The Art of Ignoring

Webster’s defines “ignorance” (n) as (a) “lack of knowledge, understanding or education.”  On the other hand, the word “(to) ignore” (v) means “refuse to take notice of; or acknowledge; disregard intentionally; pay no attention to; fail to consider or reject”.   Although these words have the same root “ignore” does not mean to be in a state of “ignorance”.   Last week I wrote about the frustration of being ignored by the State Education Commissioner and other education and state officials, which I described as a “strategy of ignorance”.   I went on to say that they hope by “ignoring” me/us that we would just go away.   At this juncture, my dear readers, you may be asking the question, what’s the point of this discussion?  To use an old cliché, some people say “toe-ma-toe” and others say “toe-mate-toe”.  In the end what does it matter?

However, as an educator I feel compelled to provide accurate information and to correct mis-information when warranted.  In light of the foregoing definitions, I need to restate that what I and others have encountered is not a strategy of “ignorance” but one of “ignoring”.   It’s an important distinction.   When confronted by the former, we could educate, inform or raise the awareness of the State officials through dialog, communicating new information and/or teaching.  With the latter, however it’s not possible to initiate a dialog as attempts to communicate, inform, raise awareness or teach are refused, rejected or simply not acknowledged.  Ignoring is deliberate, calculated and willful in its intent.

Since mid-December I have been vocal in asking for answers to a number of straight-forward and critical questions concerning the future of our school district.  I am not alone in raising these questions.  In fact, advocates here and across this state have many of the same concerns.  State imposed receivership threatens to strip our communities of local control of our schools.  The recent release of Governor Cuomo’s Common Core Task Force recommendations, however, raises considerable doubt about the validity of the standardized tests, which were used to identify the receivership schools.  An additional caveat is that most of the receivership schools are located in urban school districts, which are disproportionately poor and of color.   Urban communities are under siege throughout this country.  They are targeted for takeover under emergency management, receivership or other tactics designed to limit local democratic agency.  We only have to look to the tragedy unfolding in Flint to understand the importance of not tolerating a strategy of ignoring.

It is not my intention to compare our situation to the deplorable one in Flint, but what has happened in Flint should be instructive and demonstrative of what can happen in any community whose voice is ignored and marginalized.   For example, there were red flags raised years before the catastrophe, which were met by indifference, dismissiveness and rejection.  We see a tunnel vision response that labeled questioners as complainers or whiners and their concerns as insignificant or baseless.  Advocates were discounted and disenfranchised because they lacked the resources, and or status, to make their voices heard.  There was a top down bureaucracy that had little respect for or valuing of the opinions of the “little” guys.   In many instances, stakeholders were not even given the courtesy of an acknowledgement of their letters, petitions, calls, etc.  Does this sound familiar?  It’s the “art of ignoring” as practiced in Michigan as well as in our own State by agencies and individuals who should be responsive to constituents. 

What makes this strategy of ignoring even more salient and troubling in the case of Buffalo School advocates is that my colleagues and I are publicly elected officials, informed and very involved Board and community members.  However, even these credentials aren’t enough to warrant a professional, informed, timely response from State Education officials, to our questions about receivership, the use of standardized tests results and the Common Core Task Force recommendations. (With one notable exception; I want to thank Senator Timothy Kennedy, who took the time to meet with me last week.  He listened to the issues and the rationale for the request to the Commissioner and the Board of Regents. He has promised to look into the matter)

Last week, I posted an online petition for supporters of the request for an open, transparent and inclusive process that would engage the community in a dialogue about the implications and implementation plans of the Task Force recommendations.  I’ve been requesting this dialogue with a dialogue about the implications and implementation plans of the Common Core Task Force ld enlocal and state educational officials since the Task Force Report was released in December 2015.  

This online petition has received nearly 500 signatures since being posted on January 24^th.  These are in addition to the 115 sent to Commissioner Elia and Chancellor Tisch last week. Thanks to all who joined us to bolster this request.  You can still sign the PETITION.

Commissioner Elia, the strategy of ignoring is unproductive and ultimately detrimental.  Over 600 education stakeholders are asking NOT to be ignored; disregarded; or rejected.  We are asking that you pay attention to our questions and our concerns.  We are asking that you acknowledge us and we look forward to hearing from you!

Letter to the Commissioner: Part II

The issue:  I have been writing about the problems of standardized tests, specifically the tests that are aligned with the Common Core State Standards and administered by the New York State Education Department.  Components of the State’s accountability system, the results of these tests are used as a major factor in the decisions that label children, schools and school districts as failing and identify them for receivership.  High Stake tests opponents have fought to bring attention to the institutionalized disparities created by these tests, especially for minority children, poor children, children with disabilities and children who are not native English speakers.  They have questioned the validity of these tests and whether they actually assess student achievement in English Language Arts and Math, the two areas targeted by the State and the Federal government.  And in singling out the validity of these tests, their use as reliable measures of school and school district accountability is also questionable.

Then in December 2015, Governor Cuomo’s Common Core Task Force issued a report that called for sweeping changes in the application of Common Core standards, aligned curriculum and standardized tests.  The Task Force agreed that the standardized tests’ outcomes were not reliable and as a result should not be used to evaluate students or teachers.  The New York State Board of Regents endorsed and adopted all the Task Force’s recommendations.

However, numerous questions remain about the implementation of the Task Force recommendations particularly as they impact Receivership schools and students who are disproportionately minority, poor, have disabilities or have limited English proficiency.  Thus far, my requests to the Commissioner and NYS Board of Regents for clarification have been met with silence.  I call it the strategy of “ignorance”.  Ignore her and she’ll go away.  It’s not a new strategy; just another way to marginalize and discount voices that the powers that be don’t want to acknowledge.

A Resolution, submitted by the Buffalo Board of Education minority, calls on the Board of Regents and the Commissioner to convene a group to study the implications and impact of the Governor’s Common Core Task Force on all students, but particularly those in Receivership Schools.  This is not just a Buffalo issue as there are another 119 Receivership schools throughout the State.

My second letter to the Commissioner is a follow up to one I sent at the beginning of the month.  It accompanies the Resolution and the signatures of over 115 educational stakeholders who support the request.  Thank you to those individuals who have joined us in this quest.  We are determined not to be ignored!  Join us by signing an online Petition to support this cause.   

January 21, 2016

Dear Chancellor Tisch and Commissioner Elia:

My letter of January 3, 2016 expressed serious concerns and questions about, what I perceive, as a conundrum resulting from the recently issued Common Core Task Force Report.  I cited a number of the Task Force recommendations related to Common Core aligned standardized tests, in particular Recommendation #21.  That all-encompassing recommendation (p. 36 of the Report)  proposing that “Until the new system is fully phased in, the results from assessments aligned to the current Common Core Standards, as well as the updated standards, shall only be advisory and not be used to evaluate the performance of individual teachers or students.” appears easily explanatory on its face.  Yet I’ve spoken to many educators who are not sure how this will apply to all students. I believe that I’ve raised a number of reasonable and important questions about the implementation of this recommendation and its impact on students and schools in Receivership.  You have my previous letter so I won’t be repetitive.   

However, I also want to share with you a situation that may be unique to Buffalo as another example of why the Task Force Recommendations require a robust, transparent and inclusive review.  As you know the District has an OCR complaint regarding equitable admissions to our criterion schools.  The District has worked diligently to create a process that is more inclusive; however it includes the use of the ELA/Math test scores in the admissions criteria.  In light of Recommendation #21, we have to ask ourselves how this decision impacts the District’s criterion-schools’ admission’s plan.  I’m not sure that the District can answer this question on its own.  It has been posed to the Superintendent.

Commissioner, I do thank you for the telephone call from Deputy Commissioner Ebert.  We had a cordial conversation but my questions were not fully addressed.  I appreciate her time and understand that she will be making a trip to Buffalo.  I look forward to meeting her during her visit.

On January 13^th, my Board colleagues; Ms. Belton-Cottman, Dr. Harris-Tigg and Mrs. Kapsiak co-sponsored a Resolution (attached) to request “the Board of Regents authorize the State Education Department to conduct a detailed, open and transparent review and analysis of the use of the ELA/Math standardized tests results as determinants to assess school qualification for receivership; to invite parent, educator, student and other stakeholder input and feedback in the process; to clarify the recommendations of the Common Core Task Force as they apply to the state assessments and use of assessment data, and to develop future recommendations for appropriate determinants for school receivership.”

The Resolution did not pass, so we want to make it clear that this is not a resolution that the Buffalo Board of Education has officially endorsed.  However, there is community support for our request as evidenced by the attached list of supporters gathered in a little less than a week.  And a city-wide parent organization has passed a similar resolution, which will be forthcoming.

I want to be clear that our goal is to initiate a dialog regarding the practical effect of the Common Core Task Force’s Recommendations on our students and our schools.  We respectfully request a written response to this request.  

Sincerely,

Barbara A. Seals Nevergold

Barbara A. Seals Nevergold, PhD

The Majority Says "NO"!

By this time, many of you know that in December 2015, the Governor’s Common Core Task Force released a landmark report condemning the implementation of the Common Core State Standards and its aligned curriculum and standardized tests.  In a series of recommendations the Task Force strongly suggested creating new developmentally appropriate tests for students with disabilities and students who are not proficient in English; reducing the time students spend taking these tests;   and most importantly placing a moratorium on the use of these tests in evaluating individual students and teachers until 2019-20.  In fact, there were 21 recommendations in total. The Board of Regents quickly endorsed and accepted these recommendations.

While the recommendations have been widely seen as positive and progressive, many questions have been raised about the magnitude of their impact in addressing the numerous problems related to the Common Core as well as how they will be implemented.  The Task Force recommendations regarding the Common Core aligned tests, a.k.a. high stakes tests, essentially confirm test opponents’ claims that the tests are developmentally inappropriate, unreliable measures of children’s abilities.  In other words, the results of these tests are not accurate measures of children’s proficiency in English Language Arts and Math.  The Task Force charged State Ed with the task of developing new tests to determine student achievement and by extension school and school district performance.

This writer has also raised specific questions about how the Task Force recommendations relate to Receivership.  The ELA and Math standardized test results are major determinants in the State’s accountability system for identifying “struggling” and “persistently struggling” Receivership schools.  Further, the State has mandated that receivership schools show “demonstrable improvement” in one or two years or face further threat of being placed under an outside receiver.  While there are a number of data points that Receivership schools can use as evidence of progress, a number of these are based on improvement on the standardized tests from year to year.  A question that no one seems to want to ask or want to answer:  How will this change as a result of the Task Force mandate on testing?  

The Buffalo School District has 25 receivership schools, more than any District in the state. On numerous occasions, since the imposition of Receivership, I have requested Board in-servicing and dialog about the Board’s and Superintendent’s working relationship and other details of the law. The Board and the District would benefit if the Board had a clear understanding about issues such as:  the relationship between the receivership schools and the non-receivership schools, or the Board’s fiduciary responsibility since we establish, monitor and modify the budget, which includes the budgets for the receivership schools.   The Regent’s acceptance of the Task Force recommendations is a major development in the State’s implementation of the Common Core and its high stakes tests.  However, the majority Board members refuse to educate themselves or consider potential ramifications of the change in the State’s implementation of the Common Core.  The Buffalo District is a system.  It’s impossible for changes to be made in one part of the system, which don’t have an impact in another part of the system; sometimes un-intended. 

It came as no surprise when the Board majority voted against a Resolution to the State Education Commissioner and the Board of Regents.  As Mr. Quinn curtly observed, “Receivership is the best thing” to happen to this district.  Of course, we disagree but the request to the state is not about the personal differences between the minority and majority members of the Board.  It is not a request to reverse Receivership.  We understand that it is the law. We believe that we have a responsibility to the students of this District and a fiduciary responsibility to request that the State answer the questions arising from the Common Core Task Force recommendations. 

The Resolution calls on the Board of Regents and the New York State Education Department “to conduct a detailed, open and transparent review and analysis of the use of the ELA/Math standardized tests results as determinants to assess school qualification for receivership; to invite parent, educator, student and other stakeholder input and feedback in the process; to clarify the recommendations of the Common Core Task Force as they apply to the state assessments and use of assessment data, and to develop future recommendations for appropriate determinants for school receivership.”

Three years after an admittedly rushed, poorly thought-out and abysmally rolled-out Common Core State Standards, the State is now backtracking on a plan that was touted as the solution to New York State’s education woes.  Seemingly little was learned from past experience however.  Following on the heels of CCSS, Receivership was also hastily passed into law and equally rushed into implementation. While the law imposes the same restrictions and requirements on each District, it does not account for unique situations that an individual District may encounter.

In Buffalo’s case, the District has an OCR complaint regarding equitable admissions to our criterion schools.  The District has worked diligently to create a process that is more inclusive; however it includes the use of the ELA/Math test scores in the admissions criteria.   The Task Force’s Recommendation 21 states: Until the new system is fully phased in, the results from assessments aligned to the current Common Core Standards, as well as the updated standards, shall only be advisory and not be used to evaluate the performance of individual teachers or students. The transition phase shall last until the start of the 2019-2020 school year.  What does this mean for the District’s criterion-schools’ admission’s plan?  The District cannot answer this question on its own.  We need the State’s input.

The Board minority intends to forward its original resolution to the Board of Regents and the New York State Education Department and we are asking the community to join us in requesting a response from the State.  If you would like to add your name to this request, please send an email to bnevergold@gmail.com.  We believe our request is not only reasonable but responsible and an ethical application of our obligation as public officials.

Board Majority Refuses To Support Resolution on Receivership and High Stakes Tests

It probably comes as no surprise that the Board majority refused to support the Resolution to ask the State for an open, transparent, inclusive dialog about Receivership and high stakes testing.  To put it succinctly, Larry Quinn said that receivership was "the best thing" that had happened to the District.

In spite of the vote, I stated that this Resolution will go forward to State Ed with the support and signatures of the community stakeholders.  So, I've heard from a number of people but we need hundreds of signatures.  I need to hear from you.  My email is bnevergold@gmail.com.

Resolved: A Call For An Open, Transparent Review and Assessment of High Stakes Tests and Receivership

On January 3^rd, I wrote an open letter to New York State Education Commissioner MaryEllen Elia.  I copied the letter to the members of the Board of Regents and sent copies to the Governor, Legislature leaders and local State legislators.  As of the writing of this article I have received only one curt response, a “thank you” 

from one member of the Board of Regents.  

A Resolution will be presented to the Buffalo Board of Education at the January 13^th meeting.  We are asking for community support for this call to the Board of Regents and the State Education Department.  The Resolution is posted below. I urge individuals to support this Resolution. Please send your name to add to the Resolution; at bnevergold@gmail.com. 

Resolution

Request to the New York State Board of Regents to Conduct Review of Common Core Aligned Standardized Tests Impact on the Identification of Receivership Schools

Sponsored by:  Barbara A. Seals Nevergold, PhD, Mary Ruth Kapsiak, Dr. Theresa Harris-Tigg, Sharon Belton-Cottman

January 11, 2016

Whereas,  The Education Transformation Act of 2015, Subpart H defines the takeover and restructuring of “failing schools” as receivership, thereby stripping the authority of local school boards and vesting that authority in either the local superintendent or in the event of the failure of these schools to make “demonstrable improvement” to an outside receiver; and

Whereas, the term to identify “failing” schools was altered to label those schools as either “persistently struggling” or “struggling” schools; and

Whereas,  schools defined as “persistently struggling” are schools identified under the state’s accountability system to be among the lowest achieving public schools in the state for 10 consecutive years; and

Whereas,  schools defined as “struggling” are schools identified under the state’s accountability system as being designated as “priority” for the last three consecutive years and in the lowest achieving 5% in the state; and

Whereas,  the Buffalo Public School District has 25 Receivership Schools - 5 designated as “persistently struggling”  and 20 designated as “struggling”, which have been placed under the authority of the superintendent; and

Whereas, according to the law “persistently struggling” schools may continue to operate for one year under a SED approved intervention model or comprehensive education plan.  And after one year, the school shall undergo a review and the designation of “persistently failing” shall be removed, continue under the superintendent vested with the powers of a receiver, or the school will be placed in receivership; and

Whereas, according to the law “struggling” schools may continue to operate under the superintendent vested with the powers of a receiver for an additional 2 years but must have a state-approved improvement plan in place with metrics and goals; and

Whereas, on December 10, 2015, Governor Cuomo’s Common Core Task Force, concluding an extensive review and analysis,  issued its final report and recommendations, which raise serious questions about the Common Core Learning Standards, the aligned curriculum and assessments beginning with the CCSS rollout during the 2012-2013 school year; and

Whereas, over half of the Task Force’s 21 recommendations addressed issues related to the Common Core aligned standardized tests and testing including for example: the pattern of subjecting all students, including students with disabilities and English Language Learners to the same tests; excessive time devoted to standardized testing; lack of engagement of parents, educators, students and other stakeholders in transparent and open dialogue and feedback regarding assessments; and

 

Whereas, the Task Force’s final recommendation most forcefully addressed the question of the validity of the Common Core aligned tests and recommended a “moratorium” on the use of the results of these tests, specifically stating, “the results from assessments aligned to the current Common Core Standards, as well as the updated standards, shall only be advisory and not be used to evaluate the performance of individual teachers or students”; and

Whereas, the Common Core aligned standardized tests have played a major role as significant determinants in the state’s accountability system, contributing to grading individual student, school and school district achievement; and were used as a principal  factor in the identification of “struggling” and “persistently struggling” schools for receivership; and

Whereas, the Task Force’s findings and recommendations regarding the Common Core tests raise legitimate questions regarding the reliability of the Common Core standardized tests in determining the imposition of receivership on Buffalo’s 25 Schools and another 119 schools throughout the State;

Whereas,  these 144 schools are predominately located in urban school districts with student populations that have disproportionately high percentages of students with disabilities, English Language Learners and other demographic indicators that have been shown to adversely impact student achievement;  and

Whereas, the Task Force focused on the disparity of specific assessment approaches and limitations associated with the Common Core aligned standardized tests; and

Whereas, the Task Force Report ultimately recommended that students be “held harmless” from the outcomes of the standardized tests until the 2019-2020 school year. However, this recommendation does not seem to apply to students in receivership schools given the use of the test data, for example, as acceptable indicators for demonstrable improvement;

Therefore, we are requesting that the Board of Regents authorize the State Education Department to conduct a detailed, open and transparent review and analysis of the use of the ELA/Math standardized tests results as determinants to assess school qualification for receivership; to invite parent, educator, student and other stakeholder input and feedback in the process; to clarify the recommendations of the Common Core Task Force as they apply to the state assessments and use of assessment data, and to develop future recommendations for appropriate determinants for school receivership.

  

An Open Letter to Commissioner Elia re: Receivership

Dear Commissioner Elia:

I begin this letter with greetings for a healthy and prosperous New Year.  Traditionally, the New Year is significant in that most of us take the time, during this symbolic period, to reflect on past experiences and contemplate potential opportunities.  In the spirit of the New Year, I am writing this letter to request that as the State’s highest educational official you take the opportunity, in this new year, to address an issue that to this point you have ignored and seemingly dismissed as inconsequential.  Please note that I am not acting in my capacity as a sitting member of the Buffalo Board of Education but per my individual responsibility as a grandparent and educational stakeholder. 

    

Last month, the Governor’s Common Core Task Force, of which you were a member, released its final report and recommendations for addressing the flawed implementation of the CCSS.  As the Task Force Chair put it, “numerous mistakes were made” in the process related to the roll out of the standards, aligned curriculum and assessments.  Richard Parsons noted that a core element of the Task Force’s work was predicated on the Governor’s charge that this effort “engage parents, teachers, students, and others to hear from them what is, and is not, working.”  Further, the Chair stressed that throughout the work of the Task Force, its goals were to conduct a comprehensive review and analysis of the CCSS; seek input from diverse stakeholders; and implement recommendations “in an open and transparent manner”. Accordingly, the final report details the “exhaustive outreach” and review of “the Common Core Standards, curriculum, and tests to untangle the problems and develop a series of recommendations.”  

It’s also noteworthy that soon after the release of the Report the Board of Regents voted to accept the recommendations. Of course, as SED Commissioner and Task Force member you already have an intimate knowledge of a report you helped shape. So, I’ll get to the heart of the matter and the reason for this letter.  The Task Force report has a number of failings that have been pointed out by others.  However, I am especially interested in the interpretation of and the implementation of the recommendations regarding high stakes tests.

The Task Force’s final report contains 21 recommendations.  A number of these are specific to the standardized tests that have been used to determine student achievement and school and school district accountability.  In all, 12 of these recommendations focus on issues with these assessments, such as the “one size fits all” practice of subjecting all students, regardless of cognitive or English language ability, to the same tests; the lack of transparency and stakeholder involvement in the development of these tests; the problem of teaching to the test leading to an over-emphasis on test-prep; lack of parent and student engagement and feedback re these tests; the inordinate amount of time devoted to standardized testing. 

The final recommendation, Number 21, however speaks most forcefully to the question of the validity of the Common Core aligned tests and the Task Force’s determination that a “moratorium” should be placed on their use.  This recommendation states: “Until the new system is fully phased in, the results from assessments aligned to the current Common Core Standards, as well as the updated standards, shall only be advisory and not be used to evaluate the performance of individual teachers or students.” 

As a result of this Recommendation, as well as the others, many stakeholders have questions about how the Task Force’s conclusions impact the schools that are now in Receivership status.  These schools are predominantly in urban districts attended by disproportionate numbers of students in the groups referenced in the Task Force recommendations.  Beyond test scores, factors that compound the designation of “persistently struggling” and “struggling” schools are inherent in the composition of their student population, e.g. high poverty, students with disabilities and students who are English Language Learners.  Buffalo has 25 schools designated as “persistently struggling” or “struggling”.  The latter were designated as a result of being identified since 2012-13 as Priority Schools.  Coincidentally, this was the first year of the Common Core aligned ELA and Math tests.   

To provide perspective as to why the demographics of the receivership schools are relevant, the following statistics describe the percentage of each population group in Buffalo’s five “persistently struggling” schools, euphemistically dubbed the “high 5” by our Superintendent Receiver.   

% of Students with Disabilities – 11.9%, 20.9%, 17.5%, 25% and .5%

% of English Language Learners - 40.5%, 14%, 31.6%, 7.4% and 7.2%

Compared to District wide demographics for these indicators, in a total enrollment of 34,000 students, 20% are Students with Disabilities and 14% are English Language Learners.  Clearly, the State has data on sub-group performance on the standardized state tests to inform review, analysis and decisions regarding the impact of these tests on student and school accountability in the Receivership schools.  In fact, under Receivership  a number of the required criteria by which “demonstrable improvement” will be identified or confirmed are dependent on various indicators based on the standardized tests; e.g. student achievement on ELA/Math exams for specific sub groups.  How will that work, given the “moratorium”? 

Not unlike the task given to the Common Core Task Force there needs to an open, transparent and inclusive study, review and analysis of the use of high stakes Common Core aligned assessments and Receivership.   And yes, I do understand there is the matter of the Education Transformation Act of 2015.  This law has given you the authority to impose receivership.  However, given the haste with which policy and procedure has been developed  that authority also comes with the opportunity for State Ed to implement another flawed, poorly devised program that hurts rather than helps children.

A December 30^th Buffalo News article summarized the concerns outlined in the foregoing in this statement; “those same tests, however, were a major factor in determining which schools were placed in receivership.”  The article also noted, however that the Commissioner has been “dismissive” of this issue.  Commissioner, I am asking that you not dismiss this question as a non-issue. Your retort that the Federal government still requires the state to assess students annually does not answer the question of the use of invalid assessments as the basis of major decisions impacting students currently.  

It is imperative to clarify the “confusing” and contradictory message sent by the Common Core Task force and confirmed by the Board of Regents regarding the impact of high stakes tests results on students (individually and collectively).  At this time it appears that urban students and schools will still be held accountable as a result of these assessments, while other students will be held “harmless”.    This disparate treatment is unacceptable and certainly a concern I think the Department would want to dispel.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours truly,

Barbara A. Seals Nevergold

Barbara A. Seals Nevergold, PhD