Upcoming Events
- No upcoming events
- Add Event

Welcome To CT

My Left Nutmeg

A community-driven blog featuring news and commentary on local, state, and national politics.

Ads on My Left Nutmeg
 
 


 
Contact Info
To contact the site admin email ctblogger at ctblogger@yahoo.com

Recent Comments

My Left Nutmeg

Parents can (and should) consider opting their children out of the Common Core SBAC Tests

by: ctblogger

Thu Jan 29, 2015 at 15:05:52 PM EST

Cross post from Jon Pelto's Wait What?

FACT #1:

Connecticut parents and guardians have the right to opt their children out of the Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) Standardized Testing Program

FACT #2:

In addition to all myriad of problems associated with the Common Core Standards, including the concerns that some of those expectations are not developmentally appropriate, the Common Core SBAC Standardized Test is literally designed [rigged] to ensure that the vast majority of students are deemed "failures."

Late last year, the Malloy administration joined with the other members of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and voted to define the "proficient levels" on the SBAC tests.  The "Cut Scores" were set at a level where about 38 to 44 percent of  elementary and middle school children will meet the so-called "proficiency mark" in English/Language Arts and only 32 -39 percent will reach that mark in Math.

At the same time, SBAC set the cut score for the 11th grade SBAC Common Core Test so that approximately 41 percent will show "proficiency" in English/Language Arts and 33 percent will do so in Math.

This means that the Common Core SBAC Test is designed in such a way as to deem as many as 6 in 10 - and potentially as many as 7 in 10 - children as failures.

The scoring system is nothing short of child abuse.  (For details read: Governor Malloy - Our children are not stupid, but your system is!)

FACT #3:  

While the overall waste of taxpayer money and student instructional time associated with the Common Core SBAC Testing disaster undermines the educational opportunities of every public school student, the testing scheme is particularly discriminatory against children who face English Language barriers, children who have special education needs and children who aren't "excelling" at one to two grade levels ahead of their classmates.

FACT#4:

The only thing that will stop the Common Core and Common Core Testing scam from completely destroying our system of public education will be if our elected officials stand up and fight back against the Corporate Education Reform Industry.

For that to happen, parents need to opt their children out of the Common Core SBAC test and send a loud and powerful message to our elected officials that the time has come to put the word "PUBLIC" back in Public Education.

[More on the legislative effort and legislative heroes in an upcoming post]

Here are the other FACTS Connecticut's school parents and guardians need to know;

According to Connecticut State law, all public schools must administer the Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC).  This year the Common Core SBAC test will be given to all students in Grades 3 through 8, and those in Grade 11.

However, there is no federal or state law that prohibits a parent or guardian from opting their children out of these inappropriate, unfair and discriminatory tests.

To repeat:  There is no federal or state law that prohibits a parent or guardian from opting their children out of these inappropriate, unfair and discriminatory tests AND there is no law that allows the government or local school districts to punish parents or their children if the parent refuses to allow their child or children to participate in the Common Core SBAC testing program.

Last year, a directive issued by Governor Dannel Malloy's Commissioner of Education, Stefan Pryor, instructed local school superintendents and principals that Connecticut parents COULD NOT opt their children out of the Common Core SBAC tests and his memo even provided districts with step by step instructions on how to pressure parents into not utilizing their rights to opt their children out of the tests.

According to the CT Mirror, in an interview with John Dankosky, last spring, on WNPR's public radio show, "Where We Live" Governor Malloy said that, "federal law restricts students from opting out of taking standardized tests, and if the state were to give students that option, it would put the state at risk of losing millions of federal dollars."

Malloy's statement was simply untrue.

When the Chairman of the State Board of Education and Commissioner Pryor were finally brought before the General Assembly's Education Committee on March 12, 1014 to address concerns surrounding the Common Core and Common Core testing system, Commissioner Pryor admitted that,

"On an individual level, I don't believe that there's any specific provision in law regarding consequences... To my knowledge there are no state provisions that are specific, or no federal provisions that are specific to an individual student."

The Chairman of the State Board of Education agreed that there was no legal action that the state or school district could take to punish a parent or child who opted out of the Common Core SBAC test.

While a law clarifying that parents can opt their children out would be helpful, and has been introduced into this year's General Assembly (more on that soon), a parent's right to opt their children out cannot be denied.

However, in response to Commissioner Pryor's directive to local school superintendents, the majority of local schools inappropriately informed parents (and teachers) that students could not opt out of the Common Core SBAC tests.

But regardless of the false information and rhetoric coming from the Malloy administration, parents not only have the fundamental right to opt their children out of the unfair testing program, they should strongly consider doing just that as a way to protect their children, Connecticut's teachers and our state's historic commitment to local control of public education.

Finally, after speaking with many local school superintendents and reviewing the correspondence that they sent out to teachers and parents last spring, it is clear that Malloy's Department of Education also tried to scare local officials into believing that any widespread opt-out or  boycott of the Common Core SBAC test would jeopardize funding for the local school district.

Again, the state government used misinformation in their misplaced and ongoing attempt to mislead local superintendents.

The issue in question is called the "95% Rule"

According to President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), school districts are required to show, every year, that their tests scores are improving and that 95% of all students have taken the standardized tests.

But according the nationally-respected nonprofit, non-partisan, Fair Test organization,

"No school or district anywhere in the country has ever been penalized for failing to test enough (95%) of its students.

Even more importantly, at least 41 states, including Connecticut, have been given federal waivers that supersede and preempt those provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Instead, Connecticut has chosen to go with a system of categorizing schools based on test scores and a number of other criteria.  According to Connecticut law and regulations, Connecticut categorizes its schools as being (1) Turnaround Schools, (2) Review Schools, (3) Transition Schools, (4) Progressing Schools and (5) Excelling Schools.

Turnaround Schools are defined as the 5% of the lowest performing schools and are subject to state intervention, state takeover, and even a state determination to close them and hand them over to a private charter school company. (The disgraced policy of giving Jumoke Academy control of the Milner School in Hartford and the Dunbar School in Bridgeport)

The next category, according to the State Department of Education, are "Review Schools" and this is where the so-called "95% Rule" might come into play....but not the way the Malloy administration has explained.

Review Schools are, "All schools with [Standardized Test] participation rates less than 95 percent, four-year cohort graduation rates below 60 percent, three-year baseline School Performance Indexes (SPIs) below 64..."

There is no financial punishment for being a "Review School." In fact, there might even be some financial benefit if the state was actually allocated its funds appropriately.  But even more importantly, a school with a graduation rate of 60% or more has successful proven that it is making progress and no state official would have the audacity to define a school as failing simply because its participate rate fell below 95%, but it was successfully meeting all the other criteria for being a "transitioning school" or "progressing school."

If parents take the time to examine graduate rates for their schools they will quickly see that the so-called "95% Rule," is nothing more than a red herring.

As parents look around the nation they will discover that Common Core Testing opt-out and boycott efforts are taking place from sea to shining sea.

In New York States, entire school districts are refusing to even offer the test, a number of courageous teachers in various states are actually refusing to give the unfair and inappropriate Common Core Tests and tens of thousands of parents are stepping up to protect their children by opting them out of the tests.

Connecticut parents should certainly consider doing the same.

In the coming weeks, Wait, What? will be posting more information about how to opt your child out of the Common Core test and the issues surrounding the Common Core SBAC testing fiasco.

For now, here are the primary steps are protecting your children:

Submit a letter to your school principal and your child's teachers indicating that your child will not be taking the test.

Let them know that you are aware that you are not required to keep your child at home during the testing windows and that your child should be provided with appropriate instructional activities while the Common Core Testing is taking place.

Ask them what arrangements they will make for your child during that time.

Also, here is a sample Opt Out letter follows:

Dear Principal ___________,

Thank you for all you do for my child, _________ (child's full name), and for our school.

I am writing to respectfully and formally inform you that ______ is not to take any tests produced by or related to the Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Coalition (SBAC).

Please note that this is not a "request" to be excused from the tests produced by or related to the Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Coalition (SBAC).

I am aware of Connecticut State Statute 10-14n which mandates that students take a statewide mastery examination. However, as you know, I have the legal right to refuse to allow my child to participate in these tests and neither the state nor the school district has any legal right to punish me or my child for taking this action.

Furthermore, please note that a "refusal" is not the same as "absent" as they are defined differently. As such,   _____ will not be required to participate in any makeup tests.

I will be informing ______ that he/she is not to take any tests produced by or related to the Common Core Smarter Balanced Assessment Coalition (SBAC), and that if he/she is given one he/she is not to work on it in any way.

I would ask that the school please provide him/her with an alternative, instructionally appropriate activity during any and call SBAC related testing.

Please confirm your receipt and understanding of this letter.

Respectfully,

____________________

Parent's name and contact information

Finally, you can also get more information about these issues from a variety of websites including the following:

United Opt Out: Connecticut Page

Truth in America Opt Out Form

Connecticut Against Common Core (and its Facebook counterpart Stop Common Core in CT )

You and Your Children Cannot Be Punished For Opting Out in Connecticut (Common Core in CT Blog)

Fair Test Memo: "WHY YOU CAN BOYCOTT STANDARDIZED TESTS WITHOUT FEAR OF FEDERAL PENALITES TO YOUR SCHOOL

And here are some of the previous Wait, What? Blogs on the Common Core SBAC Testing Scam

Common Core (SBAC) Results May Provoke Shock, Officials Urge Families to Stay Objective

Another reader speaks truth to power about the Common Core SBAC Test

Beware the Coming Common Core Testing Disaster

Governor Malloy - Our children are not stupid, but your system is!

A system that labels children as failures (another MUST READ by Wendy Lecker

Greenwich superintendent joins Commissioner Pryor in misleading parents

An Open Letter to Parents from a Connecticut Parent

How much time and money can Malloy and Pryor Waste on the Common Core Test of a Test

The Malloy Administration's Big Lie: Parents Can't Opt Out.

Parents can opt their children out of the standardized testing frenzy and school superintendents should be supporting them

Commissioner Pryor's agency tells superintendents to mislead and lie to parents - and they are

Parents can opt their children out of the standardized testing frenzy and school superintendents should be supporting them

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Dan Malloy's Awkward 'Primary Problem'

by: abg22

Sat Jan 24, 2015 at 14:49:53 PM EST

Dan Malloy has a primary problem. The rules about intervening in local primaries for someone in Malloy's position as the state's top Democrat are very few and very simple. But in the last 18 months Malloy has impressively managed to violate all of them.

The first rule is that: Whenever there's a Democratic incumbent, you endorse the Democratic incumbent (unless you know that person is about to be indicted). The Connecticut Hispanic Democratic Caucus called out Malloy for violating that rule last week, issuing some blistering comments about Malloy's conspicuous failure to endorse incumbent Hartford Mayor Pedro Segarra in Segarra's re-election campaign this fall, which everyone agrees will be hotly contested. The rift was surprising because the Latino community -- Connecticut's fastest-growing demographic -- has been one of Malloy's most reliable bases of support, not to mention that Malloy and Segarra are perceived as allies on education reform, economic development and other issues.

Malloy is conflicted about the race because his now-former legal counsel Luke Bronin happens to be one of the candidates who has expressed interest in challenging Segarra. Malloy can't endorse Bronin, who at this point is still a longshot, for fear of alienating Segarra's allies. And presumably Malloy has given Bronin at least some kind of tacit approval to run, so Malloy can't very well turn around and throw his brilliant and ambitious protege under the bus. Awkward!

At this point Malloy's plan appears to be keeping his powder dry as long as possible. If he can, he'd like to stay out of the race completely. The problem is that, as the Hispanic Democratic Caucus has already demonstrated, the cowardly "stay mum" strategy usually appeases no one. It can only get worse for Malloy as the Hartford race gets more heated. Segarra's campaign manager made it clear to the media that the campaign is asking for, and expecting, Malloy's endorsement. And what if Bronin hedges his bets by gathering signatures to run in the general election, in case he loses the primary? Awkward!

Malloy might be able to plausibly claim that he's neutral in the Hartford mayor's race because he has a policy of staying out of local primaries, right? Well, no, because in 2013 he made a serious mess of things intervening in local primary races -- and not just any primaries, but open-seat races in which there was not an incumbent Democrat that Malloy could endorse without blowback.

The second rule of endorsing in local primaries for someone in Malloy's position: In an open-seat race, do not endorse unless you're damn sure that you're picking the winner, and that the followers of your candidate's opponents are not going to be swing voters when your name is on the ballot in the next election. Malloy violated that rule in 2013 by endorsing State Representative William Tong in the Democratic primary for mayor of Stamford. Tong lost the primary to David Martin, who went on to win the general election, demonstrating that Malloy's opinion did not hold much sway even in a city where he was mayor for 14 years. Awkward!

In another 2013 open-seat race, Malloy endorsed Toni Harp in the Democratic primary for mayor of New Haven, having been led to believe that she would destroy her weak opponents. Harp ended up winning a closer-than-expected election, and a lot of Democrats (not to mention independents and Republicans) in New Haven felt that Malloy should probably have minded his own business. Malloy's meddling was enough to make Tom Foley think he could win the endorsement of Harp's opponent Justin Elicker and the votes of Elicker's aggrieved followers in the 2014 governor's race. (It didn't work: Elicker ended up endorsing Malloy, and Malloy cleaned up in New Haven, but many of Elicker's backers still resent the governor to this day.)

So if it is somewhat 'ironic' that Malloy is now under fire for NOT endorsing in a Democratic primary, it's because his actions in 2013 established the expectation that he would endorse in local primaries. If Malloy's non-endorsements now demand as much scrutiny as his endorsements, he has only himself to blame. When it's convenient, Malloy wants to hide behind the usual platitude that he supports "whichever Democrat wins," as he remarked in 2011 when he failed to endorse his old rival John DeStefano in a four-way primary (even though DeStefano was the overwhelming favorite). When it's convenient for Malloy to choose sides in a primary, he does that. There is no larger principle besides political expediency, or political obliviousness.

One might reasonably argue that the governor shouldn't have to give rubberstamp endorsements to other Democratic incumbents just because that's the way the game is usually played. So what if governors are 'supposed' to endorse Democratic incumbents at the local level, and stay out of open-seat races barring exceptional circumstances, and independent-minded Malloy has completely turned that conventional wisdom on its head?

So what indeed. Malloy is welcome to be independent-minded, and he is under no obligation to be loyal to other Democratic incumbents, as long as he doesn't expect any loyalty in return. Could an aggrieved and independent-minded mayor rise up to primary the governor if Malloy chooses to run for a third term in 2018? Awkward!

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Common Core (SBAC) Results May Provoke Shock, Officials Urge Families to Stay Objective

by: ctblogger

Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 16:05:15 PM EST

Cross post from Jon Pelto's Wait What?

Teachers, Parents, Public School Advocates, it is probably best to sit down for this one....

That bizarre and disturbing statement was the headline in a piece recently posted by the Connecticut Education Association (CEA) following this week's meeting of a Connecticut State Department of Education Working Group.

Reporting on the event, the CEA explained;

"Details are emerging about how the new Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) program will affect students, teachers, and communities."

Wait?  "Details are emerging"?

The Common Core Standardized Testing Scam, known as the Smarter Balanced Assessment consortium (SBAC), is actually designed to ensure that about 70 percent of Connecticut students fail. [Governor Malloy - Our children are not stupid, but your system is! and Beware the Coming Common Core Testing Disaster and A system that labels children as failures (another MUST READ by Wendy Lecker]

Not only is the Common Core testing system created to generate the false impression that Connecticut and the nation's public education system is failing, but by tying the Common Core SBAC test results to the new inept, illogical and counter-productive Connecticut Teacher Evaluation System, the incredibly expensive "golden nugget" of the corporate education reform industry aims to denigrate teachers and blow apart what is left of the teaching profession.

But despite this truth, Governor Dannel Malloy and his administration remain wedded to the implementation of the Common Core, the Common Core standardized testing program and a teacher evaluation process based on the results of those tests.

As the CEA's January 21 2014 blog post explains,

"Most school districts in Connecticut administered a field test last year, but this year the program will be in high gear with educators administering the tests to students in grades 3-8 and 11 this April/May.

[...]

This year, the stakes will be high as students establish a baseline for the test. Jacqueline King, who works for the SBAC program, says the baseline data about Connecticut students' performance on the first-time test has the "potential to shock" students and their families."

The CEA goes on to report that at this week's Working Group Meeting,

"Members of the working group [said they] are concerned about how test results will be messaged to ensure that the public understands that the SBAC program is still a work in progress."

How the test results will be messaged??

That the SBAC program is still a work in progress?

It was Governor Malloy's own Commissioner of Education who joined the other state education chiefs who voted to set the "cut score" so that 70 percent of Connecticut's public school students would be deemed failures.

It was Governor Malloy and his State Department of Education that remain committed to linking the unfair test to the state's new teacher evaluation system.

And it is because Malloy's complete unwillingness to de-couple the Common Core SBAC test results from the teacher evaluation system that teachers across Connecticut are being coerced into teach to the very Common Cores Standardized SBAC test that their students will fail - and those failing scores will be used to "evaluate" the teachers.

The CEA article adds,

"Mark Waxenberg, executive director of CEA, raised a series of concerns at today's meeting, saying that the new testing program is still in "the developmental stages."

The article also noted that Joseph Cirasuolo, who is the executive director of the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents and one the most vocal supporters of Governor Malloy's Corporate Education Reform Industry initiative, said the results from the Common Core SBAC tests could, "scare the hell out of parents." He apparently added, people "are talking about this as if it has a level of precision that it does not."

"The new testing program is still in "the developmental stage"???

"A level of precision that it does not have"????

These two individuals and everyone else involved in the discussions surrounding the Common Core and Common Core testing debacle know perfectly well that the SBAC test is designed to fail 70 percent of the students and that the SBAC test will be used as a significant factor in determining which Connecticut teachers are deemed to be "good' and which will be deemed "not good."

Instead of raising these "concerns" at a State Department of Education Working Group, the CEA, AFT and the other Connecticut organization purportedly committed to Connecticut's students, teachers and public schools - such as CABE and CAPSS - should be demanding that the Common Core be halted, the Common Core Tests eliminated that Connecticut's teacher evaluation system should be fully de-coupled from the SBAC test or any other standardized tests.

As if all of this wasn't clear enough, in what is undoubtedly one of the most incredible and shocking comments to come out of the Malloy administration yet, the representative of the State Department of Education told the SDE working group,  "best practice dictates that educators should never make consequential decisions based on a single test score."

OMG, What the____?????

Malloy, with the support of the Connecticut legislature is the one that MANDATED the expensive and wasteful Common Core SBAC tests be given and MANDATED that the Common Core SBAC test scores be used to evaluate teachers.

As the CEA post adds,

"Connecticut's Board of Regents for Higher Education reportedly already has placed SBAC results on its list of multiple measures that colleges and universities can use to evaluate student readiness and placement. SDE officials also envision scenarios where high schools could include SBAC scores on student transcripts (as reportedly has been done in the past with CAPT scores)..."

The real problem is that the Common Core Standards were developed without the proper participation of educators and experts in child development.

Furthermore, as has been widely reported, some of the Common Core standards are developmentally inappropriate and the foundation of the Common Cores Standards are demanding that students immediately perform at a level that is at least two grade levels above what students have been learning.

The Common Core Test (SBAC) also discriminates against English Language Learners and students who require special education services...not to mention, as noted, that the absurd and warped system is actually designed with a pass/fail rate that will ensure that nearly 7 in 10 students fail.

The real problem with the entire situation lies with the Common Core itself and the way in which the Common Core standardized tests have been designed to undermine the stability of public education in America.

The solution is that the leadership of the two major teacher unions, and all of the others committed to public education, should be retreating from their support of the Common Core and its associated testing scheme.

Yet even now, while the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers raise concerns and call for action, their fundamental position of support for the Common Core remains intact.

The National Education Association's website reports that the,

"NEA believes the Common Core State Standards have the potential to provide access to a complete and challenging education for all children. Broad range cooperation in developing these voluntary standards provides educators with more manageable curriculum goals and greater opportunities to use their professional judgment in ways that promote student success."

At the same time, the American Federation of Teachers says,

That if implemented carefully and with the needed supports and resources, these new standards will help improve education for all students.  At last July's  AFT Convention, "AFT members today passed a resolution at the union's national convention reaffirming the AFT's support for the promise and potential of the Common Core State Standards as a way to ensure all children have the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in the 21st century while sharply criticizing the standards' botched implementation. "

But the Common Core Standards are inappropriate, unfair, and discriminatory.  The Common Core standardized tests are inexorably linked to those Common Core Standards, and until we set aside the Common Core and the Common Core testing, our nation's children, teachers and our entire system of public education system will remain the primary target for those who seek to destroy public education for their own financial and political gain.

And when it comes to the relationship between the Common Core, Common Core testing and the teacher evaluation systems, those who are responsible for speaking up for our children, our teachers and our schools simply say enough is enough and corporate education reform initiatives need to be dismissed and real action taken to reduce the barriers to academic success - poverty, language barriers, and unmet special education needs to name a few.

Perhaps the leaders of the CEA, AFT, CABE and CAPSS should also read or re-read the commentary piece published last year by Wendy Lecker, one of the state's leading public education advocates.

Wendy Lecker's piece entitled, "Solution to failed tests is not more tests," first appeared in the Stamford Advocate, and she wrote;

Fact: Connecticut's teacher evaluation plan, because it relies on student standardized test scores, is fundamentally flawed. Student test scores cannot measure a teacher's contribution to student learning. In fact, the president of the Educational Testing Service recently called evaluation systems based on student test scores "bad science."

Rather than admit failure, the Malloy administration is trying futilely to "fix" the fatal flaw. Last week, PEAC, the panel charged with developing Connecticut's teacher evaluation system, working under the direction of Commissioner Stefan Pryor, approved a change which calls for more standardized tests to be included in a teacher's evaluation.

The commissioner's "solution" is to add interim tests to a teacher's rating. Determining what tests will be used, how they will be aligned to the standardized tests, and how all the test scores will be rolled into one "score" for teachers, will likely render this change completely unworkable.

However, there is an even larger issue at play. Will the addition of more tests in a teacher's evaluation help us measure whether a teacher is effective?

According to the Connecticut Supreme Court, Connecticut's public schools must prepare children "to participate in democratic institutions, and to prepare them to attain productive employment and otherwise to contribute to the state's economy, or to progress on to higher education."

Thus, we want our children to acquire the skills and knowledge that will enable them to succeed in college and in life. We want teachers who will help our children develop these skills.

Standardized tests have no bearing on college success. Moreover, although standardized tests are supposed to measure cognitive skills, research from MIT has shown that increasing test scores does not increase cognitive skills.

Even more striking is that cognitive skills, while important, are not the most important skills in determining success either in college or in life after college. Research has shown again and again that non-cognitive skills such as self-discipline, taking responsibility, and listening skills are more critical.

A recent comprehensive study by Northwestern Professor Kirabo Jackson found that children with teachers who help them develop non-cognitive skills have much better outcomes than those who have teachers who may help them raise test scores. Jackson found that every standard deviation increase in non-cognitive skills corresponds to a significant decrease in the drop-out risk and increased rates of high school graduation. By contrast, one standard deviation increase in standardized test scores has a very weak, often non-existent, relationship to these outcomes. Test scores also predict less than two percent of the variability in absences and suspensions, and under ten percent of the variability in on-time grade progression, for example.

Increases in non-cognitive abilities are also strongly correlated with other adult outcomes, such as a lower likelihood of arrest, a higher rate of employment and higher earnings. Increased test scores are not.

In short, focusing on non-cognitive abilities, those not measured by test scores, are more important in predicting success in high school and beyond.

Jackson also found that a teacher's supposed effect on test scores is not related to how well that teacher can improve non-cognitive skills.

Moreover, a new statement by the American Statistical Association reminds us that ranking teachers based on test scores does not even work for measuring their effect on cognitive skills.

ASA notes that teachers account for 1-14 percent of the variability in student standardized test scores. The majority of variability in test scores results from "system-level conditions"; meaning everything affecting a student outside the teacher's control: the child's socio-economic status, parental background, language barriers, medical issues, student mobility, etc. Rating systems cannot eliminate the "noise" caused by these other factors.

ASA further states that test scores at best "predict only performance on the test." This conclusion confirms Jackson's results, i.e that tests cannot predict how well a student will succeed in school or life.

In the context of this evidence, what does the PEAC change mean?

By adding more tests of the same skills in the same subjects, PEAC merely added more meaningless "noise." This addition will not give us any better picture of how well a teacher teaches.

Worse still, adding more tests increases the focus on tests, increases the frequency of testing, and distracts us from considering the skills teachers should be helping children develop. And since Connecticut's evaluation system completely ignores these non-cognitive skills, they will be de-emphasized in school.

Meaningful evaluations systems can be developed, but relying on faulty measures is simply rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Connecticut's students, parents, teachers and taxpayers deserve better.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Thursday roundup

by: ctblogger

Thu Jan 22, 2015 at 16:05:08 PM EST

The latest...
  • As someone who travels on I-84 between Danbury and Waterbury, this is welcomed news!
    Gov. Dannel P. Malloy said Thursday that widening Interstate 84 in both directions through Danbury is critical for economic growth in western Connecticut, as well as easing rush-hour traffic along that heavily congested section of the highway to improve quality of life.

    The I-84 corridor through the western part of the state carries more than 125,000 vehicles on an average weekday, resulting in busy morning and evening peak hours.

    "Congested roads are bad for business and bad for families - and we need to fix them. They make us less attractive for businesses and force us to spend dozens and dozens of hours away from each other. This is all part of the dialogue about whether Connecticut wants to have a best-in-class transportation system," Malloy said.

    "Widening I-84 in Danbury is a common sense solution and part of our long-range vision to rebuild our transportation infrastructure through the middle of this century."

    The Connecticut Department of Transportation is now focusing on widening a five-mile section of the highway between Exits 3 and 8 in Danbury - where significant choke points develop on a daily basis on I-84 in that region of the state.


  • Only in Bridgeport!
    Bridgeport Councilman Richard DeJesus, D-136, whom city Democrats endorsed to run for a state Senate vacancy, is struggling with his own payments.

    DeJesus, according to city records, has since 2002 accumulated an outstanding bill of $139,433 related to a pair of businesses - Genesis Motorworks, a repair shop, and East Coast Auto Parts.

    DeJesus disputed the amount, arguing it was a much lower figure, but did not get into specifics.

    "Either way it doesn't make a difference," he said. "They're taxes that are owed and I'm not proud of that. But I'm working diligently to pay these taxes off."

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Kids Not Testing

by: ctblogger

Wed Jan 21, 2015 at 09:14:19 AM EST

Cross post from Jon Pelto's Wait What?

In an op-ed published in today's CTMirror, Robert Cotto, Jr., a lecturer in educational studies at Trinity College and one of the only elected member of the Hartford Board of Education makes the case for dumping the corporate education reform industry's obsession with standardized testing.

Robert Cotto opens his commentary pieces with;

As the debate over Connecticut's state budget looms, the legislature must consider smart ways of maintaining support for our state's children and families. They must also figure out how to save while doing the least harm.

Reducing the number of standardized tests that kids take could be a way to save more for what matters most in education.

For years, Connecticut required students to take tests in only grades four, six, eight, and ten. In order to comply with the federal No Child Left Behind Act, Connecticut began giving tests to all children in grades three through eight and ten. Twice the number of children tested and new tests equaled more money spent. State spending for the tests more than doubled from $5.3 million in 2005 to $13.4 million in 2006.

Recently, the State of Connecticut allocated more than $18 million each year for tests. However, this amount does not reflect the hidden costs of spending on test preparation. With Connecticut's No Child Left Behind waiver, both the amount of testing, consequences, and funds to impose the controversial "Common Core" will likely increase.

Reducing the tests that students take in each subject to only grades four, six, eight, and ten could save millions of dollars. The funds saved could help limit any budget cuts that will affect communities across the state, particularly for the most vulnerable children and families.  Cutting testing in this way could also result in yearly savings of up to $9.5 million. That's half of current state spending to administer the tests.

At best, the evidence is mixed regarding the impact of spending more on testing and ratcheting up punishments.


And Cotto adds;

Children best develop their abilities, talents, and interests when their schools, parents, educators, and communities support them together. In school, this would mean focusing on quality teaching and leadership, building on children's academic strengths and interests, developing balanced and culturally relevant curriculum, confronting racial and economic isolation, and standardizing fairness in resources and support.

Outside of schools, this means supporting the well-being of children and families. In places likes Finland, the investment in children and families health and well-being, in addition to fairness in school resources and quality, has resulted in educational equity and shared prosperity. Instead of building up our system of testing, we must build up our system of support for communities.

Helping kids inside and outside of school. That's a winning strategy.

With limited testing, there could be more time and funds for supporting kids' academic progress and development. Time not used for testing could go towards building on children's academic strengths and talents. Funds saved could mitigate cuts to schools, like the disappearing library, and supports for communities' economic progress, health, and well-being.

With less testing, we can focus on support for students and develop better methods to assess the goals of public education. Maybe we can save even more as we recognize that public education will be better with more attention to learning and support for communities, but limited testing every two or three grades."

Take the time to read his entire piece at:  http://ctmirror.org/op-ed-smar...

Discuss :: (0 Comments)

Tuesday roundup

by: ctblogger

Tue Jan 20, 2015 at 09:53:54 AM EST

Reading material...
  • Only in Bridgeport!
    State Democrats will consider Tuesday whether last week's endorsement of a candidate to replace state Sen. Andres Ayala was tainted by a conflict of interest.

    A special dispute-resolution panel of the state Democratic Party is to meet Tuesday at 7 p.m. at its Hartford offices to consider a complaint filed by candidate Ed Gomes.

    Gomes, an ex-state senator who was vying for the 23rd Senate District endorsement against Councilman Richard DeJesus, contends the person who ran the meeting and cast the tie-breaking vote for DeJesus should have recused himself because it was later revealed he is the latter's real estate attorney.


  • More Bridgeport madness...
    A jury reached a split verdict Friday in former state Sen. Ernie Newton's corruption trial, finding him guilty of illegal campaign practices, not guilty of witness tampering, and reaching no verdict on two larceny charges.

    Newton, a Democrat who previously resigned from his office and served time in federal prison for accepting a bribe, has been on trial facing charges he broke campaign finance laws in an effort to recapture his old seat.

    After less than six hours of deliberation, a six-person jury declared an impasse Friday on the most serious of the charges facing Newton - two first-degree larceny counts stemming from Newton's receipt of an $80,000 public campaign finance grant in 2012. The state claimed he obtained the money fraudulently by misrepresenting his qualifying contributions.

    Judge Julia D. Dewey declared a mistrial on the two larceny counts. Prosecutors would not immediately say whether they will attempt to retry those counts.

    Meanwhile, the jury found Newton guilty of three lesser counts that he engaged in illegal campaign practices by having three campaign workers claim that they had donated to his campaign when they had not. The charges are felonies that carry up to five years in prison. The jury reached no verdict on two other counts of illegal practices.

    Newton will remain free on a promise to appear in court for further proceedings. Dewey declined to increase his bond Friday, deeming him not a flight risk.


  • PELTO: "State employee layoffs coming to UConn"
    According to high-ranking UConn administrators, who asked to remain anonymous due to concerns about retaliation, a series of layoff notices will be going out soon to state employees at the University of Connecticut, including unionized employees.

    Despite a 6.5 percent increase in tuition and fees that have already been approved for next year, inadequate state support will mean that a significant number of UConn employees will be receiving layoff notices, the first time there have been a substantive number of layoffs at the University in at least 20 years.

    The UConn administrators report that the initial round of layoffs will be hitting the School of Law, the School of Social Work and at other major programs at UConn.

    [...]

    The disturbing news of impending layoffs comes on the heels of the decision by Governor Malloy's political appointees on the UConn Board of Trustees to dramatically increase UConn President Susan Herbst's salary and compensation package.

    Voting at a special board meeting on December 29, 2014, the UConn Trustees approved a new compensation package that will push President Herbst's  salary to $831,000 by 2019.  Herbst's new contract increases her salary by 5 percent each year and provides that the UConn Board of Trustees or a committee shall review her salary annually and may increase, but not decrease her compensation package.  In addition, Herbst will receive an $80,000-a-year "deferred compensation" payment, along with a $38,000 "supplemental retirement benefit."  The new contract also promises her a $40,000 performance bonus each year and guarantees her two "retention bonuses" totaling $200,000, one in 2016 and one in 2019.

  • CTNJ: "More Elected Officials Sign FOI Pledge"
    Only about 10 percent of 360 candidates took the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information's pledge prior to the 2014 election, but at least 23 more have signed the pledge since November.

    Gov. Dannel P. Malloy and Lt. Gov. Nancy Wyman are the most recent elected officials to sign the pledge, which asks officials to oppose weakening the state's public document disclosure law and to require public hearings for any attempts to change the law.

    Prior to the election, 37 candidates signed the two-part pledge from the nonprofit organization. The organization re-issued the pledge on Jan. 8, the day after the start of the legislative session, and were able to get 10 more elected officials to sign the pledge. In total, 23 incumbents have signed since November. That includes 19 Democrats and four Republicans.

    State legislators who represent Danbury, East Hartford, Manchester, Middletown, New Haven, Norwalk, Torrington, and Waterbury all signed the pledge this month.


  • Put her in jail already!
    A federal judge on Sunday indefinitely postponed the sentencing for a former congressional candidate involved in a campaign finance scandal that led to the second conviction of former Gov. John G. Rowland.

    U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton postponed the sentencing of Lisa Wilson-Foley until the court can sort through the claims "raised in the filings for United States v. Rowland."

    The issue is whether the U.S. attorney's office disclosed all the information it should have to Rowland's defense team before the September trial. Rowland's attorney raised the issue of disclosure after reading the brief filed by Wilson-Foley's attorneys on Dec. 29. Rowland's attorneys used the information in Wilson-Foley's sentencing memo to successfully postpone the former governor's sentencing, which also has yet to be rescheduled.

Discuss :: (0 Comments)
Next >>
 
0 user(s) logged on.
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Recommended Diaries
- No Recommended Diaries at this time

Recent Diaries
Sen. Chris Murphy
by: Jake Blount - May 31
3 Comments

Search


   Advanced
My Left Nutmeg Feeds

Links


Connecticut's War Dead



 
Blogroll
Powered By
- SoapBlox

Connecticut Blogs
- Capitol Watch
- Colin McEnroe
- Connecticut2.com
- Connecticut Bob
- ConnecticutBlog
- CT Blue Blog
- CT Energy Blog
- CT Local Politics
- CT News Junkie
- CT Smart Growth
- CT Voices for Civil Justice
- CT Voters Count
- CT Weblogs
- CT Working Families Party
- CT Young Dems
- Cool Justice Report
- Democracy for CT
- Drinking Liberally (New Milford)
- East Haven Politics
- Emboldened
- Hat City Blog (Danbury)
- The Laurel
- Jon Kantrowitz
- LieberWatch
- NB Politicus (New Britain)
- New Haven Independent
- Nutmeg Grater
- Only In Bridgeport
- Political Capitol (Brian Lockhart)
- A Public Defender
- Rep. David McCluskey
- Rep. Tim O'Brien
- State Sen. Gary Lebeau
- Saramerica
- Stamford Talk
- Spazeboy
- The 40 Year Plan
- The Trough (Ted Mann: New London Day)
- Undercurrents (Hartford IMC)
- Wesleying
- Yale Democrats

CT Sites
- Clean Up CT
- CT Citizen Action Group
- CT Democratic Party
- CT For Lieberman Party
- CT General Assembly
- CT Secretary of State
- CT-N (Connecticut Network)
- Healthcare4every1.org
- Judith Blei Government Relations
- Love Makes A Family CT



Other State Blogs
- Alabama
- Arizona
- California
- Colorado
- Delaware
- Florida
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Missouri
- Missouri
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New York
- North Carolina
- Ohio
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- Virginia
- Washington
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin



Powered By
MLN is powered by SoapBlox
 
Powered by: SoapBlox