The Invasion of the Public School Snatchers

Public schools are in danger. The public school, that long-standing symbol and foundation of democracy, is threatened by people who either sincerely believe that our public schools are failures (they are not) and that "school choice" is the answer (it is not), or who are deeply entwined with the privatizing forces that hope to make a profit by their demise. It is my belief that most of those carrying the "school choice" mantra forward, are in the latter group, because evidence exists that school choice is not the solution for the problems besetting urban schools. Betsy Devos is certainly one of those rabid reformers who cares little for results, wants no transparency for the charter schools she supports, and would love nothing more than to take tax dollars away from public schools and transfer them to unregulated charters or religious schools.

Betsy DeVos has long shown us that she is an advocate for corporate welfare, not social welfare. She married into the Amway fortune, worth an estimated $5.1 billion. The company cons those who are hopeful of developing their own lucrative business into investing in nothing less than a pyramid scheme. Investigations have shown that 99% of those who become Amway distributors lose money. Most of the money lost goes right into the pockets of the DeVos family, as they charge expensive fees for seminars, motivational books, and materials. A case prosecuted in Wisconsin in the 80's showed that the top 1% of Amway distributors in the state showed a net income of minus $900. This did not stop the DeVos clan from continuing to internationally capitalize on what is clearly a scam that targets and defrauds those who are desperate for additional income to support their families.

Through her brother, Erik Prince, Betsy is also connected to the Blackwater USA (now known as Academi) mercenary group. Four Blackwater operators were sentenced to prison for ordering their forces to open fire on unarmed civilians in Iraq in 2007, killing 14. They have made their fortune by privatizing war, and as in all privatization schemes, unnecessary casualties are to be expected. It appears that Betsy DeVos and her family see loss of investments, and even loss of life, as merely the cost of doing business.

Where Betsy has truly been busy, however, is in pushing the debacle of school choice and vouchers upon her home state of Michigan, with absolutely no accountability or oversight to make sure that those schools are serving the best interests of children. The New York Times states it would be "difficult to find anyone more passionate about the idea of steering public dollars away from traditional public schools than Betsy DeVos."  For at least three decades, she has pushed her privatization agenda while attacking teacher unions and public schools. She is what is known as a "disruptor," someone who creates "churn" in public schools by transferring their tax dollars and resources to private schools.

To better understand the devastation that the DeVos model of school "reform" creates, we can look at what has happened to education in Detroit. The New York Times calls the situation in Detroit "a public education fiasco that is perhaps unparalleled in the United States." DeVos "advocacy" has unleashed too many unregulated charters, leading to a dog-eat-dog climate in which no school can thrive. The corporate competition has created a situation where tax dollars are stretched too thin, leaving limited resources for all schools. Forget churn, this city sees its education dollars sucked into a bottomless whirlpool. The claim of reformers that choice will improve all education has been firmly disproven as half of Detroit charters perform only as well as (which does not say much) or even worse than, the city's public schools. 

DeVos has been heavily involved in the Detroit debacle. She established the Great Lakes Education Project to fight for and protect the city's charter schools. She fought back against a cap on charter growth that would have prevented failing charter schools from opening new faciliites, and made sure that the state would have no authority to monitor their performance. A system was created in which the institutions who are charged with granting new charters receive as much as one-third of the tax dollars that go to the charters. Charters therefore have no difficulty finding institutions to approve their often faulty business plans. 

Other difficulties with the choice model - which can also be found in other places such as New York City - is that it allows for cherry-picking of students, preventing those with disabilities or behavior problems from obtaining a slot. They also can expel troublesome or needy students once the "count day" has passed. After "count day," students can be sent back to the public school while their state funding remains with the charter.

DeVos has campaigned for vouchers that serve to transfer public tax dollars to charters, religious schools, and home schools. Gifting state vouchers to students to pay part of private school tuition will not help the most needy, who cannot afford the remainder of tuition on their own. It is nothing less than another financial subsidy to the wealthy. In Wisconsin, 75% of students who applied for vouchers were already enrolled in private schools. State legislator Gordon Hintz said that the program has "created a system in which taxpayers are paying for private education." 

Voucher schemes also violate the constitutional separation of church and state, one of the principles our country was founded on. Politico recently reported that DeVos gave a speech in which she claimed that education reform will "advance God's kingdom." In states like Georgia, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Florida when voucher measures have been legislated, taxpayer funds went to schools that taught creationism, racist intolerance, homophobia, and/or science denial curriculum. Education activist and scholar Jonathan Kozol called vouchers "the single worst, most dangerous idea to have entered education discourse in my adult life."

Whatever side of the political spectrum people land on, I do not understand how anyone could advocate for transferring public school resources paid for by our tax dollars, over to privately held, for-profit corporations. I know that many people are against Common Core and federal intrusion into our schools, yet see nothing wrong with school choice. Some of them have had negative experience with their inner-city school, and would like to throw the baby out with the bath water because they don't see a way to "fix" the problem. They are more than ready to believe the privatizer message that school choice and vouchers are the answer for inner-city children who are stuck in schools located in impoverished communities without resources. How will taking more money away from those schools help the problems? How will diverting students to a multitude of privately run charters that are not accountable to the state nor to local school boards, create anything but an opportunity for fraud and misuse of tax dollars? We know that inequity in funding exists. Increasing that inequity will only serve the wealthy, increase segregation, and create a "caste system" in education. We cannot allow this to happen.

Refuse the Tests Robocall Campaign

Over the last ten days, I worked with four very dedicated education activists and teachers to crowdsource funds for a robocall to all NYS parents.  We were successful, and believe it has had an impact on the number of last-minute test refusals that came into schools on April 13th as well as those that came in on the day of the ELA test, April 14.  The following is the campaign's final press release.  For more about our process, visit our guest blog on Anthony Cody's Living in Dialogue.

A small grassroots committee of education activists, teachers, retirees, parents and grandparents raised nearly $17,000 in only ten days to pay for a robocall that informed parents that they have the constitutional right to refuse Grades 3-8 state tests.  Two different versions of the robocall were delivered on Sunday, April 12th.  State English Language Arts tests begin on April 14, and math tests that will begin April 22.   

Zephyr Teachout, a Fordham law professor and candidate against Andrew Cuomo in the last gubernatorial primary, recorded the message in English.  In order to reach the large Hispanic and Latino population of the state, Aixa Rodriguez, an educational activist and high school teacher, recorded the message in Spanish. The results of a poll taken at the conclusion of the call indicated that more than 50% of parents who responded intend to refuse the tests.

Last year, more than 60,000 parents across New York State “refused” their children out of testing.  This year, tens of thousands across the state have expressed their concern about the increasing emphasis on tests that are ruining the education of their children, but many parents do not know they have the right to refuse testing.  Supreme Court cases have upheld this right that is based on the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, stating in the case of Meyer v. Nebraska that parents possess the “fundamental right” to “direct the upbringing and education of their children.”  

Some school districts respond to parents with confusing information that can be interpreted as threatening and punitive, as well as intentionally misleading. Letters to parents often claim that if the school does not achieve 95% student participation on the test, their school district will incur loss of funding. Ken Wagner, Senior Deputy Commissioner of NYSED, admitted in a television interview that those penalties would not occur for “several years.”  Parents in many districts are given inconsistent information on the effect test refusal has on selection for alternative instruction services (AIS) or other programming.  NY State Part 100.2 regulations allow individual school districts to “develop and maintain on file a uniform process by which the district determines whether to offer AIS…,” and these procedures can be different in every school district. State regulations do not discuss test refusals resulting in the mandated provision of AIS, or the elimination of students from other programming.   

Many districts mislead with semantics, telling parents that there is no “opt-out” provision for the tests in NYS.  In reality, parents always have the right to refuse the tests for their children.  A test refusal is scored as a “No Score - Code 999” on the test, and has no repercussion on the student, the teacher, or the school.  Though school districts like to be informed ahead of time so that they can make alternate arrangements for students, test refusals can be made right up to the day of the test.  

The tests themselves are designed for failure, calibrated to an SAT score of 1630, with “passing” cut scores adjusted after the tests are scored.  Literary analysis indicates that test reading passages and questions are often three grades beyond the age of the children.  “Equally plausible” answer choices (favored by the Pearson tests), require abstract thinking, a cognitive skill that usually does not develop until age 12.  70% of New York State children fail these tests.  Only 5% of students with identified cognitive disabilities, and 3% of English language learners, achieve proficiency on the tests. Test scores are negatively correlated with zip codes, with impoverished communities having higher failure rates. The result is that teachers lose their jobs, and schools are wrongly declared failures, while the real issue confronting schools in trouble is poverty and lack of funding.  The ultimate goal of the Governor’s “reforms” appears to be the replacement of public schools with for-profit charter schools.  

Children are the pawns in this political game, and their education is short-changed.  In his zeal to “break the monopoly” of public education, Cuomo’s education “reforms” double down on testing by weighting test results more heavily in teacher evaluations.  This will surely force even more test preparation as teachers fight to keep the careers they worked hard to establish.  As creative and authentic types of instruction are lost to testing, our children lose their self-confidence along with their enthusiasm for learning.  More class time is now devoted to practice for testing with workbooks and worksheets, instead of authentic learning through projects, experimentation, and constructive inquiry.  Music, art, social studies, enrichment, and science is crowded out to make more time for language arts and math, the only two subjects that matter on the tests.

Eric Mihelbergel of the New York Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE) believes that test refusals may double or triple this year.  A large increase in refusal numbers will send a powerful political message to New York State, as well as to our federal government, that parents will no longer allow their children to be used as a profit market for testing corporations, politicians, and government bureaucracies.  For more information on refusing tests, visit www.facebook.com/NYSmorethanatestscore or www.nysape.org.

Open Letter to NYS Legislators

Dear Legislator:

I am writing to express my concern about the Governor’s plan for teacher evaluation and to share some information with you.  I retired last year after 23 years of teaching in Guilderland, NY, and now spend my time as an education activist.  I truly believe reforms like those the Governor proposes will destroy our public schools, dismantle our present high-quality teaching force, and keep prospective candidates from entering the career path.

Teachers are not against evaluation processes that are fair and that help them to inform their teaching, set goals for improvement, and hone their skills.  This process was continually refined BEFORE Cuomo decided to base a large chunk of the evaluation on test scores.  A couple of years before I left the field, our district (and most others in NY) started using the Danielson Rubric for observations and evaluation.  It is available online here:  http://erhsnyc.entest.org/ourpages/Danielson%20Rubric.pdf.

This thorough evaluation tool has 58 pages of domains and components for assessment.  Observations are done throughout the year by administrators who then meet one-to-one with the teacher and spend much time going over the feedback and setting goals for improvement.  Though I considered myself a master teacher, I always found inspiration in those meetings and I was thus able to continually make progress in my field.  I am attaching the pdf for this rubric so that you can see how extensive it is.  You would be hard-pressed to find another profession that cooperates with such an intense evaluation system, on an ongoing basis.

Here is my point:  if administrators already have the tool to properly assess their teachers, and to help them to improve – then if it is true that we have “ineffective” teachers – why are all teachers being held accountable?  It is the administrator’s JOB to assess, mentor, train and assist teachers wherever they are on their career path.  If there are issues, and I have seen this happen with burnout, teachers are counseled out by their administrators.  In severe cases NYSED can get involved and pull the license.  For new teachers, there is a three year probation time, during which assessments are even more crucial, and give a path to weeding out those who haven’t shown potential for teaching. 

I am also attaching a pdf of a brochure I created that highlights why Cuomo’s assertions about our teachers in NY are based on false logic.  First of all, if we go along with Cuomo’s thinking we have to believe that NY schools as a whole are failing – which is just NOT TRUE.  I am sure you know that Education Week ranked us as 17^th, and after adjustment for regional costs, 4^th.  SmartAsset just came out with a study that placed us 4^th in the nation, sixth for the number of students in college, with 71% attending college within 12 months of graduating.  How does Cuomo’s assertion that only 38% tested college ready even make sense?  I call foul on this nonsensical and skewed use of testing data.  As we well know, the tests themselves are designed for failure, which is why so many parents across the state are protesting and refusing the tests for their children.  

In contrast to the Danielson evaluation, the APPR is deeply flawed, with fully one-third of NY teachers moving from one category to another on that measure.  Teachers most affected by basing their performance on the tests include those we need the most – special education and teachers of English language learners (ELLs).  Only 3-5% of these populations pass the tests, and their teachers are held accountable.  It is infuriating that those who spend their lives selflessly giving to our neediest students are punished in this way.  Who will choose to work with these populations when their careers are on the line, and if Cuomo gets his way, lose their livelihood after only two years?  I could go on with the reasons it does not make sense to give a grade-level test to students who cannot approach grade-level ability, because it is akin to child abuse, but that is another whole letter.

I am proud to say that NYS teachers are some of the highest-qualified in the nation.  The extensive process that occurs to even become certified in NY is one of the toughest in comparison to other states.  That is why I am not surprised that “only” one percent of NY teachers were rated ineffective.  What I am surprised at, is why legislators and the public at large do not seem to know that little fact. 

The bottom line is that THE MAJORITY OF NY TEACHERS ARE NOT INEFFECTIVE.  The issue is the populations that they teach.  Poverty, homelessness, disabilities, and other factors have everything to do with a test score that does not favor teachers.  Even teachers of gifted students are at risk, because those students often “max out” the test and do not show growth.  The present evaluation system is faulty!

Please do the right thing for NYS students and reject Cuomo’s evaluation plan for teachers and his punitive and draconian measures that will surely dismantle our public schools.

New York's Backdoor Voucher Proposals

Both the Republican-led NY State Senate, and Governor Cuomo, have proposed an Education Investment Tax Credit for this year’s budget.  Cuomo’s plan would give a tax credit of 75% of any contributions made to school scholarship funds, while the Senate plan would credit 90%.  What this means, is that individuals or corporations could give money to public schools, private nonprofit schools, and educational scholarship organizations.  Under Cuomo’s plan, any qualified contribution would net the donor back 75% of their gift on their taxes, up to one million dollars.  Basically, it lets individuals or corporations take money away from the state treasury, and requires taxpayers to bear the burden of a three-to-one matched donation.  The worry is that, even though Cuomo’s version of the proposal also includes public schools as qualified recipients, the scheme will divert tax dollars to private schools and thereby threaten the money available for public schools.

A criticism of both the Senate’s plan and Cuomo’s proposal, is that the term “education programs” is much too vague.  The definition of a “non-public school,” though making a point of including schools that are only not-for-profit, defines such a school as one that “provides instruction at one or more locations to an eligible pupil.”  An, as in one.  So could this be used for the purpose of home schooling as well?  Imagine if this were the case – everyone’s family members donating a scholarship to the home school, and receiving back 75% of what they gifted. 

And what about those charter schools?  Though Cuomo’s plan is worded to leave those that make a profit out of the picture, what about charters that have been calling themselves public schools?  Could charter schools rebrand themselves to fit the criteria of non-public not-for-profit schools while still paying hefty salaries to their CEO's? 

The massive lobbying for vouchers and tax credits across the nation is headed by the “Coalition for Opportunity in Education,” with hedge fund billionaire Bruce Kovner at the helm.  Even though the name of the organization sounds all social justicey, I rather doubt that they have altruistic motives.  The aim of all those who push for privatization is nothing less than the destruction of public schools.

Perhaps the most bothersome issue at play in this scheme is that in the case of religious schools, this “backdoor voucher” system is a way to bypass the constitutional principle of separation of church and state, with the state subsidizing a parochial education.  Political Research Associates reports that “In Florida and Pennsylvania, the two states with the largest private school choice programs (both are corporate tax credit programs or neovouchers), many of the students who receive neovoucher money attend fundamentalist Christian, conservative evangelical, or nondenominational schools.”  In Florida, 81.5% of the scholarships go to religious schools.  While many of those schools are excellent schools, some are Christian fundamentalist, teaching Young Earth creationism, climate change denial, or revisionist history.  Some schools openly teach hostility to other religions. 

Alan Singer of Hofstra University says, “Religious groups could charge the state for all sorts of “non-religious” services and outsource delivery to group members who would then donate money back to the organizations to subsidize their religious programs.” 

Of course, the tax credit is strongly endorsed by Orthodox Jewish and Catholic groups that are seeking to bolster their school funding in times of waning student enrollment.  Though I have sympathy for the plight of parochial schools, it is clear that the intent of our constitution is to separate church and state, and there are good reasons for that.  Should our tax dollars go to teach religion?  I think not. 

As Diane Ravitch warns, “Do not be fooled: this is not a conservative plan.  This is a radical plan.  It will send public dollars to backwoods churches and ambitious entrepreneurs.”

Follow the Money in Pearson Tests

This blog was originally written on my personal blog in December 2014.

Perhaps one of the most troubling aspects (there are many) related to Pearson testing is the product placement that happens within exam questions.  On the 2013 NYS English Language Arts exam, for example, products mentioned included Mugs Root Beer (Pepsico), Melmac dinnerware, Lego/Mindstorms, IBM and FIFA.  I was curious about why these particular brand names showed up so I did a little digging.

After complaints occurred about the very conspicuous and seemingly unrelated-to-text product placement, Antonia Valentine at the New York State Department of Education stated that the product names occurred because of the fact that "authentic texts" were used by Pearson.  She was quoted as stating that "Any brand names that occurred (in them) were incidental..." See here for full article.  Actually, quick research on google reveals that the products mentioned were not so incidental.  Pearson itself, or a Pearson executive, had at least a cursory financial interest that can be tied to every mention.

1.  Mugs Root Beer - It turns out that Rona A. Fairhead, who at the time the 2013 tests were published was the Executive Officer of the Financial Times Group division of Pearson, and had previously been their Chief Financial Officer, was elected to the Board of Directors at Pepsico in February, 2014. New Century Beverage Company, manufacturer of Mugs, is a subsidiary of Pepsico. This means that Ms. Fairhead would have had direct and continuing business dealings with Pepsico at least as early as 2013.  Did the product placement improve her standing with the company, and if so, did she pull strings at her workplace to make that happen?  Granted, this is a weak link - why not just mention Pepsi?  But perhaps they were hoping a product a bit removed would not connect back so easily to her work at Pepsico.

2.  IBM - There is a stronger link between IBM and Pearson.  The companies have had a business relationship since at least 2007, when they announced a five year $128 million IT agreement between the two companies.  See the article here.  In 2014, after the product placement, IBM dumped Prometrics, the company that administered IBM professional certification exams.  Who did they give that business to?  Pearson.

3.  Lego/Mindstorms - In 2013, Pearson already had an agreement with LEGO that allowed them to publish curriculum on how to build and program Mindstorms robots.  In June of 2014, Lego and Pearson gleefully announced a partnership that would produce and sell lesson plans and manipulatives (the LEGOEducation StoryTales) for enhancing ELA curriculum. See article here.

4.  FIFA - Even the World Cups Games are not immune to Pearson's reach.  It turns out that Pearson franchises e-learning centers in Brazil and has helped to teach English to over 500,000 Brazilian students.  In December 2013, Pearson announced that they had made a major acquisition of a Brazilian English Language Training (ELT) company named GrupoMulti.  Their press release boasts that the demand for ELT services will accelerate in the future, due to the FIFA World Cup.  (See article here.)

So though we have been assured by our New York State Education Department, that no money changed hands in return for the product placements on the tests, it does seem that there was at least a tit-for-tat going on and that the placements were, at the very least, beneficial to Pearson financial interests.  In the meantime, our children were subjected to nothing less than shameful brand advertising during mandatory standardized tests, all paid for courtesy of the New York State taxpayers.

Open Letter to President Obama

This post was originally written on my personal blog in December 2014.  I never received an answer to my letter, which was mailed.

Dear President Obama:

Why are you taking New York State’s failing educational leadership into your administration?

I am one of your supporters, though I do not agree with everything that you do.  I think you are a good man and leader, and I voted for you in both elections.  I thank you for your service, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

However, on your educational policy and administration, you unfortunately get a failing grade from this retired teacher, as well as from many other educators.  The reason I am writing to you today is the recent announcement that you will take NYS Commissioner John King into your administration.  My question is, WHY?

As Commissioner of NYS Education, King has had an administration full of controversy and failure.  Criticisms of his reign are many.  Foremost, the members of the NYS United Teachers (NYSUT) voted No Confidence and called for his removal in January of 2014.  Their press release stated that his rollout of Common Core had failed… “The commissioner has pursued policies that repeatedly ignore the voices of parents and educators who have identified problems and called on him to move more thoughtfully,” said NYSUT President Richard C. Iannuzzi. 

King’s response to criticism has been defensive and contentious, proving that he has little ability to listen and learn from others, and few political skills.  When criticized that he was unwilling to listen to the voices of those who had issues with the too-rapid and botched rollout of core curriculum, as well as testing that caused the “failure” of  70% of NYS students, King scheduled parent forums in October 2013.  When parents attended the forums in large numbers and pressed him for answers that he did not have, his fear of contention caused him to cancel additional planned events.  Parents were astounded at his lack of respect for the input he himself had sought, and the NYS Allies for Public Education, an advocacy group of over 42 parent organizations, called for his resignation.

He is also not an effective manager or leader.  He led the effort to create the EngageNY core-related curriculum, but once more instead of planning an effective process by involving teachers and pedagogical leaders, he funneled $12.9 million dollars of RTTT money to private corporations.  The lessons have been widely criticized by educators, students and parents.  Even NYSED has acknowledged that the lessons are weak, and they have now backpedaled and created a plan for teachers to revamp the curriculum for 2015-16.  In addition, directives and materials that have come to educators from his office have been filled with grammatical and other errors.

He is the second NYS education official to take a job with your administration this year – Amy McIntosh, who oversaw teachers evaluations, is now a deputy assistant secretary.  Under the individuals that you have taken into your camp, New York State schools and students have suffered, and educator morale is at an all-time low. 

Most vociferous in praise for Commissioner King is the StudentsFirstNY, a pro-charter reform group that seeks to privatize education.  In spite of the fact that Commissioner King lived within the boundaries of one of the best public schools in New York State (the school and staff  have received numerous national recognitions for its excellence), King chose to send his own children to a private school that does not require the abusive testing he foisted on NYS students.

President Obama, I am very disappointed at your apparent lack of care for public education, and that you have apparently bought into the pro-charter, pro-privatization line of propaganda.  The fact that you are filling your administration with individuals who are pro-charter and who by all appearances are most deliberately causing the public education system to fail, causes me great concern.  The present system of testing is abusive to students.  Common Core curriculum has many errors and is not developmentally sound for students.  The VAM and APPR evaluation model for teachers is flawed and I have no doubt that will be proven so in court cases, but my fear is that before it is, we will lose too many valuable prospective and in-service teachers to recover easily from the blow.  Some states have already begun teacher recruitment efforts in other countries.  Please educate yourself about the true needs of public education before your administration leaves a negative legacy of damage that will take generations to become fully known.

What Education Warriors Can Learn From NY Fracktivists

This post was originally written and published on my personal blog, on December, 2014.  This has been edited.

On December 17, 2014, the anti-fracking community received an early holiday gift with the announcement that New York State would ban fracking.  This victory was an astounding turnaround from the situation just a few years ago.  There have been some news articles that have analyzed how/why this success occurred.  It made me wonder how those lessons could be applied in support of public education, which has been under attack from both pro-privatization government and business interests.

1.  Many small grassroots anti-fracking organizations sprang up in New York.  They had the good sense to unite their efforts to work together with not only state groups, but national groups as well.  We are also seeing this in the fight for public education, with outstanding groups such as the Badass Teachers Association, Save our Schools, United Opt Out, New York State Allies for Public Education, Alliance for Quality Education, etc.  So far, however, AFT and NEA, along with state organizations like NYSUT, have not matched the efforts of the smaller organizations and have not reached out to create a united front.  In fact, they have accepted money and defended Common Core. In my opinion, a change in union tactics and/or leadership is essential to combat the money and political clout of the reformers.  Political change does not happen until opposition becomes a united movement.

2.  Activation of the public is essential, and is a direct result of grassroots efforts.  This was particularly difficult in the movement against fracking because at the start of the movement, the majority of citizens did not even know what fracking was.  There was much scientific and research-based information that had to be disseminated.  Some of this information was/is difficult for the layman to understand.  Documentaries like Greenland, which were screened in homes and small cinemas, as well as on social media and video channels, were essential to the building of this understanding.  Even The Simpsons had an episode where their water was on fire, indicating that anti-fracking points were being integrated into our cultural media.  Once people understood, they began protesting.  Signs on lawns, rallies, and (thanks to the coordinated efforts of organizations) ONGOING continual protests at Cuomo appearances also helped to spread the word.  Social media was essential and letters, petitions, phone calls and/or visits to legislators were vitally important.  In the public education fight, most citizens do not understand what is really happening in our schools, and misinformation that comes from media attacks, teacher-bashing, "failing schools" soundbytes, etc., has convinced many that teachers are to blame for the "failure" of the public school system.  We are somewhat hampered by (understandable) teacher reticence to speak out, because they are in fear for their livelihood.  Creating a new public and social understanding of the web of deceit and misinformation that has been deliberately and carefully crafted by reformers is difficult, but not impossible.  Allying with parents in this struggle is essential.

3.  The movement did an excellent job of supporting the efforts of small governments to resist fracking.  Towns and cities passed prohibitive zoning ordinances that would keep fracking out of their communities.  When big oil and gas money and lawyers descended on them, communities were helped with fundraising efforts that enabled them to defend their resolutions in court, and they won.  This was a "pivot moment" in the fight.  We need local governments, school boards, and school districts to speak out and pass resolutions against the so-called reforms that are destroying our schools.  Defenders of public education need to be willing to go to court over unfair school/teacher evaluation procedures, civil rights violations that occur in testing (see http://badassteachers.blogspot.com/2014/12/bats-send-open-letter-to-secretary.html), unfair funding of public schools, and practices that favor for-profit corporations. A true partnership with teacher unions, public education alliances, local school boards, parent groups, and school districts should develop that would financially support the crucial legal plays that need to occur.  Everyone who is a part of the pro-public education movement should be attending and participating in their local school by attending board meetings, as well as joining and working with any number of activist groups.  We also need more representation on boards of education, parent associations, and other local government groups.

4.  Never underestimate the role of research studies, bloggers, and expert opinion. Scientific studies were crucial in combating erroneous and misleading industry studies on the "safety of fracking."  Pro-public education also has science and statistics on their side.  Studies that have decried the use of Value-Added Methodology (VAM) in teacher evaluations have been publicized, and solid evidence is building.  For example, the joint statement of the American Education Research Association and the National Academy of Education on the failure of VAM models used in teacher evaluations shows that solid research is on the side of educators (https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/getting-teacher-evaluation-right-challenge-policy-makers.pdf). Likewise, evidence that US schools are not a failure is out there (see http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/education-uprising/the-myth-behind-public-school-failure), as well as the effect of poverty on school/student performance (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/12/10/education-poverty-international-student-assessment-column/3964529/).   Statistics and articles like this need to be relentlessly front and center in our efforts. Thankfully, the public education movement has many outstanding professionals who have produced and shared a prodigious amount of information on their blogs, and their voices are being picked up by newspapers like the Washington Post and Huffington Post.  Facebook groups are sharing this information and communicating it to the public at large.

5.  Politicians need to be called out and made to define their position in public statements.  Wherever there is a chance for questions and answers, on public record, the right questions need to be asked.  Some people feel Cuomo painted himself into a corner by continually referring (for political reasons) to the need to wait on scientific studies before making a decision on fracking.  When the science came in against fracking, he therefore could not make a case on an economic level.  Cuomo seems not to be shy about voicing his goal to destroy the "monopoly" of public education.  That is why we need to follow the money trail that is behind such positions, and publicize efforts like that of Zephyr Teachout to call out the hedge fund manipulators (https://greatschoolwars.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/corruption_in_education.pdf), as well as the recent work by the Hedge Clippers.  Wherever there is a pro-privatization fight, there is dark money and political contributions.  Groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) have people working full-time to advance their privatization goals, and they often write the legislation that shows up in our state and federal system.  Where political contributions are swaying public education policy, we need to find out, and shout it out!

I believe we can win our fight to save public education.  The future of our children depends on it.