BGOL NY Parents/Education: Gov Cuomo proposed Education Reforms 2015

playahaitian

Rising Star
Certified Pussy Poster
* seems like parents are split down the middle on this...

Governor Cuomo has proposed major changes to education in his State of the State address.

He wants to keep 2 billion dollars that is due to New York City Schools, increase the number of charter schools in NYC by adding 100 more, make the state and not principals more involved with teacher evaluations, put struggling school in receivership instead of giving them support, and make 50% of teacher evaluation based on how their students do on state tests. (Currently it is 20%.)

Making teacher evaluations based on standardized tests will mean that teaching in all public schools will focus on test prep even though we don’t believe in the standardized tests. Many states and President Obama are trying to deemphasize standardized tests because it is clear the tests do not give an accurate picture of student learning, or the effectiveness of teachers.

But instead of acknowledging standardized testing is doing damage to students and teachers, Cuomo wants to make them count more.

So, we need your help now since this law goes up for a vote on April 1st. We need you to let your legislators know that you disagree with this plan.

1. You can send letters of disapproval to the Governor https://www.facebook.com/GovernorAndrewCuomo or call 1-518-474-8390 or https://twitter.com/NYGovCuomo<https://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2FNYGovCuomo&h=QAQFqf2y6&enc=AZPM81ixEla8YkuB4QJpCLFcCK7uGF8JeujeIq7AC_FBpDDXsQu3VmV43Jtej9FLSR38GT6AazcHfUxEgz5SkzeoosAVeG0bXVdUEbtA8ZRqwIRacysYjqKitZ47xK9r3Z-50Y-wMwWmOHiwxC0Rh24zpZaD4VJuU0GDGTZuPoENAw&s=1> or http://www.governor.ny.gov/contact

2. You can also click http://www.nyteacherletter.org/ and sign the letter to let your legislator know you disapprove of the law.
 
Parents Rally In Support of Gov. Cuomo’s Education Reforms

hundreds of parents gathered Wednesday at Medgar Evers College, Crown Heights in support of Governor Cuomo’s Opportunity Agenda for the New York education sector.

In his State of the State address last month, Cuomo shook things up by calling for a massive education reform to include a greater teacher evaluation system and a boost to the education budget, should Albany pass the agenda.

The response has been fairly criticized by the teacher unions who are skeptical of the reforms but parents are trying to get their voices heard as well.

Students First NY organized the district school parents rally to give a chance for the community to be heard by those in Albany and was attended by Assemblyman Karim Camara and Councilman Robert Cornegy.

Tenicka Boyd, SFNY Director of Organizing said parents want to see change in their kids’ schools.

“We’re not going to ask very politely, we’re going to demand quality education for our kids,” Ms. Boyd said.

Assemblyman Camara said the education problem in New York isn’t a new problem but can be solved.

“We have everything in our power to close the gap and make sure whether you’re in Brownsville or you’re in Brooklyn Heights you get a high quality education,” Mr. Camara said.

Assemblyman Karim Camara speaks to parents at yesterday’s education reform rally at Medgar Evers College (Photo: Adam Schultz)

Several parents and grandparents spoke at the event, which was filled with concerned community members holding up signs in support of the reform.

AU Hogan, a district school parent and grandparent from Jamaica, Queens, said if the reform isn’t passed, the children of New York will continue to suffer.

“If we don’t hold this system up to higher standards, by continuing improving our schools and the teachers professing we will continue to fail our kids all across New York and all across this country,” Mr. Hogan said.

Derrell Bradford, NYCAN Executive Director called for an immediate change to the schooling system after stating 250,000 kids have attended a failing school in the past 10 years.

“The teacher’s union and other folks might think that your household income should determine whether or not you should get a great teacher but I don’t, and I know you don’t and I know the governor doesn’t because great teaching beats poverty,” Mr. Bradford said. “Our kids don’t need incremental change; they need change that is fundamental.”

Anyta Brown, a grandmother of seven public school students from East New York, said the reforms are an essential part of change.

“We can’t keep on continuing to let these teachers fail our kids,” Ms. Brown said. “We can’t keep letting these schools fail in the education of our children. We have to let Albany know that they have to act on, pass on what Governor Cuomo is initiating here.”

Part of Mr. Cuomo’s reform calls for greater accountability in teachers performances to improve the standard of teaching.

Keoni Wright, a father of twin daughters, said he fully supports the idea that teachers should be held accountable for their students’ performances after one of his daughters struggled in her education under one teacher, while the other excelled with a different teacher.

“It happened two years in a row,” Mr. Wright said. “Ineffective teachers should be out, find a way to get them out.”

Read more at http://observer.com/2015/02/parents-rally-in-support-of-gov-cuomos-education-reforms/#ixzz3SoGZ6H00
Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook
 
Why Cuomo’s school reform plans would make teaching a very high-risk career choice

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has stirred the ire of educators across the state because of controversial new school reform proposals. To wit:

*Boost overall school funding by nearly 5 percent (but he would only provide the full increase if state legislators do what he wants on school reforms.

*Require that student standardized test scores account for a full 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation rather than the current 20 percent. (Assessment experts say linking educators’ evaluation to tests scores is a really bad idea.)

*Require that the other 50 percent of a teacher’s evaluation to come from observations made by school officials and outside educators brought in for the task. (Assessment experts say that the best evaluation systems use multiple measures, and some top-rated school systems have had success with such systems that put no weight at all on student standardized test scores.)

The following post takes a look at just how Cuomo got the wrong diagnosis — and cure — for what he sees wrong in New York schools. This was written by Aaron Pallas, professor of sociology and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. This post first appeared on The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news website focused on inequality and innovation in education.



By Aaron Pallas

Many of us have spent more time in hospital emergency rooms than we’d like. The one nearest to where I live serves part of Harlem, and I’ve seen people arrive on foot or in emergency vehicles in pretty bad shape. In some cases, there’s an acute condition that has just emerged; when watching the triage process, however, it becomes clear that many patients have a long history of chronic disease, and the ER visit is just a snapshot in a longer trajectory of growth or, sadly, decline.

The ER doctors and their associates diagnose the problem conditions, and use their training and experience to prescribe a course of treatment. In some cases, the patients are admitted, and after a few days are discharged back to their daily routines. But the severity of the ailment matters. When a patient arrives with chest pain due to a heart attack and has a balloon angioplasty two hours after arrival, there’s an eight percent likelihood that she or he will die in the hospital, and a 20 percent chance of death within seven years.

No one I know blames ER doctors for the fact that their sickest patients often die. To be sure, some ER doctors may be more skilled than others at diagnosing problems or recommending treatments. And some hospitals may be overcrowded, or lack up-to-date equipment. But there’s a widespread recognition that the best predictor of a patient’s prospects for survival and a good quality of life after treatment is the patient’s condition when he or she arrives in the emergency room.

The state of New York recognized this when it first sought to compare the performance of hospitals and physicians across the state. New York’s “mortality report cards” looked at the mortality rates for hospitals performing coronary artery bypass surgery, adjusting for the mix of risk factors for each patient undergoing the procedure. Patients in poor health are likely to be readmitted quickly or to die within 30 days, regardless of which hospital they go to, and it doesn’t seem fair to penalize a hospital in its rating for the fact that high-risk patients come to it.

The notion of risk adjustment is central to value-added measurement in education, the effort to identify the unique contribution of a teacher or a school to a student’s measured academic achievement. Value-added models are “risk-adjusted,” in the sense that they take into account factors outside of the teacher’s (or school’s) control, such as a student’s prior academic achievement or socioeconomic background. (How well they do this is a matter of debate, and given the imprecision of these models, I am on record opposing their naïve use for high-stakes decisions regarding schools and teachers.)

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a Democrat, doesn’t seem to grasp the concept. The Opportunity Agenda book accompanying his State of the State address on January 21st states:

“Last year, less than one percent of teachers in New York State were rated ineffective; but state test results show that statewide only 35.8 percent of our students in 3rd through 8th grades were proficient in math and 31.4 percent were proficient in English Language Arts. We must ask ourselves: how can so many of our students be failing if our teachers are all succeeding?”

A few years ago, the governor would not have asked this question. In 2011, 53 percent of students in the state of New York in grades 3-8 were classified as proficient or above in English Language Arts, and 63 percent were proficient or above in math. Just two years before, in 2009, 77 percent of students were judged proficient or above in English Language Arts, as were 86 percent of students for mathematics.

The composition of the teaching force hasn’t changed appreciably since then; all that’s changed are the academic standards and the assessments tied to them. Setting standards is a political process infused with values. Teachers across the state of New York haven’t suddenly gotten worse; rather, their students are being asked to do more.

The governor’s diagnosis, however, is that the problem lies in our state’s teachers. The treatment? Increasing the role of standardized tests in annual evaluations of teacher performance, and requiring that teachers have five consecutive ratings of “effective” or “highly effective” to be eligible for tenure. Both are highly speculative. There is, for example, no research basis for weighting value-added measures of teachers’ contributions to their students’ test performance as 50 percent of the overall annual evaluation. The Measures of Effective Teaching project funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation cautioned that weighting any one component in a teacher evaluation system too heavily may make it hard to identify teachers who are contributing to a broader set of learning goals than those represented on the standardized tests. (Disclosure: the Gates Foundation has been among the many funders of The Hechinger Report.)

imrs.php


And the governor’s proposal stacks the odds against any new teacher obtaining tenure. We know that beginning teachers often need time to develop in the classroom; struggling for a year or two as they adapt to school and classroom realities is not at all uncommon, but might well result in an annual rating of “developing.” Those years wouldn’t count toward tenure.

If the governor’s proposal were enacted, and the annual distribution of ratings paralleled the existing value-added component—with 1 in 6 teachers rated as “developing” or “ineffective”—I estimate the odds of a teacher earning the due process protections of tenure within six years at just under 50 percent. In the meantime, the governor’s proposal would allow the firing of any probationary teacher at any time without cause. This would make entering teaching in the state of New York a very high-risk career choice.

If low student achievement is the problem, what’s a better diagnosis and treatment? We could start by honoring the state’s obligation to fund school districts at a level adequate for a sound basic education. Since 2007, the state legislature and a series of governors have ignored the New York State Court of Appeals’ ruling to direct several billions of dollars of funding annually to the state’s neediest school districts.

Anyone who doubts that poverty and district finances matter in the achievement equation need only look at a scatterplot of the percentage of third-graders in a school who are proficient in English Language Arts and the percentage of students in that school who are eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch. In schools where 90 percent or more of the students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, 15 percent of the students are proficient. Conversely, in schools where fewer than 10 percent of students are free-lunch-eligible, an average of 53 percent are proficient. This is not because all of the good teachers are in low-poverty schools.

To be sure, correlation does not imply causation. But in this case, the correlation should cause some skepticism about the governor’s diagnosis and treatment plan. Adequate funding and support for New York’s public schools are the best medicines.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...make-teaching-a-very-high-risk-career-choice/
 
An outline of education reform proposals in budget


ALBANY—The final budget bill containing education funding and policy, introduced on Tuesday afternoon, included modified versions of many of Governor Andrew Cuomo’s original reform proposals, including an overhauled teacher evaluation system.

The bill passed late Tuesday, after hours of debate.

The following is an outline of what’s in the bill, by topic.

A new teacher evaluation system will be based on two components: student performance on state exams and observations. It will be based on the same scale as the current system: “ineffective,” “developing,” “effective” and “highly effective.”

The component that's based on student performance on state exams includes a mandatory state test and an optional one.

Educators who teach English and math to third through eighth graders will be evaluated based partially on the federally required state tests in those grades and subjects. Similarly, those who teach high school classes that culminate in Regents exams will be evaluated based on those state tests.

Teachers won't be evaluated based on students' absolute performance; rather, the state will develop “growth scores” based on the exams that measure how much students improve from one year to the next. In the past, the state has weighted these scores for some factors, like in the cases of teachers whose students live in poverty, have disabilities or speak English as a second language, for example.

Teachers whose courses don’t end in state exams will be evaluated based on “student learning objectives,” or expectations of what students will learn in a year, which will be developed by the state.

Districts may also choose to include an optional second “state-designed” standardized test, according to the bill.

The budget describes the following as eligible options for the second test: “state tests or assessments developed or designed by the state education department, or that the state education department purchased or acquired from another state; an institution of higher education; or a commercial or not-for-profit entity.” Tests designed or acquired by local school districts may be used if they are approved by the state.

For the observation component of the evaluation, there will be two required observations and one optional one.

The required observations will be performed by a principal or administrator and an “independent” evaluator, who can be a principal or administrator from another school within the district or another district.

Districts will have the option to also include an additional observation performed by an educator's peer within or outside the school or district, as long as the peer has been rated “effective” or “highly effective.”

The state education department “shall determine the weights and scoring ranges” and “set parameters for appropriate targets for student growth” for the required and optional components and subcomponents of the rating system.

However, there are certain rules prescribed in law that determine the overall scores that teachers can receive depending on their scores on the two components.

For example, if teachers earn an “ineffective” rating based on student performance on the required state test, they may not earn “effective” or “highly effective” overall, according to the bill.

If teachers use both the required and optional tests, and their combined score based on student performance on the tests is “ineffective,” they must be rated “ineffective” overall.

Teachers who are rated “ineffective” on the observation category may not get “effective” or “highly effective” ratings overall.

Districts may no longer consider the following in determining educators’ evaluations: lesson plans, student portfolios (with some exceptions) and student or parent feedback surveys.

Districts must negotiate the optional components of the evaluations with their local unions, submit their plans and obtain state approval by Nov. 15, or they will lose an increase in state aid, according to the bill.

“No school district shall be eligible for an apportionment of general support for public schools from the funds appropriated for the 2015-2016 school year and any year thereafter in excess of the amount apportioned to such school district in the respective base year unless such school district has submitted documentation that has been approved by the commissioner by November fifteenth, two thousand fifteen,” the bill says.

The bill says students may not be instructed by two “ineffective” teachers in consecutive years. If that requirement is “impracticable,” districts may apply for a waiver from the state.

TEACHER TENURE:

Before teachers and principals may be offered tenure, they’ll serve a probationary period of four years, instead of the current three years, and they must earn “effective” or “highly effective” ratings for three of the four years. Educators who earn an “ineffective” rating during the fourth year may not be offered tenure, but they may be offered an additional probationary year.

Teachers who have received tenure in another school district who weren’t fired for poor performance will serve a three-year probationary period.

Teachers who have successfully held substitute teaching positions at the school for two years will serve a two-year probationary period.

Educators may be fired at any time during their probationary periods.

TEACHER DISCIPLINE:

Teachers or principals who earn two consecutive “ineffective” ratings may be brought up on charges of incompetence by their school boards and would have to provide “clear and convincing evidence” in order to avoid being fired. The decision must be made within 90 days of the charges being initiated.

Educators who earn three consecutive “ineffective” ratings must be brought up on charges of incompetence and could argue only “fraud” as a defense. “Fraud” includes mistaken identity. The decision must be made within 30 days.

“The employee may be suspended pending a hearing on the charges and the final determination thereof, and such suspension shall be with pay,” the bill says.

Disciplinary hearings will be conducted by a single hearing officer.

When teachers are brought up on misconduct charges of physical or sexual abuse of students, they may be suspended without pay pending an expedited hearing.

RECEIVERSHIP:

Schools whose performance falls in the lowest 5 percent in the state for three consecutive years will be designated “failing schools” under the budget. Schools with 10 years of low performance will be called “persistently failing schools.” Special act school districts, which serve students with severe behavioral problems, are exempted.

“Persistently failing schools” will have one year to implement “a comprehensive education plan … that includes rigorous performance metrics and goals,” which has to be approved by the state. “Failing schools” will have two years.

When the one-year or two-year periods expire, the education department will conduct a performance review of the schools. If the schools show “demonstrable improvement” based on their turnaround plans, they will remain under local control, and their performance will continue to be reviewed annually.

If the schools do not improve, a receiver will be appointed for a period of no more than three years to “manage and operate all aspects of the school and to develop and implement a school intervention plan.” The district has the ability to choose the receiver, subject to state approval. If a district does not choose a receiver within 60 days, the state appoints one.

“The independent receiver may be non-profit entity, another school district, or an individual,” according to the bill language.

The receiver “shall have the power to supersede any decision, policy or regulation … that in the sole judgment of the receiver conflicts with the school intervention plan.”

The receiver will be able to “replace teachers and administrators” and “abolish the positions of all members of the teaching and administrative and supervisory staff assigned to the failing or persistently failing school and terminate the employment of any building principal assigned to such a school, and require such staff members to reapply for their positions in the school if they so choose.”

When teacher or principal positions are abolished, the current teachers or principals with the lowest rating on their most recent performance evaluations will be fired. Seniority will be considered in case of a tie.

When teachers and principals reapply for their jobs, a staffing committee will determine whether the applicants are qualified. “The receiver shall have full discretion regarding hiring decisions but must fill at least fifty percent of the newly defined positions with the most senior former school staff who are determined by the staffing committee to be qualified.”

Those who are not rehired “shall not have any right to bump or displace any other person employed by the district, but shall be placed on a preferred eligibility list.”

Here’s what the bill says about collective bargaining when schools are under receivership: “In order to maximize the rapid achievement of students at the applicable school, the receiver may request that the collective bargaining unit or units representing teachers and administrators and the receiver, on behalf of the board of education, negotiate a receivership agreement that modifies the applicable collective bargaining agreement or agreements with respect to any failing schools in receivership.

“The receivership agreement may address the following subjects: the length of the school day; the length of the school year; professional development for teachers and administrators; class size; and changes to the programs, assignments, and teaching conditions in the school in receivership,” the bill says. “The receivership agreement shall not provide for any reduction in compensation unless there shall also be a proportionate reduction in hours and shall provide for a proportionate increase in compensation where the length of the school day or school year is extended. The receivership agreement shall not alter the remaining terms of the existing/underlying collective bargaining agreement which shall remain in effect.”

The receiver will be able to “order the conversion of a school in receivership that has been designated as failing or persistently failing … into a charter school.”

The receiver will also be able to increase salaries of current or prospective teachers and administrators, extend the school day or year and add full-day kindergarten and pre-kindergarten classes, in the case of elementary schools.

The receiver will have the authority to reallocate resources within the school’s existing budget and review proposed budgets before they’re presented to voters for approval. The receiver will be a non-voting member of the school board.

The intervention plan must include introducing community services into the school, such as medical and mental heath care, substance abuse screening, language instruction, mentoring and greater access to career and technical education and workforce development services for students and their families.

After the initial period of receivership, subject to a performance review, the state may renew receivership for a period of up to three years, terminate the contract with the receiver and hire another one, or elevate the schools out of the “failing” or “persistently failing” categories.

TEACHER CERTIFICATION:

Teachers and administrators with lifetime certification must register with the state every five years.

Applicants for registration must complete 100 hours of continuing education or professional development every five years. “The department shall issue rigorous standards for courses, programs and activities that shall qualify as continuing teacher and leader education,” according to the bill.

Principals or teachers who perform observations for the purpose of the state’s teacher evaluation system may count those hours toward the total.

If educators don’t complete the state-approved professional development, they will not be able to maintain certification.

TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS:

The budget will establish new admission requirements for graduate schools of education in New York as well as scholarships for high-achieving students who attend graduate schools and commit to teaching in the state for five years.

Graduate schools of education will be required to “adopt rigorous selection criteria geared to predicting a candidate's academic success in its program,” including a cumulative 3.0 grade point average during an applicant’s undergraduate career and a minimum score on the Graduate Record Examination or an equivalent entrance exam.

Up to 15 percent of an incoming class may be exempted from the selection criteria “based on a student's demonstration of potential to positively contribute to the teaching profession or other extenuating circumstances.”

If more than half of students that satisfactorily complete a graduate school's education program fail state certification exams for three consecutive years, the state will suspend the program.

Full scholarships will be available for students who attend full-time, two-year graduate programs in education at public universities who “achieved academic excellence” as a resident student at an undergraduate college in New York. The recipient would have to sign a contract agreeing to teach or serve in an educational leadership position in a New York public school for five years.

The scholarship would be applied at the end of each term, and if a recipient did not successfully complete the program or ultimately teach in the state for five years, the award would be converted into a student loan.

Up to 500 awards may be given annually.

http://www.capitalnewyork.com/artic...264/outline-education-reform-proposals-budget
 
Last edited:
Cuomo: Education reforms are transformative, pro-teacher

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Gov. Andrew Cuomo on Wednesday touted the contentious educational reforms he fought to include in the state budget as transformative and said that when combined with a big school funding increase, they make this budget the “most pro-teacher” ever.

The Democratic governor’s comments to The Associated Press came after a bruising fight with teachers unions over the changes, which include revisions to teacher evaluations, new rules for the dismissal of ineffective teachers and changes to the process by which the state can take over chronically struggling schools.

Lawmakers included the reforms along with $1.4 billion in additional school funding in the budget approved early Wednesday.

“The largest investment in history. The most pro-teacher budget in history,” Cuomo said. “My mother was a schoolteacher. I have tremendous respect for teachers. There is no state budget that has honored teachers more than this.”

Teachers unions scoff at the assertion. While they like the spending increase, they say Cuomo’s emphasis on evaluations tied to student testing unfairly blames teachers for the economic and social challenges many students face.

“He basically said, ‘I’m declaring war on teachers and public education,’” said Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers. “This was the first battle. The governor thought he was going to get all of this stuff, and he did not get it.”
Cuomo initially suggested his own revisions to evaluations; now it will be up to state education officials to oversee the changes. His proposal on the state takeover of struggling schools was modified. A call to authorize more charter schools was removed from the budget to be considered separately later this year.

Cuomo points to provisions in the budget intended to recruit, retain and reward good teachers. One is a new scholarship program for students at public colleges and universities who commit to teaching in the state for five years. Others include a new statewide admissions standard for teacher preparation programs and a continuing education requirement for teachers
.

There also is $20 million in the budget for teacher merit pay, which Cuomo said will reward excellent teachers with up to $20,000 in bonus pay.

The evaluation proposals dominated debate over the $142 billion budget. Even some supporters acknowledged reservations about Cuomo’s plan.

“I won’t go as far as to say we love it, but it’s a reasonable compromise,” said Democratic Assemblywoman Catherine Nolan of Queens, chairwoman of the Assembly’s Education Committee.

The governor said he views his reforms in the context of his future legacy and as a struggle against who he calls “the most political forces that run Albany … the forces of the education industry … the supporters of the political establishment.”

“Government often tries episodic solutions or partial solutions because the political process doesn’t allow for a wholesale solution,” he said in a phone interview. “Sometimes incremental doesn’t work. Sometimes you can’t fix a part of the chain. You have to replace the entire chain.”

Unions held protests against the plan throughout the state and mounted an aggressive advertising campaign to criticize the governor.

The fight will continue, with debates over charter schools and mayoral control of New York City schools expected to loom large in the final two months of the legislative session.



http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/1/cuomo-education-reforms-are-transformative-pro-tea/
 
if you don't change the adult expectations of Black children, charter or public or private shit doesn't matter.

Black kids need SOME Black teachers, especially male. or people that actually believe that all kids can achieve at the highest level

all this moving of money around, doesn't change the root issue.

Pre K should be mandatory, and adult parental training should be as mandatory as pre natal doctor visits.
 
if you don't change the adult expectations of Black children, charter or public or private shit doesn't matter.

Black kids need SOME Black teachers, especially male. or people that actually believe that all kids can achieve at the highest level

all this moving of money around, doesn't change the root issue.

Pre K should be mandatory, and adult parental training should be as mandatory as pre natal doctor visits.

Completely agree
 
It's been pouring out blood for years(blood meaning money) and he's trying to slow it down so the body won't die.It was all good when money was just pour out and everyone got some.Now that you attach some responsibility and accountability to that money everyone has a problem,espacially the school teachers because a lot of them will be forced to either work or be out of a job and the good ones will be rewarded and some rightfully so.

I'm iffy about charter schools,they think it's a band-aide this wound it's not and neither is the urban-suburban program.
 
<iframe width="500" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8mob5q2w1Lk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Back
Top