I am a teacher, writer, voice-over artist and rationally opinionated observer of American and international society. While my job is to entertain and engage, my purpose is always to start a conversation.
Imagine what would happen if the so-called education reformers knew what they were talking about. Could actually articulate a meaningful program that would improve teaching and learning. Didn’t have an agenda that blamed unions and teachers, and relied on privatizing the public schools.
Imagine.
Unfortunately, that’s not the kind of reform movement we have in this country. What we have is a reactionary movement of right wing ideologues who want to impose market-based principles on a system that must serve all children in the United States. They also want to thin the ranks of union membership and rely on self-selecting administrators to run the schools without input from the very people who have been trained to educate its students. The worst part, though, is that these reformers seem to be making this all up as they go along.
These numbers mean absolutely nothing. There is no research to suggest that 30%, 35% or any other numbers will accurately measure the teacher’s role in a student’s learning. It’s being made up. In fact, about the only number that would accurately measure the student-teacher learning relationship would be zero percent, because standardized tests should not be used for that purpose.
Further, the State Board did nothing to raise the student level of concern for these tests. They mean very little to the children, but everything for the teachers, and I’m sure that parents, and the students themselves, understand that it’s OK for them to not do well on the tests especially if the student has test anxiety or simply doesn’t care. Thirty percent of nothing still means nothing.
The larger point, though, is that Governor Christie, Commissioner Cerf, and the true believers in the Department of Education see this as a negotiable percentage. It proves that there isn’t a percentage that’s tied to effective teaching and lowering it by 5% in New Jersey is a political decision, not an educational one. They are simply making it up as they go along. Any teacher who did that wouldn’t last two months in the classroom. The Governor wants another four years.
The educational testing mania that has gripped the country over the past decade has bared a lethal truth: we are terrible at learning history. As a teacher of that subject, I have seen it become devalued as the focus on math, science and language arts tests have rendered history and social science courses less important in the curriculum. Some students even take a lower level history class so their homework load doesn’t interfere with what they consider to be more useful, and tested, offerings.
It turns out that the past is telling us what every working educator knows about evaluating both students and teachers based on a standardized test: it doesn’t work and can falsely label people as failing when in fact they are not. It’s as true now as it was in 1845.
The problem is the assumption that a sit-down test is the most effective means by which to assess a student’s learning, something that education reformers take for granted. The truth is that people learn using all manner of strategies, assumptions, exercises and habits. Students today are more active in their classrooms. The most effective teachers use interactive activities, technology, and differentiated learning strategies that are meant to allow all students to do something during the day that contributes to successful learning. They assess and evaluate their students over time, stressing skills and content knowledge that can ebb and flow over the course of a school year. Much of that can’t be measured with a test, no matter how the questions are worded. The NJ Department of Education is touting the new PARCC tests as the vanguard of a new testing system that will be rigorous, applicable to higher education and the job market, and technologically advanced.
So what. It’s still a sit-down test. And because it uses computers, it will filter out some students who don’t keyboard well, or have difficulty seeing the screen, or whose technology in school is spotty. This is no way to evaluate what students know or to judge how valuable their teachers are to their learning. It’s artificial, biased and deceptive.
Massachusetts learned this lesson in 1845, and we still struggle against it today. If we truly wanted to evaluate students, we would test them using the same strategies effective teachers already use in the classroom. We would use portfolios, performance measures, written exercises that allow students to show content knowledge, but also editing and grammar skills, learning over time, and enable students to explain how they came to an answer either verbally or in an expository fashion. And oh yeah, we could have them answer some questions as they sit at their desks. But that wouldn’t be the whole kaboodle.
The problem with the above, real reforms, is that they don’t allow the politicians to blame unions, undercut collective bargaining, slash money to public education, promote private schools or play politics with the education system. The further problem is that real reform would require an acknowledgement that teachers would need to be intimately involved in the reform process, as opposed to those states, including New Jersey, where not one working public school teacher sat on the commission to overhaul the evaluation system.
It will be a long time before we can right these wrongs, and an even longer time before the students in our classrooms now will realize that they were guinea pigs in a political crusade that cared not a whit about what they learned, how they learned it or whether they could apply it to their lives as long as the testing companies, private enterprise groups and ignorant politicians got their cut.
Americans knew this in 1845. It led to cheating scandals and tooth-gnashing and teacher bashing. It’s too bad things haven’t changed.
Immediately after one of the most harrowing, frightening, wierdly compelling and sweat-inducing weeks in our recent history, the political backlash is rearing its ugly head. It’s emotional and knee-jerk and patently American.
First up is the argument that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a terrorist and thus should be treated as an enemy combatant, as opposed to a citizen criminal. The Senators pushing this line, Lindsay Graham, John McCain and Kelly Ayotte are reacting from pure emotion. There is no defending what the two brothers did or the dastardly effects of their action in a major American city, but can we at least step back a bit and consider the full range of options? Here is a 19 year-old, probably in thrall to his older brother, and probably not as committed to a radical path, who commits murder. By all other accounts, he’s a law-abiding person. There are circumstances. Let’s calm down.
The Senators assume that a Federal Court would be an inappropriate venue for weighing Dzhokhar’s guilt (or innocence, by the way. Does anybody remember that he’s still presumed innocent?) and that only a tightly controlled military tribunal will assure his punishment. They think that reading him his Miranda rights is an affront to justice. Not true, and a dangerous assumption. Let’s let the FBI do its job. The genius of our legal system is that it must filter out emotional responses. That’s what we need to have happen now.
The case also seems to have jolted the immigration debate. Again, the knee-jerk reaction is to shut the door to all immigrants and to throw out all the illegals. It’s as if the debate we’ve been having over the past four months simply vanished. Yes, we should all have legitimate concerns about the FBI’s interview with Tamerlan Tsarnaev and whether government security officials should have done more to follow-up on his trip to Russia and his possible radicalization at the hands of militant Chechen or al-Qaeda operatives. But how does a family that, until last week, basically followed the law and applied for legal status according to protocol get to throw an entire system into doubt?
They shouldn’t, and it’s up to pragmatic, level-headed citizens to see that. We certainly do need border security, but it’s not like the Tsarnaev family spirited themselves across the border under cover of night or lived on false papers or were outwardly hostile to the United States. We now know that at least one of them was, inwardly, but how could anyone know that he would commit this act? We can’t. That’s why it’s called terrorism. Because we don’t expect it.
And like the gun enthusiasts who said that background checks would not prevent another Newtown, closing the door would not stop another Boston (or, for that matter, another Oklahoma City or September 11). Tamerlan was here for 10 years before he acted. I’m sure there are other legal immigrants in this country who could similarly become radicalized and act in another city. Shall we hunt down all recent immigrants from every other hotspot in the world an follow them? Evict them? Where do we start? Are immigrants from Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Nepal, Tibet, Sri Lanka, the Central African Republic and any other area where there’s been civil unrest now eligible for government surveillance?
Speaking of the gun debate, I am extremely interested in where the Tsarnaev brothers got their guns. And whether they were registered. Or bought online. Background check? Based on the Newtown logic, I’m thinking the NRA is now going to call for all people who attend sporting events to carry guns (and for some on the left to outlaw pressure cookers). Or perhaps we should just stop having marathons. Clearly, these would solve the problem.
We need to be more diligent, to be sure, but we also need to step back and process this event logically. Only then can we look at our next steps with clear eyes.
On the 50th anniversary of the publication of THE FEMININE MYSTIQUE, it’s quite extraordinary to be able to point to significant advancements for women, especially women of color, in both government and business. The United States still has much work to do to include all voices in our literary and historical canon, but the publication of some recent books shows that we are moving in the right direction. A great example is a memoir that combines a gripping story of remarkable achievement with an audio performance that’s a tour-de-force: MY BELOVED WORLD, by Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, with narration by actor Rita Moreno.Justice Sotomayor’s is a true American story, and it will surely inspire those who might question whether they have the credentials or smarts to succeed in life. Sotomayor’s message is simple: Persevere and work hard. She writes about the strength that her mother needed to ensure her children’s success, and she voices doubts about her own path and whether she could actually achieve at the high level she learned to demand from herself.What makes the book a crowning achievement, though, is the work of narrator Rita Moreno. It turns out to be an inspired choice, and one that Sotomayor sees as a crucial decision in the recording process.
“The first time I saw Rita Moreno was on screen in “West Side Story.” I knew in watching her performance that she set a gold standard for professional achievement. When I thought about someone bringing MY BELOVED WORLD to life in spoken words, I knew Rita Moreno, the consummate actor, would be perfect. No one could have spoken both English and Spanish as flawlessly as she has, and no one else could have captured the passion behind my words so unerringly. Two women in two different worlds have found commonality.”
The book is one of those rare treats that combine words and audio into an experience that will delight the mind as well as the soul. It will also reinforce the notion that we are a diverse nation, and that’s one of our greatest strengths.
From the state that gave the United States the worst idea in school reform since Joe Clark prowled the halls of East Side High School in Paterson, NJ, Texas, comes this remarkable admission: High stakes testing has taken over the curriculum to the point where the Lone Star State is now rolling back the number of assessments students must take every year. Not only that, the reform that Bush wrought is proving that a laser-like focus on college prep curricula won’t hit every child.
The Texas House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a bill this month that would reduce the number of exams students must pass to earn a high school diploma to 5, from 15.
Fifteen tests just to pass high school? Let’s talk about out-of-control standardized assessments. Let’s further talk about the Texas requirement that all students take four years of English, science, social studies and math, including an advanced algebra class, because all students must be college-ready and matriculate at an institution of higher learning. Never mind students who are not proficient academic learners or who would benefit from a vocational curriculum. It’s vitally important for all students to get a foundation in the liberal arts, but young people also need exposure to non-academic courses and classes that do not rely on a test.
From an educational policy perspective, there is something to like in the fact that Texas is considering cutting back on testing. From the article:
Here in Texas, the backlash has been fiercest among parents and educators who believe testing has become excessive, particularly after a period when the state cut its budget for education.
On a recent afternoon, Joanne Salazar pulled out a copy of a testing calendar for the school in Austin where her daughter is a sophomore. “Of the last 12 weeks of school, 9 are impacted by testing,” Ms. Salazar said. “It has really started to control the schedule.”
Too many tests taking too much time out of the school year? Where have I heard that before?
Is there opposition to the proposed changes? Yes, and they require some analysis. Consider:
But at a time when about half of the students who enroll in community colleges in Texas require remedial math classes, Michael L. Williams, the state’s commissioner of education, called the proposed changes “an unfortunate retreat.”
“What gets tested gets taught,” Mr. Williams said. “What we treasure, we measure.”
First of all, the new standards, which were adopted in 2007, do not seem to have helped a large segment of Texas schoolchildren who enroll in community college. Second, it’s not just that what gets tested gets taught; it’s that Texas only teaches what’s on the test. And I can assure you that the Texas curriculum has narrowed considerably, since a teacher can’t possibly cover an enriching curriculum with the knowledge that very little will get taught during the last 12 weeks of school.
Hey, New Jersey, this is your future, and it’s starting in September. The states that adopted tests early are figuring out that they don’t contribute to a quality education, and they’re pulling back. What are we doing? Governor Christie has us jumping into the pool as the water is being emptied. This can’t, and won’t, end well.
If recent news reports are accurate, then the United States Senate will be discussing gun control measures that will look like John Cleese and the Ministry of Silly Walks: Take one small step, slide. take a giant stride forward, then backtrack a bit before moving forward again.
Whatever it takes.
Yes, the gun deal the Senate is discussing doesn’t include a lot of things that I would like to see including bans on certain firearms and a limit on how much ammunition a person can purchase or use. According to the NRA, this is a good thing and it will protect my Second Amendment rights to carry an arsenal in my back pocket so the Obama Administration doesn’t confiscate my guns in the name of public safety. I get that. But this is a major step forward in what will be a years-long process to bring our gun laws in line with socially responsible behavior and the sense that Newtown changed the debate for good over whether the constitution allows us unlimited personal firepower.
I am cautiously optimistic that we will get a gun bill through the Senate. The House will be a higher hurdle, but enough conservatives can probably feel safe to vote for any compromise bill. If the House votes it down, look for President Obama to pull out all the stops to make it an issue in 2014.
It’s imperfect, but it’s a start. Get a bill passed. It can always be improved later on.
Whenever I read about the foolishness of using standardized tests to evaluate teachers, I am immediately reminded of my own experiences in school, and how even a competent student like me could have done serious damage to otherwise excellent teachers. I understand the danger of generalizing my experience to the larger issue, but I’m sure that I’m not alone, and I know that many teachers face the same issues I have.
Miss Smith was both my algebra and geometry teacher when I was in high school. She was an imposing women who asked great deal from us, and she didn’t tolerate either fools or students who didn’t want to learn mathematics. She was an excellent teacher in every way. The problem is that I learned very little according to the tests I took in class, and if 50% of her yearly evaluation was based on my, and some of my classmates’, performance on a standardized test, then she would have been in real trouble.
But the problem was not hers. The problem was mine. I studied, but algebra was a foreign language and geometry was an alien language. I did my homework. I went after school for help. I just didn’t, and couldn’t, get it. As the school years progressed, I lost some interest in math, which didn’t help my performance in Miss Smith’s class. So if I had to take a year-end test that would in any way tell the administration how effective a teacher Miss Smith was, my score would have impacted her evaluation. And that would be a terrible injustice to her.
Do I understand algebra and geometry today, three decades later? Yes and no. Algebra comes easier when I need to use variables in my day-to-day existence. Geometry? Not so much. I continue to try and get it, but it’s still an alien language. Miss Smith’s fault? Not on your life.
I also had another Smith in high school, but his name was Mister and he taught Earth Science. If you can believe it, I did worse in that class than I did in either of Miss Smith’s math classes. And again, the problem was me. There was very little that Mr. Smith could do to help me understand and apply facts and analysis about igneous and sedimentary rocks in a way that made sense to me. My test scores were routinely in the 20s and 30s, which mercifully he curved. Was he as effective a teacher as Miss Smith? No. Quite honestly, he wore a scowl daily, was sarcastic, and it was not always clear that he had all of his faculties while he was teaching. But other students did well in his class and he could be a very good teacher.
I had the power, though, to sink him if I had to take a standardized test that evaluated his abilities as a teacher. I didn’t learn much Earth Science and to this day tend to shy away from it, with the exception of plate tectonics, but I don’t really understand that all too well. I just like the rings of fire and how new Hawaiian land gets created.
I did well in English and I loved my Shakespeare class and the teacher (not named Smith), but my full Elizabethan flowering didn’t come until college. Do I give my professor the credit for getting me interested in the Bard? Of course not. It was my high school teacher, but again, if I had to take a standardized test on Hamlet or the Scottish play, I would not have done so well.
So it is with thousands of students in New Jersey and millions across the United States. They are in our classes and we can teach them, but even the good ones will not always learn everything that’s in the curriculum. Or they will do well on certain assignments, but when it comes to synthesis, they either can’t or won’t do it. They are children and they are unpredictable. The tests they’ll take were not meant to evaluate teacher performance.
Further, the standardized tests they’ll take mean very little to them, but they will have enormous consequences to the teachers who administer them. Does that make sense? It does to those people who think they’re reforming education or believe that America’s teachers are failing.
And to them, I can just see Miss Smith’s burning gaze falling upon them as she asks the immortal question I heard many times in her class: “How in the ham sandwich did you get an answer like that?”
The Supreme Court will finally hear arguments in the Marriage Equality cases this week, and it’s about time. If justice delayed is justice denied, than we’ve had denial of justice for a good part of our population for far too long.
The opponents of marriage equality do not want to talk about civil rights. They don’t want to talk about equality. They don’t want to talk about gays sharing in society and being fully accepted in American culture. What they want to talk about is redefining marriage, which they say is what these cases are all about. They also want to point to the Bible for their definition, and cite its prohibitions against any homosexual activity. You’ll excuse me, but I am tired of having to worry about what a book that also mandates stoning, banishment and ritual murder has to say about people who live in a manner that is really not your business. If religious opponents of marriage equality can pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to apply here, then I will feel free to ignore the Bible altogether as a remnant of tales, stories and oral histories that provide a fascinating narrative, but are not relevant to the modern world.
But in the end, they are simply redefining equality. And that’s wrong.
The main argument against marriage equality is that it would redefine the institution that opponents believe to be the bedrock of any civilization. Once you allow anybody who loves another person to marry them, then you’re opening the door to polygamy, incest and child marriage. Here’s Brian S. Brown, one of the most active opponents of marriage equality:
“When you knock over a core pillar of society like marriage, and then try to redefine biblical views of marriage as bigotry, there will be consequences,” Mr. Brown warned last August in a fund-raising letter. “Will one of the consequences be a serious push to normalize pedophilia?”
Then there’s this audio from the NPR program The Takeaway, where Joseph Backholm, executive director of Family Policy Institute, an anti-marriage equality group, says that not only should gays not be allowed to marry, they shouldn’t be able to adopt and raise children, since that right is traditionally reserved for those who can create children. I guess childless heterosexual couples need not apply either.
This is what the right wing does best: They scare and twist facts so that there’s no other choice but to oppose the same things they oppose. But Mr. Brown did more than that. He enlisted African-American clergymen and women to oppose marriage equality because, he said, it was less a civil rights issue than one of religious doctrine. Wasn’t this the same argument that segregationists used to fight integration? Yes it was.
Denying people rights is the same no matter what their station is. Laws that forbid intermarriage were overturned.Laws that forbid certain sexual practices were overturned. Public places were integrated. The long history of our country generally moves in one direction; towards more freedom and more access for all groups. I can’t imagine the Supreme Court saying that marriage equality is against the Constitution. It’s just a matter of how far they’ll go.
The problem, though, is that even if the Court overturns the Defense of Marriage Act, it doesn’t mean that gay couples will have an unfettered right to marry or enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual couples. Unless the Court mandates marriage equality throughout the nation, states that don’t recognize it can continue to not do so. That will continue to complicate the lives of those couples who are legally married in the eight states that do recognize marriages if they even visit states that do not. That’s not equality. More delays. More denials.
I expect that the Court will open the gates to marriage equality in some way, but won’t make a sweeping judgement that covers the whole country. I also believe that this will be another John Roberts decision and that he will provide the fifth vote in favor. If Anthony Kennedy comes along, then the tally will be 6-3. I just can’t see Scalia, Alito or Thomas signing on to this.
Opponents of marriage equality say that an expansion of marriage rights is not a done deal. I disagree. Many people already have these marriage rights in the states that recognize gay marriage. I cannot imagine that the court would take those rights away. And once they are affirmed, they will become part of the American way of life. Gay couples will be more visible and will ultimately become more accepted. It will take some time and there will be bumps along the way, but it will happen.
Because this is a civil rights issue. Plain and simple.
Imagine that a group of conservatives get together to talk about pressing issues, deliberate about a leader that will take them into the near future and debate their organization’s role in world affairs. Of course, I’m talking about the Conservative Political Action Conference. Or the recent conclave of Cardinals. At this point, the two are interchangeable.
That’s the problem for conservatives.
Pope Francis 1
As far as the College of Cardinals is concerned, now that we finally have the answer to all of those prayers, we can reveal the Almighty’s intentions. The Holy One clearly prefers that a rather old man from Argentina, who is so humble that he names himself after an even more humble saint, run the Church.
Adonai, if I can be so informal, also clearly wants the red hats to come back to Rome sooner than later (will Francis make it to 90?) to choose yet another man so the Church can gauge how long it can stall on 1. reforming itself, and 2. including ALL of the world’s Catholics in its warm embrace. Until then, enjoy and rejoice as the world celebrates the second most famous Argentinian in the world today (after Lionel Messi).
As for the conservative Republicans, their meeting this week reflects the brawl that was the inevitable result of its losses in November, when only the time-tested strategy of gerrymandering saved their House majority. We’ve already seen some splintering as nine Republican governors have decided to take ACA Medicaid money, some GOP Senators are ready to discuss compromises on taxes to get a fiscal deal, and one, Rob Portman of Ohio, who has come out (no pun intended) for marriage equality on account of his gay son.
Who came out to him. Two years ago. No hurry.
Yes, put another nail in the “it’s a lifestyle choice” school of determining gayness. I can’t imagine the Portman house being anything other that hetero-centric. Maybe the Senator can talk to Dick Cheney about it.
The GOP’s problem is that it’s out-of-touch with what most Americans want for their future and the future of the country. They scold, seem to be anti-everything, and don’t see that adapting to the world in not surrender of your core beliefs. It’s called tolerance and respect, and it doesn’t matter if it’s Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum or Marco Rubio saying it, the message is the same. The messenger will lose in 2016 if they don’t change.
Liberals took a hit this week too, as Mayor Bloomberg’s soda gambit was snuffed out by the courts although he promises an appeal. And he should. Further, Twinkies will soon be back in stores after Hostess sold the brand for $410 million dollars, so the score stands at Junk Food 2-Health Food 0. Oh, and the new Twinkies will still have the Hostess name on them so as not to confuse anybody.
Meanwhile, President Obama’s visit with the Congress produced some positive reviews, but to expect a change of heart among the true believers would require a Providential act. Maybe a trip to Israel is not a bad idea, or is really part of the plan.
There’s a great deal to digest in these new rules, but the key to it all is how teachers are going to be evaluated, rated and either retained, let go or brought up on tenure charges for not adequately performing their jobs. Those regulations were issued separately by the DOE and are contained in this memorandum and summarized in this article.
It is here that we learn that a 50-50 split is actually a loaded proposition that is stacked against effective teaching and learning, and assumes that tests can measure how well an educator is doing their job. It is scary, and it’s coming to a school district near you in September.
All public school teachers in New Jersey will be evaluated with a system that divides their performance into two categories: 50% will be based on classroom observations and 50% will be based on student test scores or other measures of student classroom progress. The problem is that these are not equal measures. Quite simply, if all other measures are equal, the test score/student progress half will be used as the tie breaker, which effectively means that whether a teacher keeps their job is more directly related to how well their students perform on tests. I heard Commissioner of Education Christopher Cerf say it in person. I wrote it down.
I don’t think there is a single teacher who says that student achievement is irrelevant in their performance. Any teacher should be able to demonstrate that the children are learning.
The question is the evidence and how to attribute that to any one teacher. And I can say with confidence that nobody yet has figured out how to do that.
It’s a serious issue, and there are enormous stakes in us getting it right.
Classroom teachers know that they can gain very valuable information from students when they analyze scores or critical thinking assignments. Teachers can asess content knowledge, skill attainment and progress towards educational objectives. What they also know is that making these measures the tie-breaking metric is folly. You’d get more relevant data by noting which students ate an adequate breakfast the day of the test, or asked parents at drop-off how their marriages are working out, their family income, or when they last went to an AA meeting. That will tell me more about potential student performance on the day of the test than what they might have learned and retained since September.
Given that, the new state testing guidelines, courtesy of the PARCC Consortium, should make every teacher whose students will take them anticipate a shiver up the spine. Here’s what’s in store:
Third-graders, for example, now spend roughly five hours, spread over four days, on the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge or NJ ASK tests. The new exams will take eight hours, but will be split among nine short sessions.
In Grades 4 and above, the new tests will take nine and a half hours total — over nine sessions — up from about six hours now. Some sections will take place after three-quarters of the school year is over, and other sections at the end of the year.
Think about how many days teachers and students will lose from instruction just to administer the tests. Think about the anxiety that many students will feel not only in March, but in May since the tests will be given 75% of the way through the school year and then again 90% of the way through. Then think about the disruptions in the day, because students will take these tests in short time periods, rendering much of the rest of the day’s instruction irrelevant.
Now let’s factor in the cost and availability of the computers these tests require (though there is a paper version for students whose IEPs require it). The state is recommending one computer per student. Some districts won’t have that, and can’t afford to buy more. The good news is that districts can schedule the tests in shifts so that all students can be accommodated. The bad news is that the tests will be given at all different times of the day, so possible cheating might be an issue (that one fact negates the idea that these are standardized tests). And what if some of your students don’t have sufficient enough keyboarding skills to do well on the tests? The state suggests that this will open up your district’s curriculum to teach more keyboarding. Shall we take that time away from Social Studies? Science? Physical Education? Art? We’re open to suggestions.
These tests are being hailed as ushering in a new era of education and teacher evaluation in New Jersey, but before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s remember two things:
1. The dirty secret behind the new teacher evaluation rules is that only about 20% of New Jersey’s schoolteachers will be evaluated using a standardized test, because the state has only set up tests for elementary grades in math and language arts. All other disciplines will have to come up with a classroom measure that shows student progress. Therefore, the tests will only have limited utility.
2. Standardized tests and other student progress data do not measure a teacher’s effectiveness.
The bottom line, though, is that the 50% of a teacher’s evaluation that uses tests/data will always beat out the 50% based on classroom observations. Always.
Remember last summer when the media attempted to parse the arguments and meaning of the Supreme Court’s sessions on the Affordable Care Act? Wasn’t it fun to play the “How will they vote” game? Wasn’t it extra fun when Justice Roberts played that big bad joke on Antonin Scalia and sided with the squirrely liberals?
Well, if you liked that, then you have to love last week’s arguments in the case surrounding the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Here is one of the iconic laws of the civil rights era under siege from a hostile conservative majority, with the possible (probable) result that it could be overturned. But really, what’s the case all about? And what’s the fuss about comments from Justices Scalia and Roberts? if these questions burn in your soul, then you’ve come to the right place.
Here’s the recap for your edification and delight.
The Supreme Court will rule on whether a key part of the Voting Rights Act, Section 5, should stand. The background on Section 5 can be found here, but the basic idea is this:
Section 5 freezes election practices or procedures in certain states until the new procedures have been subjected to review, either after an administrative review by the United States Attorney General, or after a lawsuit before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. This means that voting changes in covered jurisdictions may not be used until that review has been obtained.
Application of this formula resulted in the following states becoming, in their entirety, “covered jurisdictions”: Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, In addition, certain political subdivisions (usually counties) in four other states (Arizona, Hawaii, Idaho, and North Carolina were covered. It also provided a procedure to terminate this coverage.
Under Section 5, any change with respect to voting in a covered jurisdiction — or any political subunit within it — cannot legally be enforced unless and until the jurisdiction first obtains the requisite determination by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or makes a submission to the Attorney General. This requires proof that the proposed voting change does not deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. If the jurisdiction is unable to prove the absence of such discrimination, the District Court denies the requested judgment, or in the case of administrative submissions, the Attorney General objects to the change, and it remains legally unenforceable.
What this means is that none of the states listed above can make a change to its voting laws or procedures (changing polling places, hours, method of voting, and so on) without the blessing of the Justice Department. During the 1960s, when the law was passed, many states severely restricted African-American voting rights. The argument today is that almost 50 years later, those restrictions are unnecessary and burdensome.
The legal issue turns on two main parts of the act: Section Five, which covers jurisdictions with a history of discrimination, and Section Two, which covers the entire country. Both sections outlaw rules that intentionally discriminate against or otherwise disproportionately harm minority voters. Section Two would remain in effect even if the court strikes down Section Five.
But reliance only on Section Two would mean a crucial difference in how hard it may be to block a change in voting rules in an area that is currently covered by Section Five. Those jurisdictions, because of their history of discrimination, must prove that any proposed change would not make minority voters worse off.
By contrast, under Section Two, the burden of proof is on a plaintiff to demonstrate in court that a change would prevent minorities from having a fair opportunity to elect representatives of their choice.
“Getting rid of Section Five is not getting rid of voting rights; it would just make voting rights litigation look like normal lawsuits,” said Ilya Shapiro, a legal scholar at the Cato Institute, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief urging the court to strike down Section Five. “It would mean that if the federal government claims people have been harmed, it would have to prove it.”
But J. Gerald Hebert, who formerly handled voting rights litigation for the Justice Department and is now in private practice, said that losing Section Five would be “devastating to protecting voting rights” because the costs of a lawsuit are so steep. Jon Greenbaum, the legal director for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said it would mean that the bulk of changes that now receive automatic scrutiny by the federal government could take effect without any review, eliminating a deterrent against mischief.
In other words, under Section Five, the burden of proof is on the municipality to prove that it’s not discriminating by passing a law that affects voting. Under Section Two, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and they would have to foot the bill for the lawsuit. Getting rid of Section Five doesn’t mean that states can pass discriminatory laws because Section Two, which covers the whole country, would still be in effect. But like most conservative ideas, the economic and legal toll would be on those who are most likely to be affected, who are also the least likely to able to pay to defend their rights.
The case before the court comes from Shelby County, Alabama. Congress routinely re-approved the Voting Rights Act in 1970, 1975, 1982, and in 2006 extended it for 25 years. From NBC News,
Shelby County’s lawyer Bert Rein argued that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act – which Congress renewed for another 25 years in 2006 – is unconstitutional because the formula used to determine which states are covered is outdated – based on voter turnout and registration data from 1972.
In essence, Shelby County is saying that the law is outdated, is based on obsolete information, and no longer reflects modern southern (and other) politics.
As you can see, states that can do as they please on voting laws, and only have to worry about deep-pocketed plaintiffs challenging them on Section Two, have passed the most restictve voting laws. If the Supreme Court strikes down the Act, it could lead to more Voter ID laws and the suppression of early voting laws that seem to help minority voters in the states that have them. Remember that it’s not just the south anymore. Laws that dissuade voters from voting is a national problem.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that during oral arguments, the conservative members of the court seemed to side with Shelby County, saying that the law was outdated and, in Justice Scalia’s words,
“very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”
Racial entitlement.
There’s a reason that there was loud backlash against Scalia for uttering this phrase. Before there was a Voting Rights Act, wasn’t the entitlement on the side of whites? And wasn’t the remedy to make sure that all people could exercise their rights? How then did the remedy become an entitlement for African and Native Americans? All these people were asking for was the franchise. Now Justice Scalia is reclassifying them as a group that doesn’t deserve any more protections.
“He’s wrong, and in fact what’s truly disturbing is not just the doctrinaire way he presented by the assertion, but when we went searching for an data that could substantiate what he was saying, the only thing we could find was a census survey pulled from 2010 … which speaks of noncitizen blacks,” Galvin said. “We have an immigrant population of black folks and many other folks. Mississippi has no noncitizen blacks, so to reach his conclusion, you have to rely on clearly flawed information.”
By contrast, Justice Breyer referred to voting procedures as a disease, saying,
“It’s an old disease, it’s gotten a lot better, a lot better, but it’s still there,” he said. “So if you had a remedy that really helped it work, but it (discrimination) wasn’t totally over, wouldn’t you keep that remedy?”
Well, yes, but apparently, he’s in the minority.
Although it looks rather grim for keeping the Voting Rights Act intact, please do remember that it looked similar for the fate of the Affordable Care Act this time last year and we know how that worked out. Perhaps Justice Roberts or Kennedy, who also seemed hostile to upholding the Act, will change their tunes in chambers, but I don’t expect it. Given that both Florida and Ohio had significant problems with their voting procedures, and also given the love that many Republican Governors have for placing roadblocks to voting for minority communities, I could see an expansion of restrictions from the south to other parts of the country. It would then be up to individual voters to bring suits, but again, they would also have to pay for them.
One of the popular phrases that opponents of the Act use is that we’ve elected an African-American President twice, proving that we’ve turned the corner on race and voting. Very true. But the other side of the coin is that we’ve made history not only because of progress, but in spite of state laws aimed at disenfranchising minority voters who stayed in line well past poll closing time and used social media to publicize their plight. When we no longer have to worry about these shenanigans, then we won’t need the Voting Rights Act anymore. But until then, it’s clear that we still do.
When my colleagues and I met with New Jersey Commissioner of Education Christopher Cerf and his staff in January, he alluded to March 6 as the date when the State Board of Education would be issuing its final rules on teacher evaluation. He reminded us that final rules meant that because of public comments the rules could change, but that we could confidently move ahead with our evaluation system based on what they said. If any were changed significantly, he said, we could also alter ours to adapt to the new rules.
That day is just around the corner. Next week, all interested parties are on notice that they can testify before the State BOE on the new rules, and that this will be the final time that the state board will hear comments. They are then set to consider any last minute changes and adopt the final rules in September. If this seems to be a tight time frame, it is. By design. Unless you’re in one of the Pilot I or Pilot II districts, you basically have this spring to work out any kinks in your evaluation plan, test it, get feedback from the faculty and staff, and get ready to fully implement it beginning in September. Curiouser, the state timeline says that all staff must be trained on their chosen system by August 31. So if there are any changes in September…well, that’s not on the agenda next week. But it would be fun to ask about it, yes?
Remember that the people I met at the DOE are true believers in this new system and to a person said that the old system was “failing our students and communities.” When the Superintendents at our meeting reminded the DOE Assistant Commissioners that their districts had effective evaluation systems in place and that our schools were educating students, the response was that 1. This system is better and 2. You’re lying.
Truly.
One of the assistants, who came from an effective suburban district noted that when he as an assistant principal(!) he came to the conclusion that the manner in which his nationally-noted Middlesex County district evaluated tenured staff members was a “joke” and “didn’t really do a good job at identifying failing teachers.” Thus, the whole state must now adhere to this gentleman’s skewed version of evaluation. It’s that bad.
If you can get down to Trenton on March 6, please do, because we need as many voices as we can to remind the state BOE that those of us who work in classrooms have real concerns about the evaluation system and process. Commissioner Cerf believes that he has the BOE in his pocket. Let’s make sure that our side has its say.
We use cookies to improve your experience on our site. By agreeing to this, we can analyze browsing behavior and unique IDs on this site. Declining or revoking consent may affect certain features.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
