The PARCC Test: Exposed

Note--Leonie Haimson thinks this should be widely reposted, and that's good enough for me. 

The author of this blog posting is a public school teacher who will remain anonymous.

I will not reveal my district or my role due to the intense legal ramifications for exercising my Constitutional First Amendment rights in a public forum. I was compelled to sign a security form that stated I would not be “Revealing or discussing passages or test items with anyone, including students and school staff, through verbal exchange, email, social media, or any other form of communication” as this would be considered a “Security Breach.” In response to this demand, I can only ask—whom are we protecting?

There are layers of not-so-subtle issues that need to be aired as a result of national and state testing policies that are dominating children’s lives in America. As any well prepared educator knows, curriculum planning and teaching requires knowing how you will assess your students and planning backwards from that knowledge. If teachers are unable to examine and discuss the summative assessment for their students, how can they plan their instruction? Yet, that very question assumes that this test is something worth planning for. The fact is that schools that try to plan their curriculum exclusively to prepare students for this test are ignoring the body of educational research that tells us how children learn, and how to create developmentally appropriate activities to engage students in the act of learning. This article will attempt to provide evidence for these claims as a snapshot of what is happening as a result of current policies.

The PARCC test is developmentally inappropriate

In order to discuss the claim that the PARCC test is “developmentally inappropriate,” examine three of the most recent PARCC 4th grade items.

A book leveling system, designed by Fountas and Pinnell, was made “more rigorous” in order to match the Common Core State Standards. These newly updated benchmarks state that 4th Graders should be reading at a Level S by the end of the year in order to be considered reading “on grade level.” [Celia’s note: I do not endorse leveling books or readers, nor do I think it appropriate that all 9 year olds should be reading a Level S book to be thought of as making good progress.]

The PARCC, which is supposedly a test of the Common Core State Standards, appears to have taken liberties with regard to grade level texts. For example, on the Spring 2016 PARCC for 4th Graders, students were expected to read an excerpt from Shark Life: True Stories about Sharks and the Sea by Peter Benchley and Karen Wojtyla. According to Scholastic, this text is at an interest level for Grades 9-12, and at a 7th Grade reading level. The Lexile measure is 1020L, which is most often found in texts that are written for middle school, and according to Scholastic’s own conversion chart would be equivalent to a 6th grade benchmark around W, X, or Y (using the same Fountas and Pinnell scale).

Even by the reform movement’s own standards, according to MetaMetrics’ reference material on Text Complexity Grade Bands and Lexile Bands, the newly CCSS aligned “Stretch” lexile level of 1020 falls in the 6-8 grade range. This begs the question, what is the purpose of standardizing text complexity bands if testing companies do not have to adhere to them? Also, what is the purpose of a standardized test that surpasses agreed-upon lexile levels?

So, right out of the gate, 4th graders are being asked to read and respond to texts that are two grade levels above the recommended benchmark. After they struggle through difficult texts with advanced vocabulary and nuanced sentence structures, they then have to answer multiple choice questions that are, by design, intended to distract students with answers that appear to be correct except for some technicality.

Finally, students must synthesize two or three of these advanced texts and compose an original essay. The ELA portion of the PARCC takes three days, and each day includes a new essay prompt based on multiple texts. These are the prompts from the 2016 Spring PARCC exam for 4th Graders along with my analysis of why these prompts do not reflect the true intention of the Common Core State Standards.

ELA 4th Grade Prompt #1

Refer to the passage from “Emergency on the Mountain” and the poem “Mountains.” Then answer question 7.

7. Think about how the structural elements in the passage from “Emergency on the Mountain” differ from the structural elements in the poem “Mountains.”

Write an essay that explains the differences in the structural elements between the passage and the poem. Be sure to include specific examples from both texts to support your response.

The above prompt probably attempts to assess the Common Core standard RL.4.5: “Explain major differences between poems, drama, and prose, and refer to the structural elements of poems (e.g., verse, rhythm, meter) and drama (e.g., casts of characters, settings, descriptions, dialogue, stage directions) when writing or speaking about a text.”

However, the Common Core State Standards for writing do not require students to write essays comparing the text structures of different genres. The Grade 4 CCSS for writing about reading demand that students write about characters, settings, and events in literature, or that they write about how authors support their points in informational texts. Nowhere in the standards are students asked to write comparative essays on the structures of writing. The reading standards ask students to “explain” structural elements, but not in writing. There is a huge developmental leap between explaining something and writing an analytical essay about it. [Celia’s note: The entire enterprise of analyzing text structures in elementary school - a 1940’s and 50’s college English approach called “New Criticism” — is ridiculous for 9 year olds anyway.]

The PARCC does not assess what it attempts to assess

ELA 4th Grade Prompt #2

Refer to the passages from “Great White Shark” and Face the Sharks. Then answer question 20.

 Using details and images in the passages from “Great White Sharks” and Face to Face with Sharks, write an essay that describes the characteristics of white sharks.

It would be a stretch to say that this question assesses CCSS W.4.9.B: “Explain how an author uses reasons and evidence to support particular points in a text.”

In fact, this prompt assesses a student’s ability to research a topic across sources and write a research-based essay that synthesizes facts from both articles. Even CCSS W.4.7, “Conduct research projects that build knowledge through investigation of different aspects of a topic,” does not demand that students compile information from different sources to create an essay. The closest the standards come to demanding this sort of work is in the reading standards; CCSS RI.4.9 says: “Integrate information from two texts on the same topic in order to write or speak about the subject knowledgeably.” Fine. One could argue that this PARCC prompt assesses CCSS RI.4.9.

However, the fact that the texts presented for students to “use” for the essay are at a middle school reading level automatically disqualifies this essay prompt from being able to assess what it attempts to assess. (It is like trying to assess children’s math computational skills by embedding them in a word problem with words that the child cannot read.)

ELA 4th Grade Prompt #3

25. In “Sadako’s Secret,” the narrator reveals Sadako’s thoughts and feelings while telling the story. The narrator also includes dialogue and actions between Sadako and her family. Using these details, write a story about what happens next year when Sadako tries out for the junior high track team. Include not only Sadako’s actions and feelings but also her family’s reaction and feelings in your story.

Nowhere, and I mean nowhere in the Common Core State Standards is there a demand for students to read a narrative and then use the details from that text to write a new story based on a prompt. That is a new pseudo-genre called “Prose Constructed Response” by the PARCC creators, and it is 100% not aligned to the CCSS. Not to mention, why are 4th Graders being asked to write about trying out for the junior high track team? This demand defies their experiences and asks them to imagine a scenario that is well beyond their scope.

Clearly, these questions are poorly designed assessments of 4th graders CCSS learning. (We are setting aside the disagreements we have with those standards in the first place, and simply assessing the PARCC on its utility for measuring what it was intended to measure.)

Rather than debate the CCSS we instead want to expose the tragic reality of the countless public schools organizing their entire instruction around trying to raise students’ PARCC scores.

Without naming any names, I can tell you that schools are disregarding research-proven methods of literacy learning. The “wisdom” coming “down the pipeline” is that children need to be exposed to more complex texts because that is what PARCC demands of them. So children are being denied independent and guided reading time with texts of high interest and potential access and instead are handed texts that are much too hard (frustration level) all year long without ever being given the chance to grow as readers in their Zone of Proximal Development (pardon my reference to those pesky educational researchers like Vygotsky.)

So not only are students who are reading “on grade level” going to be frustrated by these so-called “complex texts,” but newcomers to the U.S. and English Language Learners and any student reading below the proficiency line will never learn the foundational skills they need, will never know the enjoyment of reading and writing from intrinsic motivation, and will, sadly, be denied the opportunity to become a critical reader and writer of media. Critical literacies are foundational for active participation in a democracy.

We can look carefully at one sample to examine the health of the entire system- such as testing a drop of water to assess the ocean. So too, we can use these three PARCC prompts to glimpse how the high stakes accountability system has deformed teaching and warped learning in many public schools across the United States.

In this sample, the system is pathetically failing a generation of children who deserve better, and when they are adults, they may not have the skills needed to engage as citizens and problem-solvers. So it is up to us, those of us who remember a better way and can imagine a way out, to make the case for stopping standardized tests like PARCC from corrupting the educational opportunities of so many of our children.

Lederman Wins, Unions Pay Valuable Lip Service

It's kind of amazing that Shari Lederman won her case challenging her junk science rating. I mean, junk science is the thing that Bill Gates staked his reputation as a self-appointed expert on. Not only that, but President Barack Obama and his Education Stooge Arne Duncan tied junk science rating to Race to the Top, and forced it down the throats of cash-starved states.

I mean, sure, the American Statistical Association says teachers are responsible for 1-14% of student test scores, and sure, we do more than show kids how to pass tests, but when DFER gives all that money to a candidate, they expect results. And they certainly got them, along with Common Core and charter schools and all that other great stuff.

The question, really, is why Shari Lederman had to do this on her own dime. I mean, why didn't NYSUT stake her? Why did her husband have to do the whole case pro bono? What about all the other teachers rated by this nonsense who suffered for no reason? I know a teacher who was rated ineffective only because of test scores, but she hasn't got a lawyer for a husband. Is NYSUT or UFT going to jump to her aid?

Well, not hardly. Michael Mulgrew boasted of having helped write the law that enabled this junk science. Did he really do it? Who knows? And what difference does it really make? He was proud of it. And he still boasts about the 700 teachers who got ineffective ratings last year. I can tell you for a fact that not one of them shares his joy, and that the consequences of this rating are far more severe than that of the unsatisfactory rating. After all, in 70% of the cases, the state no longer has to prove these teachers are incompetent. These teachers have to prove they are not incompetent, and how the hell they do that I have no idea.

And even as Mulgrew boasts of how few teachers are being rated ineffective, he thanked Cuomo's Heavy Hearted Assembly for passing a new APPR designed to rate even more teachers ineffective. And what has NYSUT and UFT done to help teachers like Shari Lederman?

Nada. Zip. Diddly squat. Why the hell aren't our leaders footing the bills of teachers wishing to challenge these ratings?

Well, they have other priorities. The UFT has to pay millions to transfer 800 living rubber stamps to conventions several times a year. I think they're going to Minneapolis this year. I don't suppose they'll have Bill Gates as keynote again, as he lives pretty far away and probably doesn't want to strain himself.

But honestly, why shouldn't UFT get in the business of helping poorly rated teachers lawyer up? I mean, sure they supported junk science, and it was a great victory, but why not oppose junk science and make that a great victory too? I remember well when that mean old Michael Bloomberg wanted to judge us by only 7 components of Danielson but we held out for all 22. I remember the subsequent great victory when we got it reduced to 8. There was the great victory when UFT demanded artifacts, and another when we didn't have them anymore.

Then there was the great victory of the UFT transfer plan, and the subsequent great victory when excessed UFT members became ATRs. There was the great victory when we won Common Core, and the great victory when we were suddenly against it and no longer threatening to beat the crap out of those who opposed it.

So let's get with the program and get on the right side of things. Most teachers can't afford the prolonged and costly lawsuits it will take to bring sanity to New York State law. Randi Weingarten is praising the Lederman decision. She's the big cheese, right? So let's put our money where her mouth is and back up working teachers.

Problem is, at every DA I go to, Mulgrew defends junk science, saying it subtracts from the judgment of principals. But if the judgment of principals is so bad that a crap shoot improves it, the problem is the principals. Let's stop pussyfooting around, lobby for principals who are not insane, and get off the junk science train once and for all.

Staff Letter 3

FROM ARTHUR GOLDSTEIN, UFT CHAPTER LEADER
VOTE MORE/ NEW ACTION 2016

This is the best job there is, and I am determined to keep it that way. I am thrilled to see my students every day, and I want you to be too. That’s why I am running with MORE/ New Action for the UFT Executive Board

We are rated, like widgets, via a checklist. Charlotte Danielson, who wrote the checklist, no longer thinks it’s appropriate. We are rated by student test scores, which have little to no validity, according to both Diane Ravitch and the American Statistical Association.

It’s nice that we’re finally getting some of the money that was due us back in 2008 and 2009, but it’s outrageous that we have to wait until 2020 to finish receiving it.

If we win the high school seats, we will have at least 7 of the 90 seats on the board. That doesn’t sound like much, but I’m good at directing my voice. You can see it in the NY Daily News.

http://www.nydailynews.com/authors?author=Arthur-Goldstein

You can see it in Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arthur-goldstein/

You can see it in Chalkbeat NY.

http://www.chalkbeat.org/author/arthur-goldstein/

And you can read it almost every day at nyceducator.com, where I’ve been blogging for over ten years.

When Lewis was overcrowded to the point of bursting, I alerted the press. We were in the Times, the News and the Post. Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Joel Klein had to answer us on network television.

If you elect me to represent you in UFT, I promise to bring issues real educators like you face each and every day before leadership. Unity has been in power over half a century. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and it’s time for  the voices of Francis Lewis High School and schools across the city to be heard by leadership.

Our working conditions are our students’ learning conditions. By working to improve them, we work to improve the lot of our students and children.

On MORE and the UFT Election

I've been involved on and off with MORE for a few years now. I didn't run with them in the last election, but I'm very happy to be doing so this time. MORE is not just Jia, or James Eterno, or Norm, or me, or anyone. It really is a working group of teachers with diverse backgrounds and beliefs, and it really is open.

I don't agree with everything MORE does, and everyone who shows up. But I've come to see that it doesn't matter. Small things keep us apart, but big things, like supporting our brothers and sisters in tumultuous times, are universal. We're all in this pressure cooker situation, with guns to our heads saying, "Be highly effective or else!" Michael Mulgrew says it's wonderful. Of course, he hasn't got teachers coming to him on a daily basis telling him how tortured they are. If you've signed a loyalty oath, and all you value are free trips to Schenectady and your after school gig at UFT HQ, you don't bother the President with such things.

No one in MORE has signed the oath. That's why we not only know what teachers are feeling, but are also free to talk about it. And in these times, we need people who will see and tell the truth. Without that, how are we going to fix our problems? Mulgrew thought is was wonderful when we added junk science to our evaluations, and boasted of helping to write the law that enabled it. He thought it was wonderful when we "won" the right to be evaluated by all 22 parts of Danielson, and also thought it was wonderful when we reduced it to 8. In fact, when junk science rises from 40 to 50%, when outside evaluators who know neither us, our schools nor our students, when stakes become even higher, Mulgrew thanks the legislators for having passed the law that enables it.

Michael Mulgrew is not a teacher, has not been one for years, and has never worked under Danielson. We have. We talk to everyone, and we don't live in the UFT Unity bubble. That's why we see, know and live what's happening. Unlike folks pursuing gigs and trips, we know we are all in this together, and that we all have to work together to improve it. And unlike Mulgrew, we invite you to come and participate. You don't have to sign an oath to do so.

The loyalty oath is a vestige of an old and dead system. It's the cement wall that blocks out and quells teacher voice. It's the flip phone that Michael Mulgrew uses so the present cannot intrude on his comfortable indifference to what working teachers experience every day. MORE is the future, and we invite you to join us as we work and fight together to improve it.

I'm proud to stand for change with MORE. It's time to stop reading the propaganda, stop being afraid and stand for what we know to be right. Opt-out is the wave of the future. We're all in the water while Michael Mulgrew is still stuck on a bench trying to tie his roller skates. We're running an opt-out leader for President and we are not afraid. We're tired of being afraid. We're tired of having a leader who wants to punch us in the face if we don't support his pet corporate reforms.

If you want to move into the future with us, you'll have to break down, get offline for a moment, and use a US mailbox. Fill out the ballot you've got or will get in the mail. Tear off the front page, check the MORE-New Action box, place it in the secret envelope, place it in the main envelope, and drop it in that big blue box.

When we win, we'll move the vote to your school because we want to encourage rather than discourage your participation. Meanwhile, get up, open the envelope, and VOTE.

Getting Out the Vote

Yesterday, as I walked into school, I met a colleague. She told me she had gotten her ballot and voted. Not only that, but she had voted for me. Of course I thanked her. Then I asked her why she hadn't waited to bring in her ballot on Thursday.

"Why would I do that?" she asked.

I told her I had organized a ballot collection at the school, and that we had ordered cookies baked by our resident baker/ librarian, and that they were the best in the world.

"Wait a minute," she said. "You have to bring in cookies to get adults to vote?"

 I told her a story about one of her colleagues, now retired. I was sitting in the teacher cafeteria with him about three years ago, and he was complaining about UFT leadership.

"Why don't you vote against them?" I asked.

"I will," he said.

A few days later, I asked him whether he voted. "Oh, I forgot," he said. "I left it on the refrigerator."

Then I told her that only 17% of working teachers bothered to vote in the last election.

"You're kidding," she said. "Well, if you don't vote, you shouldn't complain."

It's an uphill battle getting people to vote, no matter who you support. I've got two huge posters on our bulletin boards with the picture above. I've also emailed staff at least twice about this event. And yet my civic-minded colleague didn't know about it. That's not much of a problem, because she voted anyway. So I guess she isn't my target audience.

Everyone should vote. We are teachers, role models. I think if we want to set an example for our students, we have to make our voices heard. What's more fundamental than that?

Things like this are going on all over the city. UFT suggests a bagel for a ballot. Maybe you could buy pizza. Our school has one of the last functioning teacher cafes in the city, so we don't want to compete with it. That's why we're going with dessert. (Mayor Bloomberg, who had no interest whatsoever in teacher morale, decided if teacher cafes don't make a profit they needed to be closed. Doubtless he'd have done the same to kids if he could've gotten away with it.)

How do we raise consciousness in our union?

Start the Week Right

On Saturday I received my UFT ballot in the mail. I don't know about you, but I vote every chance I get. Often the people I vote for don't win, and sometimes I have buyer's remorse after they do, but I never give up. Sadly, I'm in the minority.

Lots of people want to beat us down. Michael Mulgrew set up an oppressive evaluation system for us. Not for him, because he hasn't taught a single class since he set it up. Nonetheless, he has no problem standing in front of the DA and telling us what a great system it is. It's kind of his job to tell us we're in the best of all possible worlds, with the best of all possible contracts, and the best of all possible rating systems. And whatever happens, he sings the same old song.

With such awful background music, it's often hard for me to tell people that their votes are important. History suggests that retirees, who have no interest in who negotiates our contracts, will drown us out. History suggests that the overwhelming majority of us will take our ballots and toss them in the trash. If we do that, of course, we lose. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. How do we turn the tide?

We do it together. You pay over a thousand dollars a year, literally, to be part of union. What do you want to do with that money? Do you want to pay for Michael Mulgrew to bring his sycophantic loyalty oath signers all over the country to eat crème brûlée and drink 14-dollar beers? Or do you want to buy yourself a little hope, a little voice, a little change?

I'm opting for the latter. I'm figuring that most people who take the time to come over here and read this blog are too. Of course you need to get off your ass and vote.

But you need to take an extra step. You need to tell your colleagues that there is an alternative. You need to let them know that one of the candidates actually loves people and knows how to get along with them. You need to let them know that one of the candidates has contacts all over the state,  that one of the candidates can take our moribund union and build it into a movement.

I'm asking you to reach out to everyone you know and tell them they have a real choice this year. That choice is either to vote for status quo or to vote for MORE/ New Action, a group of hundreds of diverse activists who think out of the box. We are not motivated by perks, trips and jobs. We reject them if they cost us our voices. We are not seeking a seat at the table. We will build our own damn table and create our own destiny.

We don't believe in consulting with Bill Gates about what we do, because he's not an expert. We are out there in the field every day, we deal with kids in the largest school district in the country, and make no mistake, we are the experts. We have a big voice, the biggest voice of any union in the country. The only remaining question is whether or not we will use it.

There's no question for me. I'm voting for MORE/ New Action. I urge you not only to vote, but also to tell your colleagues to do so everywhere you go today, tomorrow, and all week. You are powerful, word of mouth is powerful, and we own what we do. Let's raise our voices, raise our profile, and raise our flag.

We are the United Federation of Teachers. We are leaders. We are agents of change. It's time to raise our voices. Watch and share the video below, because this is step one.

At George Washington Campus, I Learn Opt Out NYC Needs Help

Last night I went to George Washington "Campus." Now there was a big sign in front of the school, etched in stone no less, that said George Washington High School, but that wasn't what it was. It was a "campus," because that's what I read it was.

Now I'm a little naive, I guess, from years of working in one of the few high schools that wasn't destroyed by Michael Bloomberg, so I kind of wondered what the hell George Washington Campus was. Was it a college? Was it a place where students hung out and sat on the lawn? Who knew?

In fact, I asked one of my colleagues, who used to be a cab driver what and where it was. I was trying to decide whether to take the train there or drive. He assured me if I drove I would find a space, so that's what I did. By a small miracle, a car pulled out of a space a block away from the "campus" as I was driving around. A friend I met there came in a cab, and her cab driver had trouble finding the place even though he had it on GPS. So I'm guessing the campus is not that famous.

Why am I talking about this place in a piece with "opt out" in the title? Good question. Our friend Michael Bloomberg thought the best way he could help schools get better was by closing them. Actually that's not precisely what he did. What he did was break them up into smaller schools, hiring four principals instead of just one, and having four sets of rules instead of one. This was better because Bill Gates said it was, until he decided it wasn't. But having already imposed his will on the NYC district, it stayed imposed, as do so many ideas that emanated from Bill Gates' abundant hind quarters.

The effect, of course, was to downplay any notion of community schools (thus downplaying any notion of community, valued by neither Gates nor Bloomberg). Parents now had "choice." They could go to the Academy of Basket Weaving, the Academy of Coffee Drinking, or the Academy of Doing Really Good Stuff. Of course by the time they got there the principals who envisioned basket weaving, coffee drinking, or doing good stuff were often gone, and it was Just Another School, or more likely Just Another Floor of a School, as there were those three other schools to contend with. (Unless of course Moskowitz got in, in which case it was A Renovated Space Better Than Your Space.)

Last night I learned that middle schools in NYC also are Schools of Choice. I don't know exactly why I learned this last night, because my friend Paul Rubin told me this months ago. I think I need to hear things more than once before they register with me, though. Anyway last night I heard from someone who told me that one of the schools her daughter might attend required test scores as a prerequisite. So if her family had decided to send their kid there, opt-out may not have been a good option.

I live in a little town in Long Island. My daughter went to our middle school, as did every public school student in our town. We are a community, and our community's kids go to our community's schools. If I opt my kid out, she goes to that school. If she scores high, low, or anywhere in between, she goes to that school.

That's not the case in NYC. And by requiring test scores from tests that ought not to even exist, these schools effectively deny the right of many students to opt out. So the question becomes, if the tests are not appropriate, and if even bought-and-paid-for tinhorn politicians like Andrew Cuomo say these tests ought not to count, why the hell are we counting them?

And the next question is, is there anything we can do about it? Opt-out brought us these mild, but not insane, modifications from Andrew Cuomo, even though he happily takes suitcases full of cash from the reformies. It also brought us Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa, who I went to hear at George Washington Campus last night. Dr. Rosa impressed me by being consistently Not Insane, even in one instance where I disagreed with her.

If we can have an educational leader who is Not Insane, is it possible we can work toward a middle school admission policy that is also Not Insane? Because for me, and I freely acknowledge I may be in the minority here, I feel that Not Insane is the way to go with educational policy.

Staff Letter 2

                           FROM ARTHUR GOLDSTEIN, UFT CHAPTER LEADER
                                         VOTE MORE/ NEW ACTION 2016

Don’t forget to VOTE!

When you get your ballot in your home mailbox you will have two choices. You may either vote for a slate, with a single mark, or you may vote for individuals. I did that one year, and it took me 45 minutes.

I ask that you vote for MORE/ New Action this year. I am on the ballot for High School Executive Board, and we have a very good chance of winning these seats this year. If we do, I will be able to represent your interests not only here, but also within the union.

Please tear off the first page, write in a single X for MORE/ New Action, place it in the secret ballot envelope, place that in the return envelope, and fill in your info on the outside envelope.

Best regards,

Arthur

Marcus McArthur on Test Prep and the UFT Election

I'm very proud to be running for High School Executive Board with Marcus McArthur. In the video below, Marcus talks about the difference between teaching and test prep. This hits home with me. I spent several years helping ESL students prepare for the NY State English Regents Examination.

Actually, my students ought not to take that exam at all. It's the height of ignorance to think that both native and non-native speakers of English have the same language needs. I mean, it's great for students to read To Kill a Mockingbird, but if they don't speak English, they have other priorities. Still, the geniuses running NYSED decided my kids couldn't graduate high school unless they passed, and my supervisor asked me to help, so I did.

I worked out a formulaic approach to essay writing that satisfied the requirements of the rubric. A lot of students passed. But I was acutely aware that all I'd taught them to do was pass a single test. I did not teach them to love or appreciate writing, and I certainly did not teach them anything whatsoever about my approach to writing.

It was a shame, because many of the students I taught would not be able to pass, say, the CUNY writing test. They would surely be identified as non-native and forced to take expensive, non-credit remedial courses to get their English where it needed to be. I actually taught these college courses and was perfectly capable of giving my high school students what they needed while they were in high school.

Instead, I had to prep them for a test. My Chinese-teaching friend recounted and translated this conversation:

Student A: Man, I don't know what to do. I have to pass the English Regents and it's really hard.

Student B: Oh, you should take Goldstein's class.

Student A: Really? Is it good?

Student B: No, it's terrible. You will hate it. But you will pass the English Regents.

I guess I can take some small degree of pride in that. But I'm a teacher, and as a teacher, it's my goal to trick students into loving English. That's a lot more important and helpful than simply preparing them for a single test.

Listen to Marcus, look for a ballot in your mailbox, and for goodness sake vote for MORE/ New Action.

Who Knew? Turns Out Michael Mulgrew Is the Purveyor of Myth After All

The more I think about Michael Mulgrew declaring bloggers to be purveyors of myth, the angrier I get. I mean, Mulgrew says he doesn't read blogs. I know he isn't on Facebook or Twitter (though he sees no contradiction in asking us to be), I know he can't be bothered answering email, and people tell me he carries a flip phone so as not to even have to consider it.

Nonetheless Mulgrew was horrified when those awful bloggers dared to question his health care plan. And yet, here we are, still standing. A lot of us are wondering what the contract vote would have looked like if our President, who so reviles myth makers, would have told us outright that our co-pays were doubling and tripling. Oh, and by the way, this is just the first year of money saving. We've got three more to go.

Now I'm as impressed as anyone when Arthur Pepper gets up at the DA and tells us how good we have it. After all, they aren't deducting money from your paycheck. Instead, you're paying triple when you go to the ER, and more than triple when you go to the urgent care. You know, those are the ubiquitous places where you go when you have an emergency and don't want to go to the ER. Those are the places that were pretty goshdarn convenient until Mike Mulgrew decided they would cost you fifty bucks a pop.

So what's next? We have no idea. And Mulgrew was certainly not forthcoming with details when selling the contract, or even now. I mean, since co-pays don't mean anything, why not double and triple them again? After all, as long as the money isn't coming from your paycheck, UFT leadership has decreed it must be OK. Unfortunately there is absolutely no guarantee that once the copays start to look too high, the money won't come from your paycheck anyway.

Women have been approaching me and saying this contract is discriminatory since they have to go to gynecologists. Things happen, and they have to pay extra simply because of their sex. Not only that, but there are not a whole lot of these advantage care joints around. There's only one close to me, and evidently it's a part-time doctor office and a part time urgent care. Are the urgent care doctors the same MDs that work there all day? Are they trained in emergency medicine like the great doctors who work the urgent care in my home town? Who knows?

Long Island is a big place, and there are just a handful of these joints. There are 10 OB/GYNs, my friend tells me, and if you live in the Bronx, she says, well, too bad for you. Drive over the bridge to Queens if you don't want to pay. And if you've retired and moved out of the area, well, too bad for you.  

One of the great things about GHI, the reason why my family and I have used it all these years, has been the wide choice of doctors you could have. However, by raising copays for doctors we've been seeing for years and removing them from the few in their preferred network, they're making you pay, and in some cases quite a bit, for exercising your choice.

In fact, they're pretty much urging you to restrict yourself in the same way HIP users have been restricted.  I don't know exactly how much choice HIP users had, but one of the reasons I've never opted my family into HIP was that I wanted to be able to change and choose doctors. Now of course we did get raises in this contract. But our raises, the ones we won't actually get until 2020, don't make me jump up and down. Why should our copays go up by 200% or more immediately when our raises are a fraction of that and don't kick in for years?

Michael Mulgrew makes several times our salaries and has never met a giveback he didn't like. When you get your ballot this week, be sure to let him know how much you like his work by voting MORE/ New Action and sending him back to a classroom. And by the way, Mike, I hope you engage your students a whole lot better than you engage your members.

Otherwise, the Danielson checklist mandates 24 months before 3020a dismissal charges, with the burden of proof on you, just like you negotiated for us.

Thanks to Wendy

Lauren Cohen on Teacher Voice and the UFT Election

I've known Lauren Cohen for about two years now. She really impressed me with her quiet dignity as the UFT Unity loyalty oath signers tried to bully her into shutting up at a NYSUT Convention. But Lauren is more than that. She is quick-witted and analytical, understanding things instantly and responding intelligently. In short, she's the sort of person I'd want representing me, and as it happens, she's running for VP of Elementary in the UFT election.

In the video below, Lauren speaks of the new and coming thing, scripted and timed lessons. I've read about them and they sound awful. I mean, if you are a teacher, you should have something to offer beyond being one chapter ahead of the kids in the textbook. I say that as someone who taught out of subject for years, and actually was one chapter ahead. I'm much more comfortable teaching what I know well, and my students benefit from having a teacher who can actually answer their questions.

I have heard of teachers being timed, spending five minutes on this, two minutes on that, and actually timing themselves so they wouldn't go over. I'm very grateful to not have been subject to such things, as I'd probably have to reserve the last two minutes for jumping out a window. One of the great joys of this job is interacting with the kids. I don't see how you do that when you're on a tight schedule.

"Sorry, but I've already used up the eight minutes I'd allotted for this section of the lesson."

I'm just not feeling it. In fact, the very best lessons I've ever given were only that way because some crazy kid, or some crazy group of kids, moved them in directions I hadn't expected. If a kid gets up, pushes me aside, and takes over my class, I'm not gonna tell the kid to sit down because I had a minute and a half of silent reading scheduled.

Teachers need to guide and move the conversation about what good teaching is. I'll bet any kid in front of Lauren Cohen every day has a very good notion. I ask you to vote for her, to vote for me, and to vote for MORE/ New Action 2016.

A Historic Moment

In just three days, ballots go out to UFT members, and we will have a big choice to make. That choice is between status quo and change. If you think the union has been moving in the right direction, vote for Unity. After all, the UFT Unity Caucus has been in charge of the union for half a century.

On the other hand, if you think we've been moving backward, there's only one choice for you and that is MORE/ New Action. It's remarkable that the most active and vital caucus, MORE, has been able to unite with the first opposition caucus, New Action. This is a testament to the reason and determination of the leaders of both caucuses. They saw an opportunity and grabbed it.

But you also have an opportunity right now. If you think that teachers are not only under attack, but that union leadership has enabled the attack, you need to vote for MORE/ New Action. (In particular, if you've agreed with the voice of this blog, you need to vote MORE/ New Action, because this voice happens to be on the ballot.)

We are hundreds of activists united to empower teachers. I kind of hate that word, "empower," because every time we accept a crap contract, enable junk science rating, or approve of a checklist that fails on multiple levels to define who we are or what we do, UFT Unity, or our reformy enemies, presents it as something that will "empower" us. But they don't know what we're about.

We're about tens of thousands of working teachers, all of whom have their own voices, and many of whom don't fit directly into the cookie-cutter mold designed by Charlotte Danielson, the one even she now rejects. We're about standing up to the endless testing regime enabled by politicians bought and paid for by DFER and their various BFFs.  We're about the common sense approach of Diane Ravitch. Unlike Unity, we don't pretend to support her ideas and then enable our enemies when we think she isn't looking.

We are the diversity of teachers, all over the city, from every background, young, old, and in between. We listen, and we don't ask anyone to sign a loyalty oath. We stand for this profession and don't apologize for trying to improve it. We reject the notion that teachers are pitted against students. Our working conditions are our students' learning conditions, and our present is their future. We will fight to protect their future, and we will fight to support union. We believe union will help raise all boats, particularly those of our students, and we believe they deserve better than a future as Wal-Mart associates struggling to make ends meet.

We are not afraid, and we will speak for the voiceless. We will speak for teachers who are abused and demoralized. We will do all in our power to bring them to the forefront, but the first step is not in our hands The very first step disenfranchised teachers have to take is placing an X on the UFT ballot for MORE/ New Action. If they throw away the ballot, as 83% of teachers did three years ago, they are placing their fate in the hands of those who cheer as we initiate second tier due process for our brothers and sisters in the ATR. Throwing away your ballot grants approval to carte blanche on our rights, and a continued open season against our voices.

We cannot allow that. We need a President who knows how to get along with people. We need a President who can listen to a diversity of voices, acknowledge and understand them, and move forward in the best interests of both us and the students we serve. We need a President who can build bridges with not only various UFT factions, but also our communities, parents and students. The only candidate who fits that criteria is Jia Lee.

And Jia will have a whole lot of help in the combined communities of MORE and New Action. In just a few days, you can join us. This is our moment, this is our year, and this is our time to move ahead.

2016 is the year we make our voices heard. Join us and help us help you.