Last Saturday I spoke with Regents Commissioner Betty Rosa, who told me that the new revision of Part 154, which makes draconian cuts to English instruction for ELLs, was working very well in Buffalo. I've reached out to teachers I know in Buffalo, and they have not yet heard about what a success it is.

They tell me stories of teachers pushing into classes instead of teaching. They tell me that no one is happy, not the students or the teachers. In fact, they tell me that Betty Rosa visited one school and that a bunch of troublesome kids were shuttled all over the building to be kept away from the VIPs. Of course, Betty Rosa may have visited other schools. And Part 154 may indeed be working somewhere or other. But what I see is absolutely no evidence.

Dr. Rosa also told me that research supports this move, but failed to cite any. I've read a lot of research by Dr. Stephan Krashen, and it suggests to me something I've suspected and lived most of my life--that teaching kids to love language is what makes them successful. Dragging them to a new country and making them immediately do the same work as those who've lived here all their lives is counter-intuitive and counterproductive. It's like taking your baby, who hasn't yet learned to walk, to tango lessons.

Things like these might make someone feel good, or proud, or accomplished, but they cause a lot of needless suffering. In fact Dr. Rosa publicly and accurately criticizes other state officials for doing similar things. I saw her speak at George Washington Campus and she spoke of how those who wish to test newcomers ought to go to foreign countries and take tests in foreign languages. I've been saying that for decades and I couldn't agree more.

I have no idea why the chancellor or anyone would wish to hang on to a program that has no basis in logic, research, or practice. Nor have I got the remotest idea why it was instituted it in the first place. If anyone wishes to ignore the fact that these ideas have no basis in anything I've ever heard of, you can simply look at the other regulation--that ELLs cannot be in the same class with anyone more than one contiguous grade from them. For high schools, at least, that's a ridiculous and impossible mandate.

If my very large school, with 500 ELLs (10% of the entire Buffalo population), if we were to do that I'd have opened the school year with one class of 40 and one of 6. It's ridiculous. For small schools, it's absolutely impossible. That's probably a large reason they've done away with stand-alone English instruction as much as they possibly could. In Betty Rosa's new and improved vision, high school English instruction need only be given one period a day for one year. That's it.

The following year, based on the results of the NYSESLAT, a test originally designed to test language acquisition that no longer tests language acquisition (no, really), the kid could be in an English class reading Macbeth. And that's OK according to Part 154, because there will be an ESL teacher in the room with the English teacher explaining the vocabulary to the ESL students.

That makes sense, doesn't it? Well, not to me, and not to you.

But the geniuses in Albany have deemed it OK, and that's all that matters. It kind of makes me nostalgic for Merryl Tisch. I mean sure, she was a fanatical ideologue who didn't know jack squat about education. But she also never messed with ESL, because she didn't give a fiddler's fart about it.

Ironically, newcomers stood a much better chance of learning English under that regime. 

Next year, I'm going to have to work with a co-teacher. This is because of the ridiculous regulation in CR Part 154 that ELLs cannnot be more than one grade apart. With decades of experience, even though I am state-certified in multiple subjects, I can't legally teach the class by myself. And despite being the largest high school in Queens, with one of the largest ELL populations in the city, we haven't got enough students to reasonably separate our beginners--the group is very lopsided.

What's going to happen is that there will be one group of grades 9-10, and another of grades 11-12. We will teach them together because one teacher will be assigned to each group. Under the current UFT Contract, our classes can run up to 68. Now I absolutely believe the good intentions of my administration. But I've seen good intentions go awry, even with good people in charge. That's why I'd advise any teacher not to get into what I'm getting into--it's an unacceptable risk. I know for a fact that if we need space for another classroom there simply will not be any. 

In most if not all other places, things are even worse. I've written before about the idiotic rules that keep ESL students from getting the level of direct English instruction they need.  For over a year now, I've been trying to get UFT leadership to support us, UFT teachers, in an effort to not only restore their instruction, but also to restore ESL teachers to their jobs of actually teaching ESL. A whole lot of us have been reduced to supporting subject teachers, and there's simply no way to make 154 work effectively.

In small schools, ESL teachers are expected to do everything and support everyone. They're supposed to do that while other teachers are teaching so-called core subjects. You know, those are subjects like social studies and math, which matter. According to the State of New York, the ability to actually speak English does not.

UFT has passed a resolution condemning the fact that students get less English instruction. Alas, the only follow up they've done consists of a "white paper" that has not been released, containing I have no idea what, and a study. Unfortunately UFT has decided to actively study the only part of 154 that is not problematic--an additional year of ESL instruction for students who've tested out already.

The fact that students are going to get direct English instruction cut has not yet been deemed worthy of examination by our esteemed leadership, nor the fact that ESL students are supposed to learn both English and a core subject simultaneously in the same time American-born students learn only the core subject. Another thing UFT thus far deems unworthy of examination is the effect on teachers. As previously mentioned lot of small schools have only one ESL teacher who is expected to run around like a chicken without a head and do everything all at once, an impossibility according to those with whom I speak.

At the advice of several people, I've reached out to Regents Commissioner Betty Rosa. Evidently Dr. Rosa is quite busy, because she hasn't bothered with even a form letter in response. In fact, the only response I've gotten from her was in person, when she defended it by saying there were "good intentions" behind it. I watched Dr. Rosa speak the entire evening. She is very smart. She has to know that good intentions are no defense whatsoever for catastrophic results, and that sitting around hoping for the best is hardly an action plan.

I am not yet sure what I am going to do about this. Dr. Rosa can sit around and hope for the best, but I most certainly will not. I'd very much like to get UFT leadership on board with me, as I'll bet Dr. Rosa answers their email.  I fail to see why we can’t simply and openly work together toward improving conditions for ELLs and their teachers, or why anyone in leadership need be adversarial in this matter.

But this is one of the stupidest things I've seen in three decades of teaching, and I won't be twiddling my thumbs. I'm very much hoping to push not only UFT policy, but also UFT action somewhere far away from the entire thumb-twiddling thing.

Under Part 154, a whole lot of alleged English instruction is moving into subject areas. You see, the geniuses in Albany have decided that, in the time it takes an American kid to read To Kill a Mockingbird, English Language Learners will not only read the book, but also learn English. You see the beauty of that?

And the best part is you can do this whole thing with only one teacher. It's a little known fact that once any teacher takes 12 magical cut-rate credits from the UFT or NYSUT, that teacher becomes an expert in teaching English as a Second Language. In fact, that teacher is so expert that he or she can impart not only the subject matter, but also all the English required to cover it. In fact, once you take those 12 credits, you can magically make ELLs understand the American culture required to appreciate To Kill a Mockingbird, or whatever aspect of whatever subject being covered at that particular moment.

In my school, we're pairing ESL with English, so for all I know, some poor kid could be reading Mockingbird with a bunch of American kids and held to the same expectations. After all, since New York State has now declared that kids will acquire English via magic, this should pose no problem whatsoever.

I'm a little puzzled by this whole thing, though, because I watched Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa explain how important the acquisition of English is, and ridicule those who didn't understand it. Rosa said that those who don't think language acquisition is important ought to go to Japan and try taking tests to see how that worked out for them. Yet when questioned about Part 154, which actively hurts ELLs, all she said was that it was written with good intentions. For me, good intentions hardly justify anything whatsoever.

One of my young colleagues had a bit of luck, in that she'd taken a bunch of English courses as an undergrad. She decided she would take an English license, as she needed only 9 credits to attain one. I happen to have one, and I know it takes not 12, but rather 36 credits. Evidently English is not quite as magical as ESL.

In any case, my colleague had to take a test to get her English certification. The new thing, evidently, is to do this on a computer. She showed up and the computer advised her she had 90 questions to answer. She answered one and the display said 89. She continued, and very thoroughly answered each and every question. By the time it said 1 question remaining she was very proud. She had calmly gotten through each and every question, and she was pretty sure she'd done well.

But then after the last question, an essay question popped up. She was a little surprised. She began to answer the question, but soon thereafter the computer turned off. Her time was up. Whether or not she passes this time, I'm sure she'll manage next time.

But not every ESL teacher is dually certified, or close to it. As courses gravitate toward English teachers who have those magical 12 credits they'll be left by the wayside. That's because the Regents and various other Albany geniuses have determined that we don't actually teach a subject. Evidently a language, in NY State, is not a subject.

By that logic, of course, American-born students should be studying American history in Spanish, Chinese, or Greek. If ELLs don't need language instruction, no one does. It's meaningless. We can just take 12 credits, flip a switch, and everybody can understand anything. Why not teach the American kids To Kill a Mockingbird in Klingon? After all, what's in a word?

Go ahead, NY State. Conduct the next Regents meeting in Japanese. If my kids can do it, why the hell can't you?

玫瑰的任何其他名称，它还是照样芳香

Right?

Of course a rose by any other name would smell as sweet!

Full disclosure--the Chinese is from Google translate. I took a master's rather than the magical 12, and am thus unable to break the language barrier. 

A Regent is a person.  I'm capitalizing it because when I use it, I'm referring the the Regents from NY State. The word itself may have other meanings. From the dictionary:

re·gent

ˈrējənt/

noun

noun: regent; plural noun: regents

1. 1.

   a person appointed to administer a country because the monarch is a minor or is absent or incapacitated.
2. 2.

   North American

   a member of the governing body of a university or other academic institution.

Under definition two, there is a Board of Regents in Albany, and they deal with education. Betty Rosa, for example, is a Regent. In fact, she's the Chancellor of the Regents. Take a look at her. You see? She has eyes. She has a nose and a mouth. And though they are somewhat veiled by hair (which she also has), she has ears as well. I've actually spoken to her, and she's responded. For me, that's proof enough she has ears, whether or not they are actually visible.

A test, approved by the Regents, is a Regents exam. It is not a Regent. If it were, it would talk. Perhaps it would even make sense. A Regents exam may or may not do the latter, but as far as I know, it cannot do the former. For one thing, a Regents exam does not have a mouth, or ears, or any of that other stuff I've attributed to Betty Rosa.

I first heard the word regent used to describe a test from an administrator whose knowledge of standard English is questionable at best. As he was not in my beginning ESL class, his usage was not my immediate concern. I therefore thought it best to ignore it. But then an administrator who seems perfectly lucid used it. When I presented her with the issue, she  told me this usage emanated from DOE, which used it regularly in correspondence I'm grateful I need not read.

The English language is not dead, and therefore it evolves. It changes as people use it. But when people misuse it out of sheer laziness or an overarching assumption that rules do not apply to them it's kind of disconcerting. It's especially disconcerting when it's misused by people who ought to know better, like educators for example.

Don't misunderstand me. I have very low expectations for members of the New York City Department of Education. I can't say I'm surprised when they misuse language. After all, logic has been an object they've uniformly reviled every since they changed their name and became the embodiment of reforminess.

They're certainly entitled to think lazily and dishonestly. They can certainly close schools and decimate neighborhoods. They can take good teachers and make them long-term ATRs. They can stand up, in front of God and everybody, and declare, "It's a beautiful day," when there are five feet on the ground and it takes five hours to drive twenty miles. They can endorse programs called "fair student funding," that prevent veteran teachers from teaching, and they can award less than 100% of the funding they deem "fair" to a whole lot of schools.

But they don't get to alter the English language, not deliberately, and not out of sheer lazy thinking either, unless of course we let them. I say we don't.

What say you?

You may have read a thing or two on this little blog about CR Part 154, the idiotic state regulation that cuts direct English instruction to newcomers and substitutes it with, well, less than nothing. Instead of direct English instruction, a newcomer may have a social studies class with an ESL teacher to help, or a dually-certifed ESL/ social studies teacher. Supposedly, this teacher, or pair of teachers, will teach newcomers both English and social studies in the same time it takes an American-born student to learn social studies only.

Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa told me that this rule was made with the best of intentions, and I'm sure she's right, but that's a weak argument indeed. I think everyone does everything with the best of intentions. Michael Bloomberg closed schools with the best of intentions, and hired Cathie Black with the best of intentions. He felt that people who had a lot of money knew better than those of us who don't, and acted accordingly.

But everyone knows the road to hell is paved with good intentions, so why don't we focus on taking newcomers somewhere else? One of the things I've learned from being chapter leader is that it's best to come not only with a complaint, but also with a potential solution. So if anyone actually knows Betty Rosa, maybe you can present her with it.

The other day, a social studies teacher looking to get ESL certification observed the first period of my double period class. I was showing a Powerpoint explaining vocabulary. She wrote that she saw a preparation period for the class that follows, which was accurate. So why not, instead of taking away an ESL period, add one? I'm not a social studies expert, but I could easily read the text and prep students for whatever the lesson may be.

I could easily identify key vocabulary and fill them in before the class. I could identify key concepts and make sure they are familiar with them before they walked in there. I could actually offer students more support rather than less. Is that such a revolutionary concept? I don't think so.

Of course I'm just a lowly teacher who spends each and every day of my working lives with these kids. I'm not an expert working in some office tower in Albany making decisions about children I never see and will never know. Eveidently they keep teachers out of such decisions and keep them pure, under the direction of folks like Reformy John King, who regards parents and teachers as special interests, or MaryEllen Elia, who loves her some Gates cash and programs.

Honestly I have no idea what anyone was thinking when they rewrote Part 154 like this. I have no idea what drugs they were taking, or why they thought this would benefit anyone. They certainly couldn't be bothered investigating research or practice, none of which would support this. My personal feeling is they felt teaching students how to communicate in the English language was simply not Common Corey enough, and decided to do away with conversation in favor of answering questions about Hammurabi's Code, and other things about which teenagers don't give a crap.

But the David Coleman approach of shoving things down children's throats whether they like it or not is not only counter-intuitive for teaching reading, but also for teaching English. These are subjects in which affect plays a great role. For example, I don't love reading, say, the UFT Contract, but because I'm a reader I can plod through it and understand what I need to. If you want me to go the extra mile and learn a foreign language, there'd better be someone or something I love where they speak it. In lieu of that, there'd better be a teacher to trick me into loving it.

Because I can tell you for sure, this Hammurabi's Code stuff isn't gonna cut it. Nor is Part 154. 

Last night I went to George Washington "Campus." Now there was a big sign in front of the school, etched in stone no less, that said George Washington High School, but that wasn't what it was. It was a "campus," because that's what I read it was.

Now I'm a little naive, I guess, from years of working in one of the few high schools that wasn't destroyed by Michael Bloomberg, so I kind of wondered what the hell George Washington Campus was. Was it a college? Was it a place where students hung out and sat on the lawn? Who knew?

In fact, I asked one of my colleagues, who used to be a cab driver what and where it was. I was trying to decide whether to take the train there or drive. He assured me if I drove I would find a space, so that's what I did. By a small miracle, a car pulled out of a space a block away from the "campus" as I was driving around. A friend I met there came in a cab, and her cab driver had trouble finding the place even though he had it on GPS. So I'm guessing the campus is not that famous.

Why am I talking about this place in a piece with "opt out" in the title? Good question. Our friend Michael Bloomberg thought the best way he could help schools get better was by closing them. Actually that's not precisely what he did. What he did was break them up into smaller schools, hiring four principals instead of just one, and having four sets of rules instead of one. This was better because Bill Gates said it was, until he decided it wasn't. But having already imposed his will on the NYC district, it stayed imposed, as do so many ideas that emanated from Bill Gates' abundant hind quarters.

The effect, of course, was to downplay any notion of community schools (thus downplaying any notion of community, valued by neither Gates nor Bloomberg). Parents now had "choice." They could go to the Academy of Basket Weaving, the Academy of Coffee Drinking, or the Academy of Doing Really Good Stuff. Of course by the time they got there the principals who envisioned basket weaving, coffee drinking, or doing good stuff were often gone, and it was Just Another School, or more likely Just Another Floor of a School, as there were those three other schools to contend with. (Unless of course Moskowitz got in, in which case it was A Renovated Space Better Than Your Space.)

Last night I learned that middle schools in NYC also are Schools of Choice. I don't know exactly why I learned this last night, because my friend Paul Rubin told me this months ago. I think I need to hear things more than once before they register with me, though. Anyway last night I heard from someone who told me that one of the schools her daughter might attend required test scores as a prerequisite. So if her family had decided to send their kid there, opt-out may not have been a good option.

I live in a little town in Long Island. My daughter went to our middle school, as did every public school student in our town. We are a community, and our community's kids go to our community's schools. If I opt my kid out, she goes to that school. If she scores high, low, or anywhere in between, she goes to that school.

That's not the case in NYC. And by requiring test scores from tests that ought not to even exist, these schools effectively deny the right of many students to opt out. So the question becomes, if the tests are not appropriate, and if even bought-and-paid-for tinhorn politicians like Andrew Cuomo say these tests ought not to count, why the hell are we counting them?

And the next question is, is there anything we can do about it? Opt-out brought us these mild, but not insane, modifications from Andrew Cuomo, even though he happily takes suitcases full of cash from the reformies. It also brought us Regents Chancellor Betty Rosa, who I went to hear at George Washington Campus last night. Dr. Rosa impressed me by being consistently Not Insane, even in one instance where I disagreed with her.

If we can have an educational leader who is Not Insane, is it possible we can work toward a middle school admission policy that is also Not Insane? Because for me, and I freely acknowledge I may be in the minority here, I feel that Not Insane is the way to go with educational policy.

Betty A. Rosa has been elected NY Regents Chancellor, and she's been quoted saying if she had school age kids, she's opt them out of testing. I love this column in the NY Post predicting it's the end of Western Civilization. It's like it's written by a 12-year-old. Reforminess is finished, it says. The teacher unions have taken over and they're gonna ruin everything. No more judging teachers on tests, it says.

You gotta love a publication that finds writers with no ties whatsoever to reality and has them say whatever they want whenever they want. One apparent voice of reason infects their power structure and it's the end of the world. They print an article as well thought out as the rants of a child demanding candy at the supermarket and present it as state of the art. In fact, the article even admits that all the nonsense perpetrated by Bloomberg produced little in the way of results, and by results I mean the increased test scores that appear to be the only thing this writer values.

I'm very happy that someone who appears not to be insane has been appointed to a position of power, but I'm afraid I can't accept the position that Cuomo has bent to popular demand. Cuomo doesn't give a damn about popular demand except as it impacts perception. That's why he initiated rules that appear to give ground on his awful education law but in fact do not. Most of us are still judged by the same invalid test scores as before, and kids are still taking the same rigged tests whether they count or not. That they have more time to spend on testing is not precisely a victory.

Now I hope that Betty Rosa is able to affect positive changes, but there is a power structure in place, headed by Andrew Cuomo, that is owned lock, stock and barrel by his reformy campaign contributors. On the positive side, the opt-out crowd has not been snookered by Cuomo's superficial moves.

I hope the Post writer really believes all the nonsense he wrote, but whether or not that's true, some of his readers will buy it. We have a country of people willing to believe that a man who paints his name on skyscrapers and planes is a man of the people. In an environment like that, juvenile rantings passing as op-eds are not precisely a hard sell.

I hope Rosa will be able to change the discourse and direction of education and I wish her all the best. In a time when good news is rare, this is a ray of light. Let's enjoy the good news, but let's not kid ourselves that a scumbag like Andrew Cuomo can change his stripes unless his owners change theirs. The NY Post article is a pretty clear indicator they've done no such thing.