Just How Much Instruction Is Lost Due To Testing?

It's been a grueling two weeks for teachers across the state, as we administered farcically long state tests to children who were unnecessarily spooked by all the warnings that their grades would plummet. There is no question, I think, that these were two lost weeks--weeks that could be been dedicated to real instruction, but were sacrificed to the billionaires who believe that testing is more important than learning.

Losing two weeks of instruction is bad enough, but it's not the whole story. Many, if not most, ELA and math teachers will be gone for a week or longer to help grade these tests. That's at least another week where our students will be sitting around, doing worksheets or puzzles or whatever the subs can cajole them into doing in our absence. So now we've lost three weeks of math and ELA instruction.

Add in the test prep that almost all of us are required to do. I spent comparatively little time on test prep myself, mostly because I believe it to be a waste of time and the amount of prep I do has zero correlation to the evaluation I receive (staunch readers will recall that I was at the very bottom on my TDAs one year and at the very top the next, so I have that all important "data" to back up the fact that test prep is bullshit). Even so, I spent about two weeks doing little else besides prep, and I imagine most of my colleagues did the same. So now, we are up to five weeks of instruction lost.

There are variables that are difficult to quantify, as well. For example, so much of the school year is dedicated to these tests that students (perhaps rightly) feel that not much else matters, especially now that the tests are history. It's inevitable that students will slack off a bit now, for the remaining two months of the year. How much they'll slack off depends on their usual dedication to learning, their teachers dedication, and the school culture, but even in the best case it is hard to imagine that students will be working as hard in the final eight weeks as they did in the first thirty two. Let's be generous and say that this slacking off will only be the equivalent of losing one week of the remaining eight.

In total, that's six weeks worth of instruction lost to testing, at a minimum. The mind boggles at the thought of how much more learning will evaporate once the new evaluation system is in place and students are tested in every subject, in every grade. (And you can assume that when that happens, teachers will be spending a LOT more time on test prep knowing their jobs may be on the line.)

But let's be generous once again, and assume that we will only lose the six weeks we currently lose. That means that a child starting in NYC public schools next year in first grade and graduating from a NYC high school can expect to lose--wait for it--a whopping SEVENTY-TWO weeks to testing mania.

Seventy two weeks. And remember, that's assuming that things don't get worse when we start testing every subject.

Given that there are 40 school weeks in a year, that totals nearly two years of instruction lost to testing. Is it any wonder our students are continuing to fall behind? Rather than teaching them things, we are testing them on things that we simply don't have enough time to teach.

Of course, the reformers will say we need to be accountable. To which I reply, why aren't the reformers accountable for all the instructional time they are stealing from our kids?

Mr. Talk Returns

It's been a while since I have posted. There are reasons, none of which are earth-shattering, but I have been feeling too busy and overwhelmed to do much blogging. I hope neither of my readers missed me. (In truth, when I checked my blog stats today, it actually appears that my readership has grown significantly since my last posting over a month ago, so either people are checking in to see whether I am still alive or some people prefer to read my blog when I haven't written anything.)

Some of you know I was writing for MORE and doing some other stuff for them, but lately I fell down on that job as well, for which I apologize to those people. I don't know what the results of today's election will be, but I can honestly say that I was honored to work with the people from MORE, and I would have been proud to see them snatch a victory here. As unlikely as that is, I think we made a real dent in this election, at least to the point where people are talking about how the UFT does things. And that is all to the good. A democratic union can only work where there is a legitimate opposition, and I truly believe that MORE has established itself as a major player in this union, regardless of the outcome.

That's all I really wanted to say. Hopefully, I can get myself back to some kind of regular posting schedule as I have much to belly ache about.

Julie Cavanagh of MORE Schools John Gambling on UFT Issues

Here's a great interview of Julie Cavanagh on the John Gambling show. Julie sets the record straight on MORE's positions. I especially love the part where she discusses evaluations and how good leadership in the schools is what's needed, not more ways to evaluate teachers through junk science.

It's music to my ears. Have a listen.

Some Legal Questions

You've probably heard that a judge barred Governor Cuomo from stealing $250 million from NYC schools to satisfy his ego. The judge correctly ruled that children should not be punished because the city and UFT failed to reach a deal. This, to me, brings up a question.

Why isn't the UFT using the courts to prevent Cuomo from imposing an evaluation system on NYC teachers? Obviously, I'm a teacher and not a lawyer, but it seems to me there's a strong case here. Our contract, which was collectively bargained, is still in force and there is no provision in it for a new evaluation of any kind. Since when does the state have the power to unilaterally alter a contract because it doesn't like the terms? The few law courses I took emphasized the fact that contract law is pretty solid in this country. Has that changed? How can the state, which has a stake in the outcome of this dispute, simply choose to override a valid contract signed and agreed to by both parties?

Furthermore, any evaluation system imposed on us would be in direct opposition to the Triborough Amendment to the Taylor Law, which states that a collectively bargained contract must stay in force until a new contract is signed. How can the governor just vacate that law? If he does, would that invalidate the rest of the Taylor Law as well, and allow teachers to strike without penalty?

If Cuomo can force this contract alteration on us, what would stop him from passing a law mandating a 50% cut in salary for all city workers if he wishes to? It's the same thing. Collective bargaining itself is threatened if the state decides that it can simply alter contracts it doesn't like.

I'd appreciate the opinion of any lawyer out there on these questions. I think the courts would enforce existing contracts and tell the Gov. to stick his power grab. So, how about it?

MORE Channels Ronald Reagan

If you are a regular reader of this blog, you probably can guess that I did not vote for Ronald Reagan for president. I'm not a fan of a union busting Republican like him. Yet, you have to admit he was a savvy politician. When he asked voters during his presidential debate in 1980 "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" he struck a chord with voters. It helped turn the tide in his favor.

MORE shows its own political savvy by asking the same question of teachers as we approach the UFT elections. The blog post "Are you better off now than you were three years ago?", the MORE caucus examines Mulgrew's tenure and finds it wanting.

In almost every way, from the classroom to the paycheck to the community to the future, Unity has left teachers in a bind. From mayoral control, to a non-existent contract, to charters, to ATRs, to Teacher's Choice (phooey), to support of RttT, to the crappy evaluation deal, MORE lays out all the ways that Mulgrew and his crew have let us down.

Read it yourself and ask yourself honestly--ARE you better off now than you were three years ago, when Mulgrew took the helm of the UFT? I know I'm not. My paycheck has shrunk, my job security is about to go up in smoke, my class sizes have grown every year--it's a mess. If you agree, you should at least consider a change, before you literally have nothing left to lose!

A Seat at the Table

Let's face it--the new evaluation deal is a done deal. The Unity leadership really can't oppose it, because they partnered with the DOE and the state in designing the thing in the first place. In their rush to support the Race to the Top application, the UFT took their usual "seat at the table". That's a phrase made popular among the UFT brass by erstwhile president Randi Weingarten, who often used that phrase to convince teachers that it was better to be involved in our own demise than to have it done to us. It's sort of like giving a condemned prisoner his choice of a last meal--it doesn't prevent the inevitable, but it makes it a tiny bit easier to swallow.

The only hope for teachers is if the DOE somehow blows up this deal and blames the UFT (which is a possibility) and the membership decides to throw the bums out and vote for the MORE caucus, which opposes any evaluation system based on standardized test scores. That's a slim hope, but it gets fatter if teachers like you discuss it within your schools.

If that doesn't happen, then the only way Unity should sign a deal is if it includes, at the very least, the 4+4% the city already owes us, a raise for the next year as well, and a contract that takes us all the way through the Bloomberg era.

Let me be clear--I would oppose such a deal. No amount of money is worth surrendering tenure, which is what the APPR effectively does. I would vote against any deal that includes standardized testing and the junk science VAM as a component. I say I would vote against it, but I can't, because the Unity stuffed delegate assembly decided, in their infinite wisdom, that teachers shouldn't be allowed to vote on an issue that fundamentally alters our contract and our working conditions.

In other words, the Unity brass always want to have a seat at the table, but they are going to deny you one. The only seat you're likely to get from Mulgrew is the electric chair, as Unity straps you down and pulls the lever on the new evaluation system. And make no mistake--this evaluation system will mean the death of thousands of careers in the first few years.

You won't even get a last meal.

The Contract Buzz

Can you hear it? The low, droning sound that indicates a contract may be near?

I've heard it. I have no idea if it's true, but I remember there was a buzz last time the UFT was about to pull the trigger on a deal, and it turned out to be true. Many younger readers may not have even been around then, as the last time we actually signed a contract, it was 2007. But the buzz was there.

And it's back. I'm hearing it in my building today. I emailed a friend of mine in another building to find out if he heard it, and he had. The buzz is all over.

Of course, it may mean nothing, but I can tell you this. Both my friend and I got the old "wink wink nudge nudge" from our CLs. Is the UFT hinting to chapter leaders that they should prepare the membership for a deal?

Let's face it. Mulgrew wants a deal. The city wants the evaluation system. Sooner or later, they will have to come to terms. Why not now, while there is $250 million on the table? It might be too much for Bloomie to pass on, and he may not get it absent a contract.

I have no idea what the alleged terms are, other than it's not going to be the 4+4% other unions got for nothing. It may be spread out over time. It may not include retro money. Who knows?

The only thing for certain is that if there is a deal, it will include the awful VAM portion that will end up getting a lot of teachers fired. A raise won't do you much good on the unemployment line.

If the rumor is true, my vote will be pretty simple. I will vote no on any contract that doesn't give us a full 8% plus retro that we are entitled to, and I will vote no on any deal that includes VAM, no matter what the money terms are.

Of course, that won't matter, as any contract that offers any kind of pay increase will be voted in with 90% or more in favor.

You heard that buzz here first.