A New Jersey Farmer Blog: Where Democracy Lives

The Smoking Gun Shoots Blanks

2013-05-19T20:00:00.001-04:00

There's something telling about Mitch McConnell saying that the health care act will be the major issue in the 2014 midterm elections. It means that he realizes that the GOP will smoke its triple scandal orgasm cigarette and move on before the year is out. It also means that he operates in the same blindered echo-chamber the far right has occupied since March of 2010. Yes, the IRS does have a role to play in the ACA's rollout and implementation, but it's not going to be responsible for the death of the Republican Party. The party faithful are doing a good enough job of that.

After a week of terrible news, two major polls--CNN/ORC and Gallup--are showing that President Obama's approval ratings are holding steady in the low 50s, but that many Americans are not satisfied with many of the answers the members of his administration, and he, are giving. That's understandable. These are undeniably poor governmental practices, and if anybody has broken the law, then they should be punished. But that will be difficult.

What happened at the IRS office in Cincinnati sounds suspicioulsy like the office of any other overworked, understaffed institution in the United States. People made choices on their own, seemingly without a lot of oversight, and they tried to be efficient in the face of technology inefficiencies and a dash of confusion. There's no conspiracy here, despite the right wing's continuing bleating, because there were some left wing groups that got caught up in the excess scrutiny. Plus, at the time, most of the new groups asking for tax-exempts status were Tea Party affiliated because that's when they rose to power, so that was the bulk of the applications to begin with. And there's no evidence (yet) that a majority or even a large cohort of these groups was denied their tax-exempt status because of their affiliation. This is not a scandal: It's incompetence, and that's not criminal.

The ongoing drama in Benghazi is likewise a government muddle, but it looks like it's mostly a CIA-State Department fight that resulted in terrible editing and a tragic miscalculation of what was happening on the ground. Again, is there evidence of illegal activity? Probably not, but the GOP will spend more time than it needs to trying to unearth something that isn't there.

The Justice Department's rummaging through the Associated Press' phone records is the most chilling of the three issues because it combines the worst of the War on Terror with a violation of the trust that journalists have with their sources. Its' also the most disappointing aspect of the Obama Administration's continuation of policies put in place during George W. Bush's tenure in the White House. Perhaps this will result in a national shield law, something that, until now, the Obama administration has been against.

The right wing has been waiting for the opportunity to investigate the president for over four years, and they've finally received their opportunity. They will probably be disappointed, but not until they've extracted some political coinage for their trouble. This will boomerang on them if it means that immigration and tax reform are sacrificed in the name of non-existent conspiracies.

And really, if you want to compare Obama to Nixon, then you probably weren't alive during the 1970s, and if you were, you learned the wrong lessons.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

My Commencement Address

2013-05-14T20:44:00.002-04:00

Now that it's graduation season, the press can't help but write articles like this one that discuss the terrible job market and how recent college graduates don't feel prepared to enter the work force.

To that I say, welcome to reality.

College is not job training; it's academic training, and any university worth its books will operate on that premise. Graduates who think that they are now ready for the working world are living under a false assumption that's been sold to the public for decades. High school guidance counselors, college consultants and many teachers peddle this connection as if it was always true and that the main reason one should go to college is simply to get a job. Institutions of higher education have bought into this line of illogic and are even going to far as to tailor their recruiting messages to highlight the terrific jobs their graduates have found.

What the colleges don't tell you is whether those jobs are related to what you majored in. That is sometimes an inconvenient measure, akin to the one your high school used to keep property values in your town elevated. The school highlights the wonderful colleges its graduates attend, but does zero follow-up to see who's staying in school, who's graduating, and where they're working. And all it costs is a zillion dollars, most if it in indebtedness that's crushing the wannabe middle class.

So back to the question: Do you want job training? Find an apprenticeship or a school that focuses on technical skills. Don't go to a pricey university and then complain that you don't believe that you are ready for the working world.

A university degree confers upon you the affirmation that you've studied an academic discipline, thought about it, questioned its assumptions and come out the other side a more EDUCATED person. Along the way, perhaps you took that odd course that had nothing to do with your major or making money simply because it was interesting or the professor was exceptional or the guy/gal you liked was also signed up. A university is not a job factory, and people ignore that fact at their peril.

When I graduated in the early 80s, all full of myself for having gone to the premier Communications school in the country, I was asked the same question on every interview:

How fast can you type?

Mazel tov to all recent graduates. Your work education begins now.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Worst Political Era Ever. Except For All The Others

2013-05-08T22:13:00.000-04:00

After two weeks of not writing, a function of both intellectual blockage and a terrifically busy work schedule, I find myself confronted with the same news and political reality as existed 14 days ago, only more so. Stories about how dysfunctional our political system is litter the websites, newspapers and social media outlets we visit.

Is it true that we live in the worst of all possible worlds? That our system has become so mired in petty squabbles that it qualifies as the most terrible atmosphere in United States history? Depends on your definition.

Ask Thomas Jefferson, who was accused of hating religion so much that the opposition, John Adams of all people, spread rumors that Jefferson was going to outlaw it. How about "King" Andrew Jackson, who was supposed to be all-powerful and who ignored a Supreme Court decision prohibiting him from moving Native American tribes from Georgia, where there was gold on their land, to Oklahoma, where the land tended to dry up and blow away. Or Andrew Johnson, who was impeached and almost convicted in 1868 for violating a law that was probably unconstitutional to begin with, and had numerous vetoes overridden by a Congress that treated him as an afterthought. Or Harry Truman, who was thought to be harboring Communists in his government, Johnson and Nixon, who were hated for the Vietnam War, violations of civil liberties and the Watergate scandal, and Bill Clinton, ignored, impeached and politically impotent in the face of a concerted Republican majority. Each of these presidents were the targets of opposition slings and arrows who squawked that the end of the republic was at hand.

The genius, and the curse, of our political system is that it's based on three competing political branches, each of whom is forever concerned about maintaining its power. Cooperation is rare and mostly occurs when one party has a significant majority in both houses. FDR was able to get major New Deal legislation through Congress with large Democratic majorities, and LBJ did the same with the Great Society programs. Both Nixon and Reagan were able to work with Democratic majorities and that's why their successes were less ideological than they otherwise would be. GW Bush had Republican majorities in the middle of his term, but Social Security reform was anathema to the left, and immigration reform died because of right wing opposition. As I recall, these were all pitched battles with ruin promised by both sides if their legislation wasn't passed.

Thus it is today. President Obama had great success in his first two years with Democratic majorities and an important 60 votes in the Senate. After the 2010 elections? Not so much. Yes, the right has an irrational opposition to him and successfully fought back on guns. We'll get an immigration bill this year because the political stakes for the Republicans are too high for failure. We might even get tax reform. But it would take Democratic majorities in the House and Senate to finish the work that Obama was elected to accomplish, including energy, environmental and bank reform.

So let's all calm down a bit and understand that while our era is contentious, it's not the end of the political world. The events of the past four years will reach an endpoint with one party breaking out and leading a new push in their direction. My hunch, and hope, is that it will be the Democrats, but it will probably take a couple of election cycles to achieve.

Until then, the media machine will crank out apocalyptic pronouncements about how bad things are. Don't you believe it.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

But Zero Percent Confidence: Teacher Reform Gets Squishy

2013-05-05T19:23:00.001-04:00

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.

Consider.

This past week, the New Jersey State Board of Education agreed to lower the percentage by which standardized tests will be used to evaluate teacher performance from 35% to 30%. They also raised the amount of time a student would need to be enrolled in a particular teacher's classroom for their tests to count for that teacher's evaluation from 60% to 70%. Impressive numbers that show a marked concern for teaching, learning, effective evaluation and a nod towards the science of educational assessment, no?

No. Emphatically, no.

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.

Fail.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

...Are Doomed to Repeat It

2013-04-22T22:32:00.001-04:00

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.

And this is new, right? Wrong.

That pain in your tush is the bite history just took out of it.

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.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Boston Backlash

2013-04-21T19:06:00.001-04:00

Here it comes.

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 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 of 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-Queda 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.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Talking With Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor

2013-04-14T21:02:00.000-04:00

Here is my latest interview appearing in Audiofile Magazine. No, I didn't get to speak with her, but she gave us a nice quote to use.

My audio review of the book using Soundcloud is here. Click the orange arrow at the top of the page to play it.

Talking With

SONIA SOTOMAYOR

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.

Robert I. Grundfest

APR/MAY 13
© AudioFile 2013, Portland, Maine

The Texas Education Back-Step

2013-04-11T21:39:00.001-04:00

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.

Here's the story, and here are some stunning facts:

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.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Target Moves

2013-04-10T16:36:00.001-04:00

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.

The negotiations over the proposed bill have been fraught with political dangers for both Republicans and Democrats. It's still so partisan that Republican Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania didn't even want New York Democrat Chuck Schumer in the news conference announcing the deal for fear that Schumer's presence would put off gun rights advocates. And of course, there's still the prospect of a GOP-led filibuster, but support for that has waned over the past day. Looks like even Mitch McConnell is powerless to stop common sense. But he's trying.

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.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Smiths and the Folly of Testing

2013-04-01T06:27:00.001-04:00

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?"

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Redefining Equality

2013-03-24T19:29:00.000-04:00

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.

Here is a graphic that explains how the court might rule.

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.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Political Muddle

2013-03-17T20:33:00.000-04:00

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.

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.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Trenton Math: Where 50-50 Isn't a Tie

2013-03-06T20:29:00.001-05:00

Good news for responsible educators was difficult to come by yesterday as the New Jersey State Department of Education released a 104 page document that details the new rules for the teacher evaluation system. All of the anti-reformer's greatest hits are in the new rules including the new guidelines on teacher retention, setting up an evaluation rubric and stating, rather emphatically, that the state sees no employment ramifications from the new rules.

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.

The further problem is that there is little credible research showing that teacher performance is actually related to how students score on tests. Even Charlotte Danielson, the author of the most widely used evaluation rubric in New Jersey, says so:

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 assess 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.

If you work in public education in New Jersey, don't ever forget it.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

On Voting Rights the Court Gets It Wrong

2013-03-03T17:36:00.002-05:00

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.

But there's also a section of the case that has to do with Section 2, as discussed in this article.

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.

The other side of the argument is that the Voting Rights Act is working, so why get rid of it? There is a plethora of data that shows that the law is still needed, and that taking federal oversight away from places that have histories of discrimination is an invitation to continued mischief. This chart below graphically illustrates the effects of such laws.

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.

Further, Chief Justice Roberts went so far as to compare African-American voting patterns in Mississippi, which he said had the best ratio of black turnout to white, to Massachusetts, which he said had the worst ratio. Not only was he wrong on the facts, but does anyone truly believe that Mississippi had, and has, a better record when it comes to open voting than the Bay State?

Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin:

“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.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Final Teacher Evaluation Rules. Until They Change.

2013-02-27T21:04:00.001-05:00

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.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The 5:22 to Sequestration Station

2013-02-24T12:37:00.001-05:00

You can change here for Dysfunction Junction, or take the local, making all stops to Interminable Terminal. Have your tickets ready. If you can afford them.

This latest skirmish over the economy and the role of government is highlighting more than just the usual differences between the parties. It's uncovering the stripped-bare disdain the Republicans have for negotiating with the president and their utter lack of gravity when it comes to exchanging ideas. Yes, the left does not want Obama to back down on anything related to Medicare or Social Security or balancing budget cuts with revenue, but when the other party simply refuses to meet you halfway, they cease to be a responsible partner.

Up to now, the GOP criticism of Obama was that he was playing politics with the sequester, didn't have a specific plan to confront it, and was only looking to blame the Republicans for their obstinacy. And besides which, some said, the cuts will not be as bad as advertised. In fact, they won't be bad at all.

Well, here comes the reality. Governors of both parties are getting plenty nervous about the effects the cuts will have on their still-fragile budgets. They won't bring the government to a standstill, nor will they shut down Washington, which I believe to be the secret Republican fantasy, but they will do something worse. They will be a nuisance and a slow trickle of bad news. They will deny people who need certain services what they need. They might result in layoffs at the state and local levels. In short, they will drain away confidence at a time when we need it to increase. But if that's what the GOP wants, then they'll get it.

If government by enforced austerity was a theory, then I could see that implementing it could have some positive attributes. But all we need to do is look at Europe to see the real world application of destructive government pullbacks. It ain't pretty, and it's getting worse. So why continue to push it? Because the Republican Party is bent not only on destroying itself, but on sticking with ideology at the expense of common sense. I do not question anyone's patriotism or call them disloyal in the way that Senator Ted Cruz did to Chuck Hagel, but I do wonder what motivates the right to follow policies that will have such a negative effect on the country.

I suppose that President Obama's, and the Democrats', worst nightmare would be that the sequester takes effect and the effect is minimal and possibly positive. That would embolden Republicans to continue to push for even more cuts, though not to the military I'm sure, and would discredit and undercut the left's economic arguments. I'm not gambling on that outcome. The economy needs more money to circulate and get spent, not less. Exactly the opposite will begin happening on Friday.

All aboard.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The GOP Eats Its Own

2013-02-17T17:15:00.002-05:00

Once Chick Hagel is finally confirmed as Secretary of Defense, he should think twice about accepting any lunch invitations from his former GOP colleagues. My fear is that he will become the meal. Yes, friends, the imploding tsunamic A-bomb that is the Republican Party is trying to claim another trophy for its sagging walls, but all they've done is drawn out a fight they've already given up on to a president they never get tired of losing to.

You would think that a decorated Vietnam veteran who served as a Senator would be a lock to be confirmed even in the polarized political world we live in. Apparently, though, his maverick denunciations of Bush era foreign policy including a spot-on critique of why, exactly, we were in Iraq has led the true maverick, John McCain, to sputter and croak about service and events like Benghazi that have nothing to do with Hagel. Then you have the reincarnation of Senator Joe McCarthy, Ted Cruz of Texas, who decided that disagreeing with Hagel was not enough and that he had to smear him by alleging that Hagel not only took money from Iran, but might have a problem with Israel's foreign and domestic policies.

I don't have to justify my support of Israel from a religious, cultural or moral perspective, but I have a real problem with the Netanyahu government's policies on settlements and their hypocritical support of the ultra-religious parties he needs to keep his coalition. Religious governments of any stripe are dangerous, discriminatory and extreme, and the Orthodox who want to impose strict Jewish law on Israel are no exception. For the conservative Christian right in this country to blindly support Israel because they would protect Christian historical shrines is self-serving, and brooking absolutely no dissent is dangerous in any group.

Chuck Hagel's questioning of Israel's policies is what any good Defense Secretary would do. It's what Hillary Clinton did as Secretary of State. Friends are always friends, but there are times when they can go too far. That's when true friends tell them the truth. It doesn't seem as if Netanyahu or the radical Republicans understand that message, and recent elections in Israel saw a backlash against Netanyahu. Israel must survive and I know that the United States government will do everything it can to ensure that. GOP questioning of Obama's and Hagel's motives is a red herring (in cream sauce).

Cruz's accusations against Hagel's patriotism relating to Iran was beyond the pale and rightly earned Cruz a back room scolding by both Republicans and Democrats. He defended himself by saying that he was elected to shake things up. That he did, but not in a way that will help him in the long run with his fellow Senators. I'm sure the Democrats will highlight this Tea Party behavior in 2014. John McCain's one-man Bengahzi crusade might satisfy his supporters, but it's only postponed the inevitable confirmation.

The next issue will be the sequester and the massive cuts that are on the way on March 1. Again, the GOP is ready to sink the economy in a misguided attempt to end programs that most Americans want and voted for in 2012. My hope is that President Obama will make an attempt at a pragmatic bargain to forestall the cuts, but if not, we know where the blame lies.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Teacher Evaluation Skeptics? Don't Doubt Us

2013-02-06T22:36:00.000-05:00

An independent report of the first year pilot of the state's teacher evaluation system shows that teachers are skeptical that it measures their effectiveness.

Of course we're skeptical. Why wouldn't we be? The task force that recommended this evaluation system had not one NJEA member on it. That didn't surprise me given the Governor's antipathy towards effective teachers with a consistent voice behind them, but the consequences of that decision are fairly obvious. If you don't own it, you don't feel connected to it. And when you know that the people who do own it don't respect you or your profession and ridicule you when you speak out and blame you for conducting association business in front of third graders, then skeptical is a rather mild term to describe what you're really thinking.

What makes this system even more suspect is that the report shows that twice as many administrators as teachers approved of the evaluations. What's worse, the report didn't even discuss using student test scores to measure teacher effectiveness. I would surmise that teachers would be even more skeptical of the system if that was included, but only because using test scores is a terrible idea.

Let's all remember that there is not one credible teacher effectiveness model that uses student test scores as a reliable measure of classroom instruction. Even in New York State (yes, right next door!) they're finding it difficult to make the numbers work. But no matter. We have a Commissioner of Education and a staff of true believers to guide us through the implementation process, and their attitude is that if teachers would only give the evaluation system a chance, we'd find that it's a fair system.

This quote is indicative of Trenton's attitude:

“While we never expected the first year of the pilot to be perfect, we are motivated by the finding that educators are having more meaningful conversations than ever before about effective teaching, which of course is the first step to helping continuously improve student outcomes,” said state Education Commissioner Chris Cerf in the press release.

I'm terribly sorry to be right, but teachers have been having meaningful conversations about effective teaching longer than you've been alive, Mr. Commissioner. We care deeply about student learning and outcomes, and we engage in deep, soul-searching thinking about how we can improve. The difference between our approach and yours is that we know that using test scores and trying to distill us down to a phrase or a number is misguided, inappropriate, demeaning to our profession, and runs counter to the educational literature, which we've also read, thank you very much.

When I met with the Commissioner and his assistants in January, each one of them noted, at some point in the almost 4 hour conversation, that the TEACH NJ law was passed unanimously by the Legislature, as if this was some kind of ratification of the law's wisdom, when all it really meant was that elected officials who don't actually read a law, and those who do, have no real idea about how it will work in practice or what a bad idea it is. Or both, most likely. And when I made this point, I was able to get these DOE officials to entertain the idea that maybe they should go back to the Legislature and ask them for more time to implement it and to revisit the use of computer-based standardized tests as 50% of a teacher's evaluation (and the tie-breaking criteria at that). That tells me that they realize how much concern teachers have about this bill. Do I expect it to happen? Of course not. But they thought about it.

At this point, skeptical educators should address their concerns about the evaluation system to the State Board of Education, since it is responsible for writing and issuing the implementation rules which schools have to follow. To make matters more interesting, Commissioner Cerf seems to think that he has the Board in his pocket, having remarked that educators have their supporters, but he has his, and that although we can count 100,000 teachers, 600 districts, and about two million parents on our side, that just doesn't mean anything because his board has supported him on everything.

If, like me, you're struck by the condescension, then it's time to act. We have everything to lose including our self-respect.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Talking Thomas Jefferson With Author Jon Meacham

2013-02-04T20:00:00.002-05:00

I recently had the pleasure and honor of interviewing author Jon Meacham about his book, Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power for Audiofile Magazine.

The interview is below. Here is a link to my sound review of the book on Soundcloud.

Interview

Talking With
JON MEACHAM

Our nation has always had a place in its culture for public historians. These are people like Barbara Tuchman, Theodore White, and David McCullough, who can make history come alive for the general reader while also producing books that are rigorously researched and connect the past with the present.

Welcome to the club, Jon Meacham.

Not yet 45, Meacham is an executive editor at Random House, a former co-anchor of the public affairs broadcast “Need to Know on PBS” and former editor of NEWSWEEK. His book, AMERICAN LION: ANDREW JACKSON IN THE WHITE HOUSE, was published by Random House in 2008 and in 2009 was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. Meacham is also the author of two other New York Times bestsellers--AMERICAN GOSPEL: GOD, THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND THE MAKING OF A NATION, and FRANKLIN AND WINSTON: AN INTIMATE PORTRAIT OF AN EPIC FRIENDSHIP, about the relationship between Roosevelt and Churchill, which was named a book of the year by the Los Angeles Times and won the Churchill Centre’s 2005 Emery Reves Award for the best book of the year on Churchill.

Meacham’s latest book, THOMAS JEFFERSON: THE ART OF POWER, is not just another biography of our third president. He focuses on Jefferson the politician and philosopher and adds texture to what we already know about this complex man. “My goal was to try and walk with Jefferson and see things from his perspective, who his mentors were and how his education affected him,” Meacham says.

“His presidency hasn’t translated as clearly to the public as his other accomplishments, but he was president during tumultuous times, and although he didn’t see himself as a successful executive, the public certainly did. After all, they elected Jefferson or Jeffersonian politicians in every election but one from 1800 to 1840.” He writes that Jefferson understood the art of compromise and governed as a Renaissance man, applying the arts and sciences to the political realm.

Meacham wants us to see Jefferson as a man of ideas and of the Enlightenment, but he also notes that Jefferson was a sensuous man with big appetites when it came to women, wine, and gaining life experiences. “We have an image of Jefferson as a clinical man who was somehow removed from
emotion. I learned that he was intensely human and interested in other humans.

I could see myself having a glass of wine with him. I couldn’t say the same thing about George Washington.”

The audiobook is narrated by actor Edward Herrmann, whom Meacham requested. “I think he’s brilliant,” Meacham says. “He made the text better. The audiobook universe is so fascinating. I have never listened to a book I’ve also read and not had a different experience. Edward Herrmann is a central element of the authorial experience. He’s the translator. I had listened to his work before and knew what he could do. I respect the skills I don’t have that he does.”

For his efforts, Herrmann was awarded an Earphones Award for this book. To Meacham, that’s proof that the right narrator can enhance any written work. “I think serious readers value audiobooks. For a writer, it’s one of the only ways you can end up with a coauthor who is interpreting your words. I want people to feel that their investment in time and money is well spent. I want to repay that to the reader.”

All but one of Meacham’s previous books are on audio, but he wants all of his forthcoming books to be recorded as well as written. He knows that with all of the technology, there’s only so much mind space available for people to read or listen to or view specific media. With this book, he’s provided our minds, and ears, with an opportunity to learn and enjoy ourselves. --Robert I. Grundfest

FEB/MAR 13
© AudioFile 2013, Portland, Maine

Photo © Damien Donck

The Teacher Evaluation Traveling Road Show Plays Trenton

2013-01-30T06:05:00.000-05:00

Bright lights, big city, prime time. Yes, the Teacher Evaluation Traveling Road Show played Trenton on Tuesday, and the reviews are in. Here's mine.

Halfway through the meeting yesterday that Madison Superintendent Dr. Michael A. Rossi (and four of his Superintendent colleagues), Madison Board of Education President Lisa Ellis, and yours truly had with Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf and three of his Assistant Commissioners, we learned that the DOE "was taken aback" by Dr. Rossi's letter because, as the Commissioner said, "we really need to come from the same set of facts."

What became apparent was that the DOE officials believed that Dr. Rossi didn't have the facts and that, worse, those facts were available and that he must be, well, unfacty.

But then a most curious thing happened. We asked our questions again, and we got answers. Answers that we hadn't really heard before. Answers that led to more questions. Answers that underlined the fact that the state hadn't given us all of the information they could have. Answers that would...wait for it...help us implement an effective evaluation system in our schools. Score.

For example:

We were concerned about issues surrounding students with IEPs who might need accommodations to successfully take the PARCC tests. The answer is that all 22 states that participate in PARCC will need to follow the same protocols. There will be no deviation by state or district. What's good for Kentucky is evidently also good for New Jersey. We raised the issue of what happens if the protocols don't accommodate a particular student's IEP. Sorry. One size fits all.

Students who have trouble keyboarding will have difficulty with the PARCC tests. According to the DOE, "we see implementation challengers." I'll say. There will be draft policies by spring that apply to visually impaired students who might have trouble taking a test on a computer, but that's all we have to look forward to for guidance in this area.

We also learned that once the PARCC tests are up and running in 2015, they will only be used to measure grades 4 through 8 in Language Arts and Mathematics. That's it. Therefore, only about 20% of New Jersey teachers will have the evaluation piece covered by PARCC tests. No high school subjects will be PARCC'ed for at least three years.

What does this mean for the rest of the teachers in the district whose evaluations will not be measured by a standardized test? Teachers and administrators are supposed to work together to determine an appropriate student growth measure for any given academic year. Art teachers, for example, can use a student's portfolio, history teachers can use a pre and post test or document analysis assignments, and mathematics teachers can use a project or series of quizzes as their evaluation piece. In short, any teacher can use any classroom measure to determine student growth. Further, these student growth measures do not have to apply to all of a teacher's students. A teacher can choose to use a specific cohort of students and measure their growth over a specified period of time, probably September to March so that the data is available for the summative evaluation in May. This is a key piece of a teacher's yearly evaluation, 50%, and should be designed very carefully.

Evaluating nurses, guidance counselors and other non-teaching employees is "emerging" at this point, which means that there's nothing formal from the state. Districts are again allowed to have administrators work with their staffs to determine an appropriate growth measure.

As for our technological concerns about PARCC (it doesn't work with Internet Explorer and Microsoft will stop supporting Windows XP), we were told that it's up to each district to purchase or transition to a platform that will support the test. The DOE did say that starting in February, PARCC will allow a district to input information about their system and PARCC will recommend what levels of technology they'll need and approximately how much it will cost to implement or upgrade.

Our request for more time to implement and teach the Common Core Standards was rebuffed out of hand because the timelines are a function of the legislation, and the legislature has no plans to alter it. The Common Core is here and we'd better get used to it. I put up a spirited defense and I think I got their attention by noting that testing data is always preferable to starting a live system cold, and that every district should have the opportunity to pilot their evaluation program to work out the problems. Dr. Rossi and I will speak further with one of the Assistant Commissioners about some timing flexibility and I will post updates as I get them.

But we also got some of the same vague answers that have plagued this rollout from the beginning. We were told that the state wouldn't have the regulations ready until March 6, and that we could use those regulations to finally implement our evaluation system. Unless those regulations change, of course, but Commissioner Cerf assured us that they wouldn't change all that much between then and September when the State Board of Education is set to adopt them. Unless, of course, they do change. In which case we'll need to, um, change our system. But otherwise, all systems are go.

The DOE was clearly upset and annoyed by Dr. Rossi's letter, in large part because they believe that they've given the districts enough information to adequately plan for the TEACHNJ law. More than once, one of the assistant commissioners and Cerf himself made the point that this was a 3 year process that began in 2010 and that districts should have started to plan for the changes. Assistant Commissioner Tracey Severns made an interesting, and telling, point when she opined that wealthy districts were the slowest to implement the changes because they didn't feel the urgency that "A or B" districts did. Wealthy districts were used to high achievement, she said, so they didn't see the need to rush to make changes. She prefaced her words by saying that she wasn't casting aspersions on those of us from wealthy districts, but we couldn't think of any other reason for her to say those things other than as a condescending comment on our tardiness. We did have a representative from a not-so-wealthy district who was also finding it very challenging to implement the law, but that contradiction to Severn's point didn't merit a mention.

Commissioner Cerf stuck to the broad outlines of why we needed an evaluation system "with teeth," and he noted that there were only a handful of tenure charge cases brought in the last ten years as evidence of why we needed a new system, clearly implying that there were far more ineffective teachers in our schools than there were cases. He also mentioned that bringing tenure charges under the old system was prohibitively expensive, but never put together the obvious conclusion: districts had ineffective teachers, but it wasn't the ineffectiveness that prohibited them from bringing charges, it was the money. Presumably the new, less expensive system will solve that and unfortunately enable districts to bring charges against others who are effective, but are also difficult employees.

These issues aside, we were impressed by the knowledge, commitment and energy the Assistant Commissioners, Bari Erlichson, Chief Performance Officer, and Peter Shulman, Chief Talent Officer, provided us. Erlichson certainly knows how to read and interpret data and Shulman understands the policy's implications. And he did make me feel better by saying at one point, "This is not about merit pay and firing teachers." They answered our questions as best they could and understood that we had concerns, even if they did say that we should have aired them two years ago.

So what's next? Administrators and teachers need to make sure they work together to create a viable evaluation system and make sure it's implemented in September. Contact the DOE with your district's concerns. Ask questions. Guess where necessary. And for heaven's sakes, learn the facts. Until they change.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Liberal Ascendancy

2013-01-27T22:06:00.000-05:00

Yes, I know, it's only been a week and already I'm full of prophecies and predictions about a liberal (say it with me: Lib-er-al) era that's just beginning. Others have argued with me that it's too soon or that the conservatives aren't going away or that I live in good old liberal (say it again: Lib-er-al. Doesn't it sound all smooth and creamy?) New Jersey and that I have no idea what's happening in redder areas of the country.

Possibly true, and you might not lose money betting against me, but not only do I believe it to be true, there is some solid evidence to back it up. The conservative era is coming to a close and the implosion of the right wing is decidedly under way. Don't get me wrong; the conservatives and the Republican Party can and will do a lot more damage to the country and to Barack Obama's second term (look what they've done to reproductive rights and collective bargaining), but their ability to set the agenda is pretty much over.

Consider:

The GOP gave in on taxes in the fiscal cliff negotiations, and then they postponed the debt ceiling fight for three months under the utterly mistaken belief that they will have the upper hand when it comes to negotiations over the debt. I have news for them: they're going to lose again. The debt is actually slowing and the nation's fiscal trajectory is towards recovery, more employment, higher housing prices and improved tax collection. Add in the fact that most Americans do not support the massive cuts that the Republicans are proposing and you have the recipe for disaster for the right's agenda.

Opposition to all forms of gun control, an area where the GOP still has some strength, will take its toll on Republican popularity. I think we'll get a background checks bill and perhaps a limit on ammunition, but there probably won't be a national assault weapons ban. Still, the right is on the defensive about not wanting to do anything on guns, when it's likely that some Republicans will vote for some limits.

We will get an immigration bill this year and the GOP will have to come along or face increasing political marginality. Even so, the Republicans might not get any political advantage from a bill that allows more children of illegals to obtain citizenship. Why? because many Hispanics are already liberals (a third time: Lib-er-als) who are in favor of the government programs that serve the nation and their communities. On this, the right wing is correct: voting like Democrats will not help the GOP. It will only help the president and the left. But they really have little political choice.

Opposition to Chuck Hagel will not block his nomination, and no evidence of Israel-bashing will be found. True, many on the left are uneasy with his anti-gay comments, but he'll get enough votes to be confirmed.

Marriage equality will become legal in more states over the next few years, even if the Supreme Court rules against a national right, which I would say is a 50-50 proposition at this point. Remember that the Court will be ruling on economic and social rights, and not the moral correctness of whether all adults should be able to marry the person they love. The right wing is moving backwards on this issue. Even gay Republicans know that.

Storms have raised the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there's something to this climate change thing that conservatives have been denying for years. Oil will rule the day for a while, but more severe weather will finally unjam the logs and we can truly move towards energy independence based on fuels other than fossil.

There are many more issues, but I've made my point. The Democrats and President Obama have the wind of public opinion at their backs and as long as they both run a smart campaign to win support for specific legislation, we should see the first fruits of the liberal (in Texas, lib-ruhl) movement this year. We won't get everything we want, but more progress will come in later administrations and Congresses. One more presidential election win will also result in some conservative Supreme Court justices retiring, and all it will take is one switch to get a liberal (one more time for FDR: Lib-er-al) majority.

Can you dig that? I knew that you could.

For more, go to www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

Teacher Evaluation: Getting It Right Takes Time

2013-01-24T21:54:00.003-05:00

The reaction to the Madison letter asking the state to slow down a bit with its new education initiatives has been overwhelming and positive. Clearly, there are many other school districts that believe, as we do, that in order to produce a transparent, valid, seamless evaluation system, we need a full school year to test and assess the program. That would give all districts the opportunity to accurately measure the data they've generated and work out the rather substantial obstacles that are both obvious and anticipated.

And since the State Board of Education won't consider the final version of new state regulations until September 4, 2013 and the Office of Administrative Law won't put the final regulations into effect until October 7, 2013, we figure that we have a good case. Look at those dates again and consider; every school district in the state is supposed to have a fully functional evaluation system in place by September 1, but the final rules won't be approved until October.

Make sense? Read on.

Our other concern is the fact that the state is requiring all districts to implement the Common Core Curriculum Standards at the same time they need to create an evaluation system. The state's argument is that you need both because how else can you evaluate whether a teacher is teaching the Core Standards if you don't tie them to the evaluation? Our argument is that these are massive endeavors that need to be done one at a time in order for them to be done to our high standards.

First, implement the Common Core and write district curriculum documents that reflect them. Then train the teaching staff to write lesson plans in a format that uses those standards. Then write an evaluation system that measures how effectively the teacher implements the standards and the extent to which the students learn and make progress. The key is that teachers need to teach the curriculum before they can be evaluated on it. Further, if all school districts need to incorporate the standards now, we'd need two years to measure student growth. Otherwise, you're measuring two different systems (the current state standards and the new Common Core) and basing teacher's jobs on questionable data.

We also did a little digging due to our concern about the PARCC tests not being compatible with Windows XP, which about 99% of our district's computers run as their operating system. We did get some clarification: PARCC will run on XP, but Microsoft and other venders will not support the system if we have a problem. And we all know the chances of the tests running 100% smoothly during their implementation is close to zero.

But the PARCC train wreck goes deeper. Just as not all students are proficient with paper and pencil tests, many students will have trouble taking a high stakes test on a computer. There are issues of eye strain, seating comfort and screen resolution that can impact how well a student performs on the test. What about students with time accommodations on their IEPs? Do the PARCC tests come with timers? Will the system allow a student to take time-and-a-half, or more, on the test? What if a teacher needs to read every question and choice to the student?

Then there's the question of scheduling. PARCC tests are to be administered in two sets: March and May of each year. Advanced Placement exams are also scheduled for May. How is a district to choose? You can't give both at the same time, and having students take tests for three weeks straight would be counterproductive and a massive waste of time. Some districts are even considering cancelling their marking period electives so that students will have time to take the tests. How effective is that?

Further, the PARCC System needs to accommodate every student and be 100% accurate and dependable. Please tell me what area of education, or life, is 100% accurate and dependable? What happens if the system crashes before a student is finished with the test? What if the data gets wiped out? The present Department of Education guidelines says that PARCC will not be fully rolled out until the 2014-2015 school year. That gives us a built in timeline: Test it for a year, then gather data on how well it works. Remember the Algebra and Biology tests the state rolled out over the past few years? They tested the tests and gathered data. Now they're telling school districts that they can't do that with a system that will determine people's jobs.

There are so many variables at work here that I, for one, would feel much more comfortable and confident if I had a full school year to work with all of the systems and protocols. Districts that were part of the pilots have to feel better that they could work out the problems before they counted. Every district should have that luxury. This is the message that we will bring to Trenton. Dr. Rossi, Mrs. Ellis and I hope that the DOE and the Commissioner are in a receptive mood.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Second Term Begins

2013-01-21T21:40:00.001-05:00

Barack Hussein Obama took the oath of office for the fourth time today, and then let the country know what it voted for and what it could look forward to in a second Obama administration. The speech hit all the right notes. The implementation, though, will take longer that the four years Obama has to complete it.

His calls for marriage equality and for legislation on climate change, while preserving entitlements, is a clarion call for progressives and proof that the country has turned a corner and moved away from the stultifying conservatism of the last 30 years. The United States will not be looking to become more religious, nor will it be demonizing gays and lesbians or attempting to make reproductive choices a matter of whimsy for the government instead of a collective decision made by people and their doctors. We will be paying attention to the world, but not trying to run it according to a naive ideology that says we can bring our form of democracy to everyone. And for the first time in our history we will have a health care system where all citizens not only can have care, but must have care because it's the right thing to do.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan would never make a speech like this, and thank heaven they won't have the opportunity to do so. They would take us backwards. We are now moving forwards.

Obama called out the conservatives by fighting back against labeling people who use government services as "takers," a word the GOP used to little effect in the 2012 campaign. We need programs to help the poor and to try to educate every child and to make sure that the elderly get care when their resources have dwindled or disappeared. We need adjustments to the tax code and to close the dreaded loopholes in the code, and to use the revenue from those actions to strengthen the United States, not to reward the wealthy or corporations with more tax cuts or advantages.

During Obama's first term, the right was fond of saying that the great liberal realignment never occurred and that the only reason Obama was elected was because of the recession or the weakness of the Republican candidates. The Tea Party revolt of 2010 was supposedly the end of the "mistake."

Wrong.

What 2008 uncovered was cemented in 2012. The country's experiment with smaller government, massive income and resource inequality and a sense that large corporations and institutions were going to swamp the middle class is over. Yes, big money does support Democrats and Republicans alike, but that will be remedied, as will all of the issues that the GOP ignored for decades. We will have climate legislation, more revenue, marriage equality and immigration reform. It will take more than four years to accomplish these. The pace will ebb and flow. But they will be done.

And it all starts with today.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The New Jersey Education Reform Train Wreck

2013-01-17T19:56:00.000-05:00

Oh, the power of the pen. Or keyboard. Whatever.

As the President of the Madison Education Association, I'm going on an adventure to Trenton at the end of January with Madison Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Michael A. Rossi and Madison Board of Education President Lisa Ellis. We're going to meet with Education Commissioner Christopher Cerf and members of his staff about the frustrations we're feeling while trying to implement the new teacher evaluation system (EE4NJ), the Common Core Standards, and PARCC.

How, you ask, did this happen? Because of a letter Dr. Rossi wrote, and testimony he made in front of the State Board of Education, with input from Ms. Ellis and me, that obviously struck a chord in the august halls of the Department of Education. It's been picked up in the media, but I will reproduce it below in its entirety. It speaks volumes about the state of education reform in New Jersey and what happens when ideological politicians get an idea in their heads, but don't think through either the consequences or implications of their actions. I will provide updates as I get them.

State Board Testimony of Madison, NJ Schools Supt. Dr. Michael A. Rossi

January 15, 2013

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF MADISON
359 Woodland Road • Madison, NJ 07940
DR. MICHAEL A. ROSSI, JR.
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS

Dear Members of the New Jersey State Board of Education,
The purpose of this note is to provide (in as diplomatic a fashion as possible) a reasonable, reliable and valid analysis of the proposed implementation schedule for all the new initiatives. I am in my 25^th year in education and have taught or supervised at the elementary, middle, high school and collegiate levels. I have been in districts with less than 200 students and ones with more than 10,000. My sister taught for 38 years and my dad for 55. Currently I have the distinct honor of leading one of the finest academic, extra-curricular and athletic organizations in America. I know how difficult it is to effectuate change even in one district and cannot imagine how challenging your task must be. Accordingly, I seek not to complain but simply to point out stark realities. In Madison, we have faculty and staff with multiple advanced degrees, savvy and seasoned administrators, parents that support everything we do both philosophically and financially, and most importantly, determined, bright and wonderful students. All of this combined, and even with umpteen awards in all walks of education, and we are, to a person, confused, overwhelmed and altogether concerned about trying to roll out several initiatives at once.

It is not that we do not support you, are resistant to change, nor are we unwilling to spend money (to date we have had to allocate close to a half million dollars) trying to get ready for EE4NJ, Common Core, PARCC, Principal Evaluation, etc.). Our teachers and administrators want to do a good job and want to help you achieve your goals, but simply put, it is far too much too fast. I offer some concrete examples to underscore our concerns.

EE4NJ: We are trying very hard to work through just a simple understanding of how the state wants this to work. Non-tested areas need benchmark assessments, how the anchor and ‘outside’ observer process will work is nebulous at best; nursing, guidance and CST areas have been given little direction (the last communique is this area suggested to look at other state models), and the district and school based panels have yet to be given a solid understanding of their roles, how often they should meet and to what extent they shape the process. On top of this we have to develop a new principal evaluation system and have been given no direction about Directors and Supervisors.
Common Core: Although we have been conversing about the Common Core for a few years now it is a gargantuan task to revise all K-12 curricula, work on framing out units of study, get teachers familiar with it, imbed into our lesson planning and then connect to state tests. There are only so many committees that we can form to write curriculum without compromising the educational process. If we take teachers out of the classroom we lose instruction; if we do it after school we either lose coaches or advisors and/or we have to pay people per contract language. Additionally, the essence of the Common Core calls for assessments at the end of each unit. Besides the bizarre notion that these total over 200 tests K-12 just on the Common Core, we have not been given any direction as to whether or not those assessments will be a reality, when we will know and how they will be administered.

PARCC: I cannot say this any other way but to describe it as a train wreck right now. The power point on this mentions no less than 12 tests for our current 6^th graders when they reach high school. Those would be on top of Common Core assessments, benchmark assessments in non-tested areas, SATs, ACTs, APS, and then classroom teacher tests. Functionally, at this point, Madison cannot implement PARCC because the design is to be on computers that do not use XP as an operating system, which our entire district has. Even with the resources here we cannot turn that many computers over by 2014-2015. Combine all this with the most recent announcement that PARCC will not work with I-PADs and other BYOD initiatives suffice it to say we will grind all computer assisted teaching to a halt to do the PARCC testing.

NJDOE Overhaul: With the major structural changes in tow, the RACs just being formed and the county folks now employees at will, it is almost impossible to get any assistance. So much has changed so fast most people do not even know if they will have a job next year let alone be able to provide real leadership. It is disheartening to go to state meetings and leave with the feeling that no one has any real idea of where everything is headed and few questions can be answered.
Before we can address the aforementioned, those of us in the trenches still have our list of 93 unfunded mandates, we still have QSAC, daily considerations in special education, I & RS, etc., etc. There has been no relief to the pile of reports we have to submit, and now add to everyone’s list concerns related to Sandy and Newton, Conn. If Madison is feeling like this is going to go poorly rest assured most of NJ is as well.

Please ask the Governor for at least another year for all this and/or more pilots to emerge. Frankly, I think it will help his re-election and will certainly solidify you as someone who wants this to work well.
Look at thi
s way: if you were on a BOE and the Superintendent came in and said that in a couple years he wanted to change all K-12 curricula, change the entire K-12 teacher and staff evaluation process, change the entire testing process (and oh by the way your current operating systems all have to be replaced), and restructure the leadership model for the district, would you want that individual to forge ahead despite widespread concerns?

I am very sorry for the length of this note but I do speak for the vast majority of those of us working in the field. I realize some areas need an immediate overhaul but the current approach has the potential to wreak havoc on great school systems, of which there are many in NJ.
Please slow down.

Respectfully,
Michael A. Rossi, Jr., Ph.D.

PS. This letter is written with the support of our BOE President, Mrs. Lisa Ellis, and our Teacher’s Union President, Robert Grundfest.

Register your comments here and on Twitter @rigrundfest

The Tide Is Turning For Obama

2013-01-15T20:45:00.002-05:00

Whatever happened to the Republican opposition? Obama hasn't even taken the oath of office for the second time and already the GOP has caved on the fiscal cliff, the prospect of immigration reform, and Sandy relief. Oh, and their opposition to any and all forms of gun control is going to cost them at the ballot box. Maybe not in their gerrymandered districts, but on a national level. Newtown was a tipping point. Mark my words.

The negotiations over the debt ceiling and spending cuts will likely go the president's way too. Why? Because more of the public wants a compromise that includes modest adjustments to entitlements rather than the slash and burn Greek/Spain approach that the "take your medicine" caucus led by Eric Cantor is proposing. Do not ever forget that the true purpose of the Republicans Party's spending program is to overturn the New Deal and Great Society. They've hated those programs for almost 80 years now and for a long time they could taste the victory they believed was rightfully theirs.

But then came November 2012 and the revenge of the real math league that correctly forecast an Obama victory. That didn't just anger the right; it led to conspiracy theories and a final take-no-prisoners approach to governing that the GOP thinks is a winning strategy. It isn't.

So now they're talking about forcing the president to accept drastic cuts in exchange for a debt ceiling rise. The only problem is that most Americans are on Obama's pragmatic side because they understand that the Recession caused the deficit, not the other way around. Once we get ourselves out of the downturn, and we're slowly doing just that, the deficit will narrow. People will be productively back at work. Tax revenues will rise. Consumers will begin spending again, if only cautiously. So the GOP's strategy is doomed to fail. They've tried it before and our credit rating was cut. Now there's evidence that it could be cut more. We've seen this movie. It doesn't end well.

President Obama seems like a new man these days, issuing ultimatums and using the power of his office to effect change on gun control and, I'm assuming, on immigration. He's said that he's no longer going to negotiate on the debt ceiling and he's exactly right. If push comes to shove, he should invoke the 14th Amendment and let the Congress and the Courts figure out if he's right. He's said he won't do that. Too bad. The other option is to call Congress's bluff and let them take the heat when the government shuts down. Ask Newt Gingrich how that worked out the last time.

Oh, wait. I don't care what Newt says.

The boss has a new attitude. And things are about to change.

Register your comments at www.facebook.com/WhereDemocracyLives and on Twitter @rigrundfest