where the bimbo eruptions are buried. Tiger, Inc. can't make him better with his iron play or help him with reading the greens, but they are in a position where his character flaws directly benefit them. By acting as Tiger's "fixers" in his personal life these men, paradoxically, establish their value with Tiger. Amazingly, they need Tiger to have issues to be relevant, and everyone at Tiger, Inc. becomes complicit in the great sporting swindle.

Who also needs Tiger to be a success? The PGA golfers on the tour. In 1996, when Tiger went pro, just nine golfers made a $1 million or more. By 2009? Try 91 earning a million or more annually.

Meet the green wall of silence, golf's answer to the police officers' blue wall of silence.

MoneyTiger Woods has made less than $100 million -- $93 million to be exact -- from his on-course golf winnings. But he's a billionaire. Where has the rest of his money, the other $900 million, come from?

From selling an artificial image to golf's fans via off the course falsehoods.

Think about this for a moment, Tiger's made 9x as much money off the course as he ever has on it. Golf is almost incidental to Tiger's earnings power. It's why he releases photos of his newborn children posing with Elin and the Labradoodle, it's why his family needs to be standing off the 18th green every time a tournament ends.

While Tiger Woods has clamored for privacy, his money, conversely, depends almost entirely on the lack of privacy. Tiger didn't have to sell this image, he could have eschewed the extra money and focused entirely on golf.

But that wouldn't have made him the first sports billionaire.

Enter the greatest individual swindle in the history of sports marketing.

We, the American public, didn't buy Tiger the golfer. We bought Tiger the family man who dominates in golf.

Everyone at Team Tiger who has seen Tiger's revenue stream knows that he can only directly impact a small percentage of his earnings via his performance on the golf course.

The rest?

The rest has to come from creating the falsest image in the history of sports marketing, a multicultural family man without flaws, Jesus with a putter, to sell to a clueless public. Anything that threatens that image has to be combated because it devalues the brand.

The result?

It's not just that Tiger believes he's entitled to whatever he wants, it's that Tiger's created an entire industry of sycophants who owe their millions to ensuring that Tiger is entitled to whatever he wants because the brand has to be protected.

Tiger wants it?

Just do it.

So the reason Tiger Woods is such a fascinating story isn't because Tiger Woods has character flaws, it's because the public has been sold a flawless Tiger Woods. And never in the history of sports, as we're uncovering, has the reality of a sports star's life been more different than the image we were sold. Sure, lots of people knew of this falsehood, but by the time the gap between reality and artifice became a chasm, everyone had too much money at stake to ever allow the truth to come out.

So they lied.

All of them.

Until, amazingly, one of the most disreputable media outlets in the country, the National Enquirer, killed the Golden Tiger and set loose the death spiral, the slow unraveling of the facade of marketing lies that Tiger, Inc. had spent 15 years creating.

And what we're learning today is that Tiger's collapse isn't the story of one individual's failure, it's the story of an entire industry's conspiracy against the truth.

Enron meet Tiger, Inc

Rights For The Poor and Public Defenders

LAWYER AND DEFENDANT Kimberly Hurell-Harring was represented by Patrick E. Barber, left, in a case that could change the system

March 19, 2010
The Right to Counsel: Woman Becomes a Test Case
By WILLIAM GLABERSON, NY TIMES

FORT EDWARD, N.Y.

SHE was poor and in trouble. He was the public defender appointed to represent her.

She was Kimberly Hurell-Harring, a nobody in the courts, a nursing home worker and a mother of two who had done something stupid. He was Patrick E. Barber, a lawyer with a silver stubble of a beard, paid by the county and state to help make the criminal justice system as fair to the poor as it is to the rich.

At his urging, she pleaded guilty and went to jail for a felony that turned out not to be a felony at all. “It seemed like he was on the D.A.’s side,” she said later.

He said recently that he had done what he could: “They had her dead to rights.”

Usually, such a minor case would go unnoticed; a little test of the constitutional right to a lawyer, results unknown. Instead it has made Mr. Barber an emblem of the problems of the state’s ramshackle system of providing lawyers for indigent defendants. On Tuesday, New York’s highest court is to consider a class-action suit, filed by civil liberties lawyers in Ms. Hurell-Harring’s name, that seeks broad changes in the state’s frayed network of public defenders, who are routinely unmonitored and often overwhelmed. Her case, now being pored over by some of the state’s leading lawyers and judges, offers a window into the everyday corners of the legal system, where no one is usually watching.

It began two and a half years ago, in October 2007, in the Washington County Court here, not far from the Vermont border. In an area of the state where prisons are an industry, Ms. Hurell-Harring pleaded guilty to trying to sneak her inmate husband three-quarters of an ounce of marijuana in a condom she had hidden in her vagina.

From the courtroom benches, the few spectators saw a frightened woman who had never been in trouble before and a public defender who was not fighting for her. “She was sitting there looking stunned and confused,” said Daniel J. Freeman, a recent Yale Law School graduate who had been sent to observe by the New York Civil Liberties Union. “I didn’t see him interacting much with her.”

The story of this one defendant and her public defender, assembled through interviews and court records, is about a woman who was barely making it before the legal system helped shove her off track.

And it is also about a small-town lawyer and part-time public servant sinking in personal and professional quicksand that few people knew about when he showed up to represent Kimberly Hurell-Harring. Least of all her.

The Client

She was 31 in the fall of 2007, a spirited woman with a big smile and 13 gold hoops in one ear. Pregnant at 14, she could have become lost. But she had earned her high school diploma and done something with the nursing assistant’s certificate she carried proudly in her wallet.

She worked nights, sometimes two jobs, changing bedpans and offering solace. When Amos D. Harring was arrested for assault, she stuck by him. The police said he had shot someone.

She arrived in Washington County on Sept. 29 on the journey thousands of women make every year to the state’s far reaches, where their men are locked away. She came twice a month or even more often, sometimes alone, sometimes with her two girls, ages 16 and 4.

This time, the three of them had driven together, 240 miles across the state from Rochester, where they had always lived. There was to be a family visit the next day at the hulking maximum-security prison, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, where Mr. Harring, who was 30, was doing eight years.

But that morning, she left the girls at the Budget Inn and went by herself to see him. When she got to the turreted wall that makes Great Meadow look like some 1940s-movie prison, two investigators hustled her off. They had recordings of the couple’s phone conversations. They knew about the marijuana in the condom, a tactic that was more of a prison cliché than an investigative challenge.

Three-quarters of an ounce was not much. But any marijuana is contraband.

She was terrified as the investigators laid out their case, and confessed. “I am very, very, very sorry that I did this,” she wrote, acknowledging, too, that it was not the first time. Her husband said later that it had all been his idea. “I have threatened and forced her to bring drugs into the facility,” he wrote in a notarized statement a few days after her arrest.

There was a frantic call to an aunt in Rochester to pick up the girls. A local judge set bail at $10,000, an impossible sum. Then she landed in Alpha Pod, the spartan women’s dormitory at the county jail, where 22 women slept on metal bunks in a concrete-block room.

She worried. About her girls. About her mother, a stroke victim. About her future. She knew a felony conviction meant any nursing home job would be gone, along with her rent-subsidized apartment and a lot of other things.

She kept saying, to anyone who would listen, that she wanted a misdemeanor deal. She knew she had made a mistake, but, though she had not a day of legal training, it did not seem like a felony to her.

Some of the other women in Alpha Pod were hard cases, drug abusers and repeat petty criminals who warned her about public defenders. It is an article of jailhouse faith that poor people get what they pay for in lawyers: Nothing.

She said one of the women, named Becky, gave her a specific caution about Mr. Barber: “You got to be careful.”

The Lawyer

Everybody around Fort Edward knew Pat Barber, a fixture at the courthouse and a stepfather of two whose family owned a local tavern. He had been here all his life except for college in western New York and law school at Syracuse.

So there was not much in the way of vetting when he put in a cost-conscious bid to become Washington County’s chief public defender, a part-time position he added to his private practice of trial work, debt collections, wills and divorces. It was quickly settled. Beginning in 2006, he would get $50,000 a year and some rent for the office he had shared with a law partner who had recently died. “We have to have a good reason not to take the low bid,” said John A. Rymph, the chairman of the County Board of Supervisors.

There were plenty of good reasons, according to court records released last month. Mr. Barber, 49 at the time, had been reprimanded twice — in 2002 and 2005 — by the Committee on Professional Standards, the state group that disciplines lawyers, for neglecting cases. He had been struggling with depression for years. “On some occasions he had to leave the courtroom because of panic attacks,” a report from his psychiatrist said. “He had daily drinks to cope.”

But the people reviewing the bids in Washington County knew none of that. The reprimands were confidential, though officials at the professional standards committee say they could have been released to a potential employer if Mr. Barber had signed a waiver. If, that is, anyone in Washington County had known to ask him to sign one.

Told recently about Mr. Barber’s history, Roger Wickes, the county attorney, said, “I would have assumed the board would have been concerned had they known about it.”

By the time Ms. Hurell-Harring made her trip across the state, Mr. Barber’s troubles were piling up.

He had put $304,895.46 in checks for an auto-accident settlement into the file and never mailed them to his client, court records say. He kept telling another client he was finishing up some work related to her divorce. “I misled her as far as the progress of what was going on,” he testified later.

In a third private-practice case, a man appealed his rape conviction, claiming that Mr. Barber had failed to do basic things at the trial like question some important witnesses. In time, a divided appeals court ruled that “no legitimate trial strategy existed.”

The week in October that he went to court for Ms. Hurell-Harring, Mr. Barber was being pursued on yet another file full of trouble. At the request of county officials, John R. Winn, a local lawyer, had been asking questions about two estates Mr. Barber was supposed to be handling that had been so neglected that two properties had been sold for unpaid taxes.

Mr. Winn started calling Mr. Barber, and eventually he turned over a carton with all his records on the two estates — dividend checks, tax bills and bank statements, all in their original envelopes. “I looked, and I said, ‘He’s never opened anything,’ ” Mr. Winn said. One of the women had died six years earlier.

In a long interview this month, Mr. Barber blamed his depression. “You just develop this nausea fear of a file and you would do anything to stay away from it,” he said.

He argued that his problems had not affected his public work. But his psychiatrist, Dr. Koock E. Jung, said in another disciplinary case against him, in 2009, that his symptoms included “breaking out sweating, dizziness and shortness of breath, which affected his law practice seriously, especially his public defender’s job.”

The Case

At the county jail, Ms. Hurell-Harring was growing frantic as she waited nearly a month for her sentencing. She called Mr. Barber’s office every few days. Usually the secretary said he was busy. When they did talk, she said, Mr. Barber told her she had no options.

On Nov. 8, 2007, the civil liberties union filed its class-action suit in Albany, mentioning Ms. Hurell-Harring’s contraband charge. A lawyer read it at the New York State Defenders Association, an organization that provides training and expertise to defense lawyers.

The lawyer, Alfred A. O’Connor, had been working for years on the very issue in her case: whether that small amount of marijuana should be defined as dangerous prison contraband, which could make her smuggling effort a felony, or whether it was ordinary contraband, a misdemeanor that might mean no jail time at all and none of the consequences that come with felony convictions.

Mr. O’Connor started calling Mr. Barber, too. “Good news,” he recalls saying when they spoke on Nov. 15, the day before Ms. Hurell-Harring’s sentencing. He told Mr. Barber that the state’s highest court was considering the contraband question. Defense lawyers had already laid out the very argument that could mean freedom for his client.

But Mr. Barber did not ask for a copy of the briefs. “There wasn’t any enthusiasm,” Mr. O’Connor said. Asked about this in the recent interview, Mr. Barber said had not wanted to bring up anything that could make prosecutors ask for a longer sentence.

The next day in court, Judge Kelly S. McKeighan noted that Ms. Hurell-Harring had admitted to the felony charge: promoting prison contraband in the first degree. Mr. Barber agreed, never mentioning that it might not be a felony at all.

“I just want to go home to my kids and my mother,” Ms. Hurell-Harring told the judge. Instead, she went back to jail, serving four months before she was released for good behavior. She left Washington County on Jan. 28, 2008, a convicted felon facing five years of probation.

The Aftermath

At home on Rochester’s northwest side, things were rough. Her $12-an-hour job was gone. She and the girls moved into her mother’s run-down house and survived on food stamps. The older one, Shaniqua, took a while to pick up where they left off.

“I promised her I would never leave her again,” Ms. Hurell-Harring said.

In New York City, the civil liberties lawyers had asked Roberta A. Kaplan, a partner at one of the country’s leading corporate firms, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, to see what could be done for Ms. Hurell-Harring.

Working without a fee, Ms. Kaplan and her team of lawyers did the kind of work lawyers there do for big companies like Citigroup and Time Warner and well-known people like Gov. David A. Paterson. They studied Mr. Barber’s work. They started filing appeals on Ms. Hurell-Harring’s behalf. One of them, Andrew J. Ehrlich, wondered: “How many other Kimberlys are there out there?” How many other Pat Barbers?

In June 2008, the State Court of Appeals ruled in the case Mr. O’Connor had worked on: that, indeed, a small amount of marijuana does not usually amount to dangerous prison contraband like a gun or a razor blade.

Pointing to that ruling, the Paul, Weiss lawyers persuaded a state appeals court in October 2009 to overturn Ms. Hurell-Harring’s conviction. “The act of which defendant is accused,” the court said, “does not constitute a crime.”

In Rochester, Ms. Hurell-Harring talked to her husband on the phone for the first time in two years. This month, she went back to work at a nursing home, for $9.70 an hour. “I finally can try to get my life back,” she said a few weeks ago.

In Washington County, court officials last spring noticed something odd in a judge’s order in a paternity case Mr. Barber had handled in 2007. It seemed to be signed by a Family Court judge, but the court had no such document in its files.

In June, a suicidal Mr. Barber was briefly hospitalized. In September, he resigned as public defender. Five months later, he was arrested and charged with a felony: forging the court order. He was released without bail.

In February, he was disbarred. An appeals court said he had created fake documents to “deceive his clients into believing that he had undertaken the tasks for which he had been retained.”

This month, still awaiting his own day in court on a felony charge, Mr. Barber sat at his law office desk sorting through a bunch of files. Inside, there was no heat. Outside, there was a “for sale” sign.

“Obviously, I did some stupid things,” he said. “I even hurt a couple of people, which I am very regretful for.”

But he defended some of his work, including the case of Kimberly Hurell-Harring.

He was asked what he remembered of her in those weeks in 2007 when their paths crossed. “Honestly,” he said, “a lot of crying.”

Alain Delaquérière and Toby Lyles contributed research.