NYSED and ESL--Stupid Is as Stupid Does

"Gee I want to learn Spanish so I can take math tests in another language, " said no kid ever.

Yet that's precisely the policy of NYSED, whose official rationale for stand alone ESL classes is, and I'm not kidding.  “Students receive English language development instruction in order to acquire the English language needed for core content areas."

As teachers, it’s our job to somehow persuade students to love our subjects. My job is to teach English to speakers of other languages. It’s pretty easy to make kids love English. I don’t even have to trick them. They can take what I teach them and use it not only that very day, but also for the rest of their lives.

If you’re the child of immigrants, your parents might depend on you for more than just taking out the garbage and doing homework. Since you’ll learn English faster than your parents, you might become a part-time translator. Dental appointment? ER visit?  Let the kid help. Trip to the supermarket? Bring the kid in case you have questions. Over the last thirty years I’ve heard countless examples.

Not only that, but you might have personal needs. The very best language learners are social. That’s intrinsic motivation. When the teacher shows you how to introduce yourself, you hang on every word. After all, you want to make friends. When the crazy teacher sits you at a table with three people who don’t speak your first language, it may be the only time in your young life when you’re forced to use English.

One of my students wrote a very funny story about his struggle to order a hamburger in a restaurant. He described the gesticulation and pointing, the misunderstandings that occurred, and the eventual communication between he and the server. After taking my class, he was able not only to order hamburgers easily, but also to write about his struggles to learn how. (That may sound like a minor achievement, but if you’re with teenagers all day you know perpetual hunger is a an ongoing issue.)

I could certainly re-orient my classes to conform to NYSED’s concept. What would happen if I revolved my classes around geometry or earth science? Do you think my students would respond better with test-prep over communication and survival skills? I don’t.

Not only that, but everything I’ve read about language acquisition suggests NYSED is horribly wrong. Language is different from other subjects in that how well you grasp it may not be as linked to intelligence as it is to affect. For example, my student, I’ll call her Maria, loves being here. At first, she was angry when I placed her at a table with no one who spoke her language. Within weeks, however, she was chatting with the boy next to her. He and Maria shared sharp senses of humor. They unwittingly helped one another to learn English all year long. That’s what I call a win-win.

On the other hand, my student John didn’t love the US and was dragged here kicking and screaming. He never spoke to anyone. He didn’t care who he sat with, and his sole interest was figuring out how to use his phone in class without having me confiscate it. I can smell illicit phone use, John didn’t like that, and eventually he stopped coming altogether.

Do you think English lessons revolving around geometry would have won him over? I don’t. Had I done what NYSED wanted, I’d have lost not only John, but also Maria and her friend.

Newcomers need a place they feel understood. They need a place they feel safe. I can give them that, and I can ease them into using our language. I can show them the joy of communicating in a new language. Were I to do what NYSED wanted, all of my students would not only fail my class, but also lose their very best path to understanding the others.

NYSED’s notion that English is not in itself a subject is nothing short of idiotic. I’m a teacher, and idiotic is not remotely what I want to model for my students.

Thank You, NYSED, for Your Standardized Test

So it's day six of NYSESLAT testing, supposedly to measure the English level of my students.  Once again there's no class for us. We just sit for yet another day and do the test. I'm stationed outside, perhaps to ensure no one escapes.

For the last decade, I've taught mostly beginners. A lot of my colleagues prefer teaching higher levels. I ask for lower ones and I generally get what I ask for. It's a win-win, in that I get what I want and my colleagues get what they want. At least it used to be.

As chapter leader of a large school, I teach four rather than five classes. For years I'd get two double-period classes of beginners. Last year, while I had one full section, my second section had only eight students. This year, I had only one section and taught an advanced class. This has proven educational, if nothing else.

Where had all my students gone? I found out this year. It turns out that most of the students in my advanced class don't belong there at all. I started the class out by giving them a novel called The Number One Ladies Detective Agency. It's a lovely book, utilizing simple language to express complex ideas and emotions. The last time I taught it, students loved it. This time it went over like a lead balloon.

I didn't really understand why at first. It was only when I started to focus more on their writing that I saw what was going on. Many of these students were unfamiliar with fundamental English conventions. There was no subject-verb agreement. There was no past tense. I understand a lot of people don't specifically teach these things, and that the idea is to teach it in context. I can deal with that, and I can do it. These kids had not done that, let alone much reading or writing.

If you look at the English Regents exam, there's a rubric. Using the conventions of standard English is right at the bottom of it, if I recall correctly. The important thing is the so-called close reading. That means, basically, you extract crap from one piece of writing and place it in your own words. On the bright side, you're supposed to explain what it means. However, changing the words of a sentence or two, to me at least, does not necessarily represent comprehension.

The NYSESLAT is like the little brother of the English Regents exam, and it seems to determine how Common Corey our students are. It most certainly does not determine how much English they know. Otherwise, my advanced class could've handled the novel, as my advanced classes in the past have. I would not have felt that more than half of my class was in dire need of taking my beginner's class. I do know that if these kids go to CUNY, they will get tested in English. They will fail and end up in remedial courses in community colleges. They will pay for the classes but receive no credit.

Why is this happening? The only conclusion I can come to is that NYSED wants to rid itself of the need for ESL teachers. After all, there''s been a shortage forever. By initiating Part 154, they've cut the need for us. All you need is a subject teacher with the magical 12  credits, and voila! We've met the requirements. And who cares what they actually know? I've seen students who write most awfully if at all, and they've gotten 80 or above on the English Regents exam. They're college and career ready, according to the rubric. Who cares if they're actually nothing of the sort?

There's a speaking test in which most speaking is done by the teacher. The students mostly read the text. If they can manage to change a word or two and reproduce the message, that's good enough for NY State to determine they can understand and produce verbal English. Whether or not they actually can is of no consequence whatsoever. 

The geniuses in Albany have rigged the game so as to make it convenient for themselves. I have seen no evidence that they give a golly gosh darn about my students, and forget about me and my colleagues. They are disgraceful, totally indifferent to the students I try to help. Now they wish to blame teachers for their outrageous misdeeds, and want us to take a few courses to make up for this. Evidently, because they know nothing about language acquisition, they've determined we must not either.

I can't believe these people are allowed to sit around cushy offices, make terrible baseless decisions, go to gala luncheons, and get away with this outrageous incompetence. Of course I'm just a lowly teacher sitting around administering tests. It's not my job to question them.

Too bad for them that I wasn't trained Common Core style. Too bad for them that I question what I see, as opposed to the paragraphs and lines to which their test may direct me. Too bad for them I see how utterly ineffective their methodology is. If they'd only take these shackles from my feet, I'd have a lot more time to show and encourage students how to do the same. That's not to mention I could easily teach them how to really write, and fundamental English skills, about which NY state couldn't care less.

NYSED Fiddles While ELLs Are Ignored

I’d just like to express, for the record, that I find this article amazing. After virtually gutting direct English instruction for ELLs, NY State thinks giving a college course or two to potential teachers will somehow compensate. This is absolutely absurd. It is the official policy of UFT and NYSUT that ELLs need more, not less, direct instruction in English. It is remarkable, not to mention unconscionable, that NY State does not share that policy. 

It is supremely ironic that the state now proposes to instruct potential teachers about language acquisition. The most recent revision of Part 154 is abundant evidence that the state itself knows little or nothing about language acquisition.I don't know what the Regents do all day, but removing 33-100% of direct English instruction from high school English Language Learners is one of the very stupidest acts I've witnessed in education. I've been teaching in New York City since 1984, and believe me, I've seen stupid in virtually every flavor. 

Here's an example--there are few things quite so idiotic as New York State's notion that direct English instruction exists for the purpose of preparing students for core courses. Our job is improving student lives, not showing them how to pass tests. What do you think of doing when you think of learning a new language? I think of going to new places, and meeting and talking with new people. For my students, I think of them making friends, helping older family members, and learning how to live in the United States.

New York State takes a different approach. They think the reason we teach people the native language of the United States is so they can take tests. They actually state that the purpose of direct English instruction is to prepare student for "core subjects." You see, according to the people in charge of education in our state, we learn English so we can do better in social studies and math. That way, we can move toward the ultimate language activity--taking a state test.

Ironically, New York State tests, at least the ones I'm dealing with, are among the worst I've ever seen. I've spent most of the week giving a speaking and listening test, part of the NYSESLAT, which is supposed to help place ELLs. The problem with this test is it does not much involve speaking and listening. The students taking it have the text in front of them the entire time. How often do you have text in front of you when you are listening?

As for speaking, they are frequently extracting information from test in front of them. While the instructions say use your own words, there are a whole lot of words from which to borrow right in front of your face. This does not mimic actual speaking and listening, and that's just one reason ELLs are placed too high, almost always.

I used to teach two sections of beginners, students unfamiliar with English and its conventions. Now I teach one, and students who'd have ended in my beginning class are frequently in my advanced. Many are unable to use past tense in English. Many cannot compose a comprehensible sentence. And now that they're measured by an English Regents exam that does not really measure writing, they don't need to fret over things like that. 

In much of the state, only rank beginners are given direct English instruction. The state seems to feel that acquiring the English language is not a worthwhile pursuit. Take the kid, dump her into a classroom where they're reading To Kill a Mockingbird, and hope for the best. We'll sit an ESL teacher in the back of the classroom two days a week, give the teacher no consultation as to what's going on in the class, make no allowance for one on one time with this teacher, and that will solve everything.

Chalkbeat presents a ridiculous, rosy notion that we're gonna help ELLs by making future teachers take a course. Meanwhile, all over NY State, ELLs struggle to get by in school. Forget about getting by in life, because tests are all the state values.We've moved virtually all the way backward to sink or swim, and no one in NYSED seems to care at all.

No English for You!

The cynical, morally bankrupt thugs in NYSED face issues far differently than you or I might. For example, there's been a perennial shortage of ESL teachers as far back as I can recall. In fact, one of the reasons I'm an ESL teacher is that I could never get a job as an English teacher. Someone told me, "Go teach ESL," and though I didn't know what it was at the time, I grew to love it.

There are few things more satisfying than observing the rapid progress of beginners, or noticing that your students are suddenly fluent in the language. I remember one girl who struggled for two years and then caught it. I said, "You see? I told you you could do it." She said, "Yeah. I was surprised." Another milestone is the first time a student reads a book in English. "You forced me to do that, and I hated you for it. But now I'm glad you did it."

There's another thing you'll see if you teach beginners. You'll have kids thank you for teaching the one class that they can understand. Imagine what torture it is to go through five or six that they don't understand.

Of course that's changed now. How do you deal with a teacher shortage? In some states, you just lower the standards and hire anybody. Sure, that's a terrible approach, but it keeps bodies in the teacher chairs. In NY State, they've got a different approach. They take a regulation called CR Part 154, and rig it so you barely require direct English instruction at all. Then, they take the test that ostensibly measures English ability and make the standard so low that my dog could pass. Finally, when everyone advances, they say, "You see that? Our plan worked."

I'm fortunate enough to be in a building in which the principal thinks learning English is important for newcomers. Our principal, in fact, thinks it's so important that he holds classes of multiple levels in which students are explicitly taught English. This, of course, is old school. Official NY State policy is that direct English instruction exists only to support advancement in core courses. Who cares if you can introduce yourself, ask where the bathroom is, order a pizza, or make friends? As long as you can pass a bunch of rigged tests, that's good enough for the geniuses up in Albany.

So all over the state, only rank beginners are required to have only one period of direct English instruction per day. Once they advance, via that NYSESLAT exam that my dog can pass (and granted, he's a smart dog), you plant an ESL teacher in a classroom twice a week and you meet the standard. According to NY State, the kids are being served. What exactly is that teacher supposed to do? Who knows?

One thing the teacher is likely not supposed to do is plan. I know that because co-planning is a serious endeavor. If you're with more than one co-teacher, it becomes nigh impossible. I know teachers with eight co-teachers. The only time they can possibly see them is in the classroom.

I had a hole in my program this semester, so I'm co-teaching in a special education English class. There are two former ELLs in the room, and that's who I'm there for. In my judgment, the issues these kids have (or don't) are not related to their knowledge of English. But hey, the regulations say I'm supposed to be there, and my boss says so too, so I'm there.

The teacher with whom I work has another section of the same class directly after this one. I would not presume to tell him how to plan. Also, if I'm walking around I will help any kid, not just the two to whom I'm assigned. For me, this is not a bad assignment. My co-teacher, like me, was assigned to teach the English Regents exam. He's given it some serious consideration, so I steal and use almost all his handouts. My class complains that another teacher's name is on the paper, but I don't care.

I'm okay with this, even though I'm absolutely certain my presence in that room is far from necessary. If I had to do this five times a day, though, and had no classes of my own, I'd be pretty upset. I know teachers who do this five times a day. One of the groovy things about Part 154 is that you don't need to even be there all week. Instead of one teacher pushing in each day, you could push in two days here, two there, and one somewhere else. Now here's the beauty part--In that third class, you're there once a week, and then some other teacher is there once a week. Even though there's no continuity, Part 154 says this is good enough. And for principals, teachers who used to teach one class are now teaching 2.5 classes.

Now imagine you do this five times a day. ESL teachers who used to plan and cover five classes are now covering 12.5 classes. They have no input whatsoever in these classes and cannot possibly plan anything. A big bonus is that you can now fire over half of your ESL staff and save big time. It's a WIN-WIN!!!

Unless, of course, you actually care whether your students get support. NYSED and the NY State Regents don't give a crap one way or the other. They sit in fancy offices and go to gala luncheons while ELLs sit through incomprehensible classes. And hey, because the English Regents exam doesn't entail real writing or real reading, they can pass that and graduate.

God help them when they get into college, because no one else will. Our total failure to teach them English means they'll be bounced to some community college, where they'll pay thousands of dollars to take zero credit remedial English courses, and lose a year or more of their young lives. I know what these courses are, because I've taught them at Queens College and Nassau Community College. I taught these classes for twenty years.

And guess what? I can teach these same skills in high school. I would, too, except NY State says I can't. Instead, I'm test-prepping for the NY State Regents exam, without which my kids will not graduate.

NY State Regents--No Reading Necessary for Reading Exercise

The more I work with the NY State English Regents exam, the more I hate it. A big part of it is multiple choice questions, which I generally do not like or use on tests I write. From speaking with people who've taught this to ELLs before, I'm beginning to understand this is the toughest part of the test for them. They're able to master the pseudo-writing for the other parts by memorizing simplistic formulas, but if there are four answers, they really have to pick the right one.

There are strategies. For example, if it says the answer is on lines 5-8, you can underline them and focus right there. In fact, you can underline all the lines to which the questions refer, and then ignore the rest of the piece utterly. It's a real time-saver, and several of my students have figured this out. A lot of my students are from China. From what I hear, testing is a big thing over there. Perhaps my students have looked at these things from angles I'd never have imagined.

One thing I'd never have imagined is a reading test that doesn't require reading. Yet that's precisely what we have here. I think there was one question about overall theme that may have required a quick scan or so, but for the most part it was look at these lines in isolation and don't fret about the rest.

I'm one of those old-fashioned English teachers who thinks it's our job to inspire children. It seems to me that I ought to be trying to instill a love of language in my students. I want them to love speaking it, hearing it, reading it, and writing it. That's not how David "No one gives a crap what you think or feel" Coleman envisioned Common Core, and whatever they call the test this year, it's still Common Core.

As if that's not enough, I have a whole bunch of students who've studied this test before. Some have passed, and some haven't. But all have taken practice tests, likely as not the ones I'm giving them. So if I pull a set of ten questions and use it for a quiz, for all I know, they've seen and reviewed it before. A colleague suggested I write my own, but I'm not doing that. I don't mind writing materials for my classes, and I do it frequently. But I'm not going to spend my prep time preparing crap.

Also, I'm in half a classroom with the kids sitting at tables of four. The only way I can give a quiz without cheating becoming the national pastime is by putting up dividers. While the dividers preclude a lot of copying, they're far from ideal. This is because no matter where I am, I can't see 80% of my students. How hard would it be to pull up the answers, available on the net, on your phone, and just hide it whenever that awful teacher comes by?

Here's how far I will go with that--The next time I give a ten question quiz, I will rewrite the answers in a different order. I will then check for students who gave the series of answers that's on the test. If anyone has the test answers, I'll be a little suspicious.

I can do this stuff, and I will do this stuff. I'll bet a lot of English teachers come up doing this stuff. I'd wager some have known nothing else. Sadder still, we have children who've known nothing else. This is work for me, and that's it. Taking the test is work for them, and that's it. Of course I've done a lot of other things. I've seen some supervisors who mistake studying the Regents exam for studying English.

How pathetic is it that New York State brings up our children to value prose and poetry not at all, and instead has them indulge in the drudgery this test dumps over their heads? If I were a NY State Regent and my name were attached to a test like this, I'd have trouble sleeping at night.

English and the Fine Art of Crap Extraction

I'm doing one of my least favorite things this year--preparing students to take a standardized test. They don't graduate unless they pass it, so I don't feel like I have a choice. One problem is that half the class has actually passed the test, so those students aren't particularly motivated to study for it. I don't blame them. The NY State English Regents Exam, more than anything, is an exercise in tedium. It's exactly what I would not teach if I wanted to inspire a love of reading or writing.

Of course, I can't be bothered with such lofty concerns. The important thing is that they learn how to pick out appropriate support, spit it out credited, and explain it. I recently heard a supervisor say the only kind of writing done in college is argumentative essay. If that's the case (It wasn't when I went.), then I have little idea why we're even bothering with college. The current iteration of the English Regents exam is all about the crap we refer to as "close reading," or dredging through whatever to find particular points.

I speak to English teachers who tell me they're discouraged from teaching entire novels. Why not just teach excerpts so they learn how to extract crap from it? After all, what's more important--teaching a love of reading, or learning how to extract crap from fiction the same way you extract it from non-fiction? The more I look at the English Regents exam, the more I realize that crap extraction is the apex of Western Civilization, and we must therefore focus on it and it exclusively.

I'm old fashioned and unsophisticated in the art of crap extraction. I remember the first book I ever read. I think it was called The Little Black Puppy. I was fascinated when I cracked the code of sounds represented by letters. In elementary school, we were explicitly taught English usage, parts of speech, and punctuation. These are things we're not really supposed to focus on in high school, but I see a whole lot of students who can use help with it.

I'm thinking of two students right now who, in my unworthy opinion, cannot write at all. Their sentence structures are odd, likely direct translations from their first language that do not work in English. Both are in my advanced class, yet would benefit more from my beginning class. However, both have tested out of ESL via the NYSESLAT, which measures I have no idea what. Because the NYSESLAT is aligned with the English Regents exam, and the fine art of crap extraction, they've passed that too. One got 82, and the other got 86.

The insane concept of "college and career readiness" is somehow tied to the English Regents score. I assume that one or both of these students has reached that lofty plateau. I can tell you, though, with 100% certainty, that neither of these students is prepared to take English 101 in college. If they go to city schools, they'll take writing tests and be bounced into remedial courses. They'll pay thousands of dollars to learn what I could've easily taught them in high school.

Instead, they're sitting in my crap extraction course, which they need not at all. But common core has made the need for crap extraction a national emergency. Therefore our kids are done with fiction, finished with Shakespeare, rid of the need to interpret language, and set on a path of trudging through tedious crap and determining which of the crap is most important.

Multiple sources assure me it isn't only ELLs we're sending into the world unable to write coherently in English. Because NY State is enormously ambitious, we're failing native English speakers as well. I'm told that students with excellent overall grades cannot spit out a decent personal statement for college. This failure is even more shocking than the one we've presided over for ELLs.

We can serve our children better.. The overarching philosophy of Common Core, as stated by its illustrious founder David Coleman, is no one gives a crap what you think or feel. That's one of the most pathetic and cynical philosophies I can imagine.  It's anathema to anyone who's chosen to teach for a living.

How pathetic that we have so many so-called leaders who drink whatever Kool-Aid served them. While I'm actively involved in teaching kids how to pass one single test, and showing them skills that will likely be good for little or nothing more than that in the long run, at least I'm aware of it. Unlike a whole lot of people, I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

At PD, I Learn ESL Teachers Are Obsolete

On the left, you see an ESL teacher. On the right, of course, is the State of New York, which knows everything. How do I know that? Because they say so, and that ought to be good enough for anyone.

I'm one of those old-fashioned ESL teachers who studied Dr. Stephen Krashen's theories. They are obsolete, of course. I know this because someone who worked for a NY State Regent told me. The person didn't actually provide any citations, but she said so, and since she makes more money than I do, she must be right.

One of the "obsolete" Krashen notions is that language learners need comprehensible input. If they don't get it, they tune out. I actually do a workshop where I illustrate that very phenomenon to English speakers. I give them a piece that borders on incomprehensible, so complex that few can understand it at all. I then break it up, do a Keynote presentation, and by doing that, pull my audience back into a place where they know what's going on. Actually, the geniuses in Albany say there is no such thing as complex text. I guess they never read Beowulf, or Moby Dick, or Shakespeare, But hey, they're the experts, and I'm just an obsolete ESL teacher.

The main reason I'm obsolete is I have this archaic notion that it's different teaching English to people who don't speak the language, as opposed to people who do.  You probably can't see the text in the photo to the right, so I'll type it out.  An "outdated guiding assumption and principle" is this:

The strengths and needs of English learners and their classmates are distinct and necessarily demand different approaches. 

Here is the "21st century reality and guiding principle:"

In many classrooms, the literacy strengths and needs of English Language Learners, Multilingual Learners, Monolingual Learners, and their English-only peers are more similar than they are different. Learning academic English, oral and written, should be an instructional priority for all.

(Let's ignore the profligate use of capital letters, since anyone who works in Albany and makes all that money is necessarily a genius.) This asserts that there is no difference in what people who speak English need to learn in an English class, and what people who don't speak English need to learn in an English class. And they've pretty much gotten their wish, too. Newcomers can now come to NY schools and be told it's time to read To Kill a Mockingbird. Don't like it? Tough crap. Sink or swim. This is how you learn academic English, and that's our only goal. We don't care if you can talk to your friends. We don't care if we make you hate reading, writing, English, your teacher, or yourself. We are the sole arbiters of what "21st century reality" is and what we say goes.

My colleagues and were asked to post questions about the reading, and indeed we did.  

Where is parent involvement in this plan? 

 Like all things reformy, everything is the fault of the teachers. The teacher is the only variable.

What is the role of school leaders?

I can only suppose it entails telling teachers they suffer from "outdated guiding assumptions and principles," and that the state would now dictate what "realities" are. Screw everything you studied in school. We, who come up with new crap every year to replace the old crap from last year, have come up with new crap, and it's infallible, unlike the crap from last year (which we also said was infallible).

What research supports the contention that ELLs don't have distinct needs?

I can't imagine there is any, since ELLs are acquiring a language, while native English speakers are not. I acquired a second language when I became an ESL teacher, because I thought it behooved me to do what I was asking my students to. Let me tell you something--it's a whole lot harder than reading a novel in your native lanaguage. I had a Spanish teacher who thought it was a good idea that a bunch of near beginners read La Muerte de Artemio Cruz. I can assure you it was not. One of my fellow students and I read it in English, and it was still hard. The teacher thought we were geniuses because we, unlike anyone else, were able to discuss it. Actually the teacher had picked a task that was way too difficult, and we just found a workaround.

However, since the geniuses in Albany are now simply redefining what "realities" are, they have no need for research to support their positions.

If ELLs do not have distinct needs, why is ESL instruction needed?

If ELLs do not have distinct needs, why not dump them into classes with everyone else? Why bother giving them time to learn English? Why should anyone bother studying language acquisition? Why bother learning that language acquisition ability begins a steep decline around puberty, or that the older people are, the more difficult it is for them?

To me, it's entirely conceivable that NYSED looked at how young children acquired language, and
did not bother examining high school students. If it works for a five-year-old, why shouldn't it work for a 17-year-old? They're not different. They're all kids, right? We'll just tell the teachers to differentiate instruction and take no responsibility whatsoever for the disasters that ensue.

Here's the toughest question, referring to what the state calls "outdated guiding assumption and principles."

Why are these outdated?

Well, because MaryEllen Elia, or Betty Rosa, or someone else in Albany says so. We don't need to give no stinking reasons. We have declared that this is the way and everything else stinks, and that will be true until next year, when we have a new way and everything else stinks.

How will they implement the idea that all classrooms will use similar instructions and strategies?

That's a tough question, but as for all things educational, Bill Gates has an answer. Actually all we need to do is record the lessons of teachers and show them to everyone. This is just an extension of the incredible efficiency we get from Albany. When it turned out there was a shortage of ESL instructors, they simply eliminated the need for ESL instruction, substituting nonsensical assertions like we didn't need to teach English to people who don't speak it.

Here's a reality--New York State is indifferent to the needs of newcomers. This is a arguably a violation of Lau vs. Nichols, and therefore a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I plan to do some arguing that it is. (I wonder if anyone in Albany has studied American History, or whether they also consider that obsolete.)

The people who created these programs belong somewhere that has nothing whatsoever to do with education. They don't give a golly gosh darn about our students or their families, let alone us. I'm sick to death of hearing about how newcomers will not only magically learn basic English, but also acquire academic English. Lots of us have taughts ELLs to pass the English Regents. The only thing that proves is that they can pass the English Regents, spitting out formulaic crap to fool readers.

It would be far better if we were allowed to teach them English. And if any of the geniuses in Albany wish to learn English, I'll make myself available to them too.

500 Students a Week

That's how many students PE teachers can see. Under NY State regulations, a student in a five day gym class gets .58 credit a semester. But a student in a three/ two class, that is three days a week semester one, and two days semester two, gets .50 credit a semester. Not much of a loss for half the time, right? And easier to make up now that it's only half the time.

On top of that, you can actually reduce your PE staff by half with no issue. The gym teacher used to teach only one class period two, but now teaches two classes. And on the other three, or two days, you can program a music class, or an art class, because consistency in those subjects is just as unimportant as consistency in PE classes. And the music teachers, who also have fifty students per class, can also see 500 students a week. What could go wrong?

Let's start with the 500 students. How do you even learn their names? Are you even supposed to? And if you aren't, where do they come off judging you by the one-size-fits-all infallible Danielson rubric? I mean, if I'm teaching kids to play basketball, am I supposed to act like a coach? Or am I supposed to stop every twelve minutes and have them do a writing exercise? Should I have them turn and talk? What did this basketball game mean to you? How did you feel when I interrupted it to have you write a paragraph so the person observing me wouldn't rate me ineffective? Let me show you this PowerPoint presentation explaining the History of Cement, which was the precursor to these wooden planks on which we play today. You will love it. But if you don't you will watch it anyway.

Of course, as a teacher, you have to carefully figure when you show that PowerPoint. Because, you know, your Monday, Wednesday, Friday class is 33% ahead of your Tuesday, Thursday class. So you have to calculate mathematically which lesson to give when, because perish forbid they should be one solitary minute ahead of your other class. No, plans must be followed, and it will be eighteen days exactly before the Tuesday, Thursday class can see this PowerPoint.

Naturally, you have to give essay tests to your 500 students. The only way to prepare for that accurately, according to your supervisor, who claims to have been trained in this stuff, is to have PE notebooks. And the only way you can make sure your students don't copy into this vital PE notebook info is to have them never, ever use computers. Also, you can't trust the kids not to copy from one notebook to another, so you need to keep the notebooks in school, all 500 of them, in some location TBD by teacher. After all, it's important that teachers get a voice in how this work is done. That's what makes their jobs so fulfilling. That, and grading 500 essays on the inner workings of volleyball, because they have nothing better to do. Of course they will use a rubric for this.

So just pass out the 50 notebooks every day, after the kids change, and after a brief warmup, and have them sit on the floor to write the essays. After all, PE isn't just running around and indulging in sports. This is about rigor, not enjoyment. If you were to teach the kids to love to play volleyball, well, then they'd just want to play volleyball and they'd never want to write that all-important 500-word essay on why they love to play volleyball, even though your meticulously crafted Danielson-based lesson ensures they will hate volleyball whether they would have liked it or not.

So, yeah, give all the PE teachers so many classes that they can't even learn student names. That's a good step. Then ask them to do all the crap that every Danielson lesson wants. For goodness sake, don't acknowledge that their goals may be different than the goals in the algebra class, because every class is really the same, and it's important to formulate questions based on degrees of knowledge. All that joy in sport and physical exercise, well, that's for the pros. If we'd wanted students to enjoy physical exercise we wouldn't have placed them in a half-time class. We wouldn't have let them know we care so little about this discipline that we're not even bothering to reinforce it each and every day, like we do with every other class.

And hey, for the other half, we'll dump in music and art, because we don't give a crap about that either. If it doesn't terminate in a state exam, if teachers and students aren't rated on it, we're not gonna worry about it. All that enjoyment and passion stuff is for losers. We at NY State Education Department know what's important.

And no we're not telling you specifically what's important, because we might change our minds tomorrow morning.

That's how we roll.

You Don't Need No Stinking English

I continue to be gobstruck by the idiotic nonsense that passes for leadership in NYSED. Someone told me yesterday about a DOE employee who did not believe in standalone ESL. This person self-represented as an expert. This is incredible to me, as I've been teaching ESL for decades and do not consider myself an expert. I know experts, though, and I've read experts.

The notion that my class exists so that kids can do better in core classes is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard in my entire life. The notion that it's expendable brings the stupid to a level I had not yet contemplated. Now it is possible to squeeze English instruction into subject classes. With time, it may even be a good idea.

But learning a language is very much like learning to read. This is what self-declared ESL experts cannot get through their incredibly thick heads. You want people to love the language, not dread it. You therefore focus on high-interest materials. You personalize things so that students can express themselves immediately. You focus on the practical. Once they love the language, you will be far more successful in asking them to read an essay about ancient history, or whatever it is you wish the students to know about.

I'm a good reader. I often am asked to plod through the UFT Contract to find this or that. For me, this is a necessary task. It's not something I jump up and down thrilled about. But it has to be done and I can do it. The reason I can do it is not, with all due respect to David Coleman, because I started reading contracts when I was six years old. The reason is because I grew up reading comic books.

I graduated to reading paperbacks my parents left lying around the house, and eventually learned what sort of books really did appeal to me. In fact, the picture above happens to be the book I'm reading right now. Doubtless David Coleman would think I'm wasting my time, and that it would be better-invested perusing The History of Cement. Here's the thing, though--I'm not much inspired by humorless pedants. Nor are my students, or most kids their age.

By utilizing Common Core, by constricting reading to non-fiction, dry and tasteless, we are consigning our children to dislike reading. We are doing then a huge disservice, conscripting them to academic careers of rigor and grit rather than joy and inspiration.

By taking this same moronic philosophy and applying it to the acquisition of the language I love, we are increasing the possibility that newcomers will not love our language, or that they will at least hate school. I think kids should love school, and that newcomers should love English.

That's why I oppose Common Core, even at risk of being punched in the face, and that's why I will fight for the right of the kids I serve to get an education that acknowledges and celebrates everything we know about language acquisition.   

What Would Happen if You Gave Tests Like NYSED Does?

I've been reading that the Common Core math tests will be a rousing success, because their passing percentages will be the same as the Regents math tests were. That way, no one will say, "Gee, Common Core is failing everyone, and therefore it sucks." Thus, there will be no torches and pitchforks over at the gubernatorial palace, or wherever  Andrew Cuomo keeps his coffin, or his oversized ego, or whatever it is that motivates him to behave as he does.

On the other hand, imagine if you were to give tests on such a basis. You'd have to say to your students, "I can't tell you now how much each question is worth. I'll have to see how many people get it right or wrong first. What I can tell you is this--70% of you will pass, and 30% will fail." What would your students say to that? And what if your plan, as was John King's, was to pass 30% and fail 70? Would Arne Duncan give you an award and make some idiotic remark about how wrong the soccer moms are? Would he say this proves the kids aren't as smart as the moms think they are?

Because if he didn't, you'd be facing a world of problems, especially if some parent called to complain about your grading policies. I don't know about you, but one of the things my AP looks for on tests is point values for questions. In my school, it's unacceptable to write a test, decide which percentage of kids I want to pass, and then grade accordingly. After all, were I to do that, I wouldn't actually be writing a test. A test is supposed to measure what my students have learned, not memorialize a decision I'd made beforehand.

In fact, if I just want 70% of kids to pass my test, why does it even need to cover the subject I teach? Maybe I won't bother to write an English test. I'll photocopy an old Earth Science Regents exam and make everyone take that. What the difference? 70% of the kids will pass, just like I wanted. Who cares if the overall scores are low? When I give tests like those, I'm not actually measuring anything. I'm just using a useless document as quasi-tangible evidence that my prediction, which will come true regardless, is actually based on something.

Since it doesn't matter what the test covers, and since 70% are going to pass no matter what, why should we even bother with this school stuff at all? Isn't it expensive to send kids to school, even those charter schools I keep reading about? Couldn't we convert all that unprofitable public school real estate into condos for gazillionaires? Since everything is based on tests, and since the tests are basically meaningless, why don't we stop making kids wake up early in the morning and just let them take tests on their home computers? Who cares if they cheat? It doesn't matter because 70% of them are still gonna pass.

That's the NYSED model and Andrew Cuomo wants half of teacher ratings to depend on it. And our union leader thanked the Heavy Hearts in the Assembly for passing it. There's a Chinese saying, "I've eaten more salt than you've eaten rice." It kind of means you have a whole lot more experience than another person. You don't need to have eaten much salt to assess the quality of program Andrew Cuomo and his Heavy Hearts Club envision for our public school students. 

From NYSED With Love

I just noticed this, over at Pissed Off's blog. This appears to be one of the stupidest policies imaginable. You can see the page over at her site, but I'm going to type out the NY State reg, dated April 2015

If a student misses class time, he or she must be provided opportunities to make up the classwork, assignments, assessments, and other learning experiences.

Note it does not say, "if the student misses class time for a good reason. So let's say little Johny is out on the corner, smoking cigarettes or who knows what else, and strolls leisurely into your class with two minutes remaining. You have to arrange for him to make up the test you just gave everyone else. Personally, if they're gonna force me to write a makeup test for kids who cut, anyone who takes it will rue the day they missed the first one. It boggles the imagination that NYSED wants to actually teach children there are no consequences whatsoever for their bad decisions. That's not what I teach my kid.

Students are not required to make up the exact amount of instructional time due to absence.

You see, you idiots? You went to class every single day, and I only showed up twice. So I got this EZ Learn program and got my smart girlfriend to answer the questions. Now I have the same grade as you.

Students who master the course content and satisfactorily meet the expectations outlined in the syllabus must receive credit for the course; they should not be denied credit based on lack of seat time alone. 

Here's the thing, though. If you aren't in my class, you cannot possibly have done the work. I'm a language teacher. My grade is 50% test scores, 25% homework, and 25% participation. If you are never in class, you get a zero for participation. Homework is also an issue. I sometimes give handouts from workbooks. I know a lot of kids copy, and I can't spend all my time running around finding out who. However, kids who copy homework regualarly simply cannot pass tests. They also can't do classwork.

Maybe it makes them feel better to get easy credit for homework. But I change up the homework, giving open writing assignments, and the kids who copy learn quickly that I notice when entire paragraphs are the same.

There is something fundamentally lacking in NYSED. We are not just teaching math, English and science. We are role models. We wake up ridiculously early to come to work, and we put up with all sorts of nonsense to keep doing this job that we love. We know that people who don't do diddly squat are not precisely on the road to success. We are not a bunch of computers doing test prep.

And we have standards, real ones, even if NYSED has the audacity to inflict such nonsense on us. Make me write a syllabus and I'll make it quite clear that no one who cuts 200 times is going to pass my class under any circumstance.

I'm pretty sure my career would be less than stellar if I were absent 200 times a year. But by NYSED standards, if I showed up and taught the entire course in one day, everything would be fine.

Troglodytes.

NYSESLAT Review Part 2--Awaiting the Rigging of the Scores

Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday I dispensed with all that "teaching" stuff and gave ELLs the NYSESLAT instead. It wasn't such a great test when it was one day, and kids would be routinely placed at incorrect levels, but now that it's three days instead it will be much better, depending upon what you mean by "better." In my school, it's actually seven lost days of instruction because of the extended time we need for the speaking test. But now that NY State has cut English language instruction in half, what's seven fewer days?

It's a well-known fact that more time learning is actually not useful unless you're using it to bash teacher unions for being recalcitrant, fighting all earnest efforts to achieve the goal of more work for less pay. If the lost time is devoted to standardized testing, well, then it's Mom, apple pie, and saluting the American flag.

And what a test it is, folks. Yesterday, a young man asked me why the essay specifically called for an introduction, body, and conclusion but only two paragraphs. This was the same young man who, the first day of the test, asked why the students had to stay until the bell rang if they had already finished their tests. Why do we have to sit here and do nothing? And why do they require a basic structure that demands three paragraphs and then ask for two?

I'm not at all sure that particular student is in need of Common Core. He's critical all by himself without it. Oddly, folks like Arne Duncan and John King get pretty churlish when people question the Core. They attack soccer moms and call teachers, parents and students "special interests." Those who spend billions imposing their will on our children, of course, are philanthropists, heroes to be lauded on test passages.

The second day, I stopped the CD because the listening activity was identical to that of the first day. It turned out that the geniuses at NYSED, or whoever they paid to design this thing, decided to repeat the same sample question three days in a row. I'm sure the students were as inspired as I was by that bold move, once I figured out it was not, in fact, yet another error.  On part one of this review, a commenter offered:

The Speaking Subtest was just the tip of the iceberg. This new CCLS-aligned NYSESLAT is the worst sort of rubbish: inappropriate, riddled with errors, and designed for failure. The CCLS cancer is spreading, my friends. Take heed.

Sounds ominous, but I'm not persuaded. I have no idea whatsoever what the NYSESLAT was designed for. Certainly it was an effective device in torturing beginning students. I watched a girl from El Salvador who's been here maybe six weeks suffer through it for no good reason. She's a rank beginner who will likely need to start from the beginning in September, and I don't need a three day test to tell me that.

But I have no idea what the test will say about her or anyone You see, after we grade the test at the school, we have to send it to Albany for the next part, The Rigging of the Scores. That's when Albany decides which percentage of kids should be at which level, and sets the cut scores so whatever they predict comes true. After all, how can you be all-knowing unless you force your predictions on the entire populous? There are reputations to protect, and now that you've cut English learning in half, there's gonna be a lot less of it anyway.

And that's just fine because once they rig the test scores they can get to the real work of firing all the teachers who've failed to make double the progress in half the time based on a test that doesn't even measure what these kids are supposed to be learning.

Screw English, Says NYSED

Since I've been teaching, we've provided English Language Learners with extensive instruction. After all, how the hell are you supposed to pass all-important standardized tests if you don't even understand the language? For the last few years, I've been teaching beginners. The first time I taught ESL I taught beginners. I've found many of my colleagues avoid this. I don't know why, because I love it. They make rapid progress. You can see it before your eyes, like when children are growing up.

Beginners, since I started in the eighties, have gotten three periods a day of instruction. Intermediate students got two, as did advanced. Proficient students, those who tested out, usually got one period but sometimes got another to help them along. Because placement tests are usually total crap, because they gave the same one for decades, and because some kids guess well for no reason, I've often seen kids at high levels come back for help.

NYSED knows everything, though, and has determined we have to stop coddling these kids. So now, for one period a day previously devoted to English, all ESL students in NY will take a subject class. They can either take this class with a dually licensed teacher, for example a math teacher with an ESL extension, or it can be co-taught by two teachers--one ESL and one subject teacher.

This is one of the stupidest ideas I've ever heard in my life, but it will save money that can be devoted to tax breaks for billionaires. Therefore Merryl Tisch and Andrew Cuomo can have a laugh over a Grey Goose martini at the next gala affair in which their paths cross. So it's all good for them.

In my school, we will have classes of social studies/ ESL. This is as good an idea as any, since social studies entails a lot of reading and writing, as does English. But it's still awful. Let's say, for example, that your history class entails, A, B, C and D. Let's further say that A, B, C and D are required for the Regents exam, without which you can't graduate. So you now need to cover A, B, C, D, and English as well. Who knows whether the English levels in the room will be the same? Shall we differentiate by teaching multiple levels of English as we teach history? How the hell do you do that without losing C, D, or some part thereof? And how do you incorporate beginning English into World War II? Present progressive?

Look. The Reich is bombing London.
There's the Gestapo, rounding up people for the concentration camp.

Certainly more colorful than, "I'm studying English." But aren't you supposed to be studying English?  Not really. Not anymore. It's Core, Core, Core, and no more of that touchy-feely crap. Renowned Common Core genius David Coleman says no one gives a crap how you feel or what you think, and if he says it, that ought to be good enough for anyone. If his life is one of tedium, drudgery, and humiliation, why shouldn't yours be too? In his defense, however, I actually don't give a crap how he feels or what he thinks.

And why should I? He knows nothing about language acquisition. Nor does NYSED. What do they care that it takes three years to learn a language conversationally, that if varies greatly by individual, or that it take 5-7 years to learn academic English? NYSED says screw, "My name is _____," and let them all study the holocaust.

Maybe they don't need to know, "My name is ____" because if these kids get the jobs in which the reformy Walmart family wishes to dump them, they'll wear name tags anyway. But while tags tell people what their names are, it's still unlikely anyone will question them about the holocaust while seeking out that 9-gallon jar of Vlasic pickles. By degrading jobs that require actual introspection, like teaching, while offering bargain basement standardized nonsense like this, we actively degrade our children and their future.

It's unconscionable that the demagogues in charge of education would take one moment away from our English Language Learners. Whoever thought of this belongs in prison with Silver, Skelos, and Cuomo,  And Tisch too.

New York Fails My Students (and Me) Again

I teach kids who arrived here yesterday. If their test scores don't pass muster, according to the bill the Assembly passed with heavy hearts, I cannot be an "effective" teacher. Interestingly, the tests they use for my kids have evolved too. My colleagues tell me that the NYCESLAT test, designed to determine which level our students are on, is now based on Common Core standards.

I went to workshops last summer with paid "experts" who could not identify appropriate Common Core standards for my students. After a while, they suggested I use elementary standards for my high school kids. It was ridiculous. For years I've been hearing talk of how we should differentiate instruction, and judging teenagers by elementary standards seemed, at best, less than ideal. I know exactly how my kids would feel about that. They'd feel belittled, insulted. I feel the same way.

Teaching English to language learners is completely different from teaching it to native speakers. NYSED doesn't know that because they are ignorant of language acquisition and don't care enough to learn or even consult with experts. I'm not an expert, but I know that close reading is not a skill most of my students need. In fact, in time their reading abilities in their first languages will transfer to English. The question is--how much time will it take? It's tough to say.

Acquisition of a language is quite different from studying geometry. It's not really about sitting down and memorizing formulas or rules. A lot of it is about how kids feel. Kids dragged kicking and screaming from their home countries learn English more slowly than kids who are happy. Kids who've been taught that school entails sitting down, shutting up, and regarding teachers as deities tend not to participate. And language, despite what NYSED may believe, is all about participation. How much time do we devote to speaking and listening as opposed to reading and writing? I'd argue most of it, and I write just about every day. Most people write less than I do.

Native speakers know the rules of their first languages perfectly. There are those who argue that native speakers make mistakes, but they don't. We speak what we hear, and that will vary depending upon where we come from. Anyone who tells you the grammar book is the Ten Commandments doesn't know much about grammar. There are two types of grammar--prescriptive, in which you do whatever the grammar book dictates, and descriptive, in which you describe the way living people use living languages.

My students arrive with little knowledge of living grammar. Some of my students have five or ten years worth of studying English, and know how to do nothing but take tests. I'd argue that, or even knowing how to read a language, is not a highly practical skill if you're going to make a life in a place where that language is used every day.

So the thing is this--I MUST show these kids the rules, or they will have to pay to learn them elsewhere. I MUST make them speak up, or they will be unable to manipulate their way through our society. I don't care what the Common Core advocates say. They don't know what kids with whom I've worked for decades need. They have manuals and checklists, but I have experience. I realize there's not much of a premium on that nowadays, particularly if your experience is in teaching.

I'll continue to help these kids for as long as I can. It's clearly the goal of Cuomo and his heavy hearts club legislature to make that as short a run as possible. Nothing to do now but fight him, and the first step is waking up to do our jobs every working day.

Why NYSED Doesn't Trust Us to Grade Our Students' Tests

Looks like the geniuses at NYSED have done it again. Even after they field test the questions, they still don't work, so they get to erase them. These, of course, are the tests written by Pearson, which are much better than tests you or I could write. After all, the folks at Pearson have never met any of your students, don't know them from a hole in the wall, and are therefore the only people on earth who are qualified to judge them, or you, or whether your schools stay open.

One of the coolest things about the state tests is that they set the cut scores after they grade them. So if John King says 70% of our kids are gonna fail, well, that's just the way it is. If they say you need to answer 50 questions to pass, and too many kids do it, they can say they need 55. Or if not enough kids pass, they can say they need 45, and so on. Nice work if you can get it, and when you can toss out any questions that skew your results the wrong way, your success is fairly assured.

Here's the thing--that's exactly why head ed. Merryl Tisch decided we couldn't grade our students' Regents exams. Some teachers, horror of horrors, were finding kids who scored 64, and finding ways to bump the scores up to 65. What an awful thing to do, when the kid who scored 64 could simply spend another year studying whatever it was he or she missed by one point. Spending an entire year agonizing over one stinking point builds grit, or rigor, or whatever the hell it is that we're supposed to want for our kids.

Now NY State doesn't go scrimping around for one stinking point. NY State determines what results it wants, and manipulates the scores so they prove whatever. Want all the kids to pass so you look like geniuses? Want all the kids to fail so you can give more schools to Moskowitz? Want to have a sudden improvement? Want a crisis? You can get anything you want in Merryl Tisch's restaurant.

Now, since NYSED blatantly twists the scores to do whatever, they kind of assume we will too. I mean, have you known people who lie and cheat and say any damn thing to suit their purposes? In my experience, people like that tend to suspect the worst of others. They're very free with accusations, usually angry ones, that other people behave as they do. So don't take it personally if NYSED doesn't trust you.

They don't trust anyone, since they can't trust themselves. Because they are a bunch of lying manipulative weasels, they assume we are too. The only bad thing is how many people believe it.

We're gonna have to do something about that.

We're from NYSED, and We're Here to Help

I've been teaching ESL for most of my career as a teacher. Though I'm primarily a high school teacher, I've also taught college, including almost 20 years at the English Language Institute at Queens College. One thing I've noticed is that grammar is not something you can study once and simply remember. You not only have to review it multiple times, but you also have to use it regularly. For example, my second language is Spanish, but since I almost never write in Spanish, I'd have to brush up on accent marks and such for a few minutes before I'd even attempt it.

In English, a whole lot of language learners decide the "s" we add to third person is simply an annoyance, so they drop it altogether. Hence, at every level, you read sentences like, "She go to school every day." Writing like this, among other things, can mark you as a non-native speaker of English. But a lot of learners figure there's so little conjugation done in our language that they dispense with it altogether.

For the last few years I've tended to teach beginners, as I'm the only person in my department who actually requests this position. But odd things are happening in how they're tested. For example, they're no longer called beginners. They're called "emerging" or some other inane and overly complicated thing. Also, I'm told the grammar and usage they need, which unlike native speakers is not intrinsic for them, is no longer tested when they show up.

This became very clear to me in January, when our intermediate classes were full and someone who tested intermediate (whatever they call that now) got dumped into my class. This boy was more verbal than a lot of my kids. But when I gave a test that most of my students passed easily, he scored 44%. This was a very eager kid, always shouting, "I'm finished," before most others did. Yet his work was full of fundamental errors. I can't say how important English convention is to close reading and whatever other crap Common Core has in store for us. I can say, though, that anyone who can't handle basic usage is unlikely to write anything anyone will be jumping up and down to read. (Of course, there is that fundamental David Coleman Common Core theory, that no one gives a crap what you think anyway.)

A new innovative approach to ESL comes from NYSED. From now on, we will spend less time actually teaching English. A good portion of what could have been devoted to immersion will now be devoted to subject knowledge. Because what's more important than passing tests and improving the four-year graduation rate?

Sadly, the answer to that, for my kids, is fairly simple. More important than test scores, than passing classes, than just about anything, is getting a handle on the language. If the folks running the state had even the most rudimentary notion of what language acquisition meant, they'd know that it takes time to learn a new language, to acclimate one's self to a new culture. What would be so awful if we devoted an extra year or two to giving them English? Why on earth should we penalize schools and teachers for meeting the needs of our children?

The answer, of course, is that NY State, embodied by Andrew Cuomo, doesn't give a damn what kids need. They care only what Eva Moskowitz needs, because she and her BFFs have bought Andrew Cuomo lock, stock and barrel. Too bad, because my job, like that of all my brother and sister teachers, is actually helping children.

Any responsible administration would devote itself to helping us do that.

If NYSED Were a Teacher...

Here is the rub:  If the New York State Education Department were a teacher, parents would be on the phone and NYSED would soon be called down to the principal's office.  In the hands of an apt administrator, NYSED would be sternly advised to change or denied tenure.  As it works out though, parents protest in great numbers (i.e., in Poughkeepsie), but instead of having any impact, future forums are cancelled and parents are dismissed as dupes.

NYSED continues its policies which violate basic teacher protocol.  If NYSED were a teacher, these policies would be completely unacceptable.

First, any tests that fail 70% of a class, let alone of NY's entire test-taking body, is a failure in itself.  The test makers, or those who set the cut scores, are out of touch with reality or, perhaps, too much in touch with some ugly political agenda. While politicians fail us, children will have their failure impressed upon them from a very early age.  They are the sacrificial lambs.

Second, the tests have "visceral" effects.  I do not see how this differs from child abuse, given modern definitions.  The tests cause children to become anxiety-ridden, agitated, possibly wee on themselves and/or throw up.  At the Success Academy, come testing time, teachers are given packets, including deodorizing powder to clean up vomit spills.  What kind of world have we created for young people?

The tests, and the required prep, take dear time away from students learning to enjoy art, music, social interaction, gym and life, in general.  It takes away from the ability of students to pursue their own interests.  Instead of choosing a library book to enjoy, students must open the same Pearson review book and set the "stopwitch" for timed practice.

The amount of time spent in physically testing students seems abusive as well, six days of long sitting.  Some children cannot sit this long.  Some children cannot focus this long.  I would argue childhood is the most important stage in a human's development.  And, it is, undoubtedly, compromised, if not ruined, by educational deformity.    No wonder these "deformers" won't practice what they preach upon their own children.  It is of little use to call your school's principal, Commissioner King, Mr. Obama, or even Mr. Gates, in this matter.  The government, instead of providing for the common welfare, is providing the Common Core--whether you like it or not!