Dorcas Lind: Anyone else voting for her? She sounds wonderful

Just read the Village Green post on Dorcas Lind's candidacy. I've been trying to find information about her, and there isn't much. Sounds like she doesn't have much by way of a campaign. I can't even find a website. But what I read there is excellent. She even discusses the district's very disappointing food service program, which is probably one area in our district that the School Board may actually have full power to change. I haven't yet had a chance to watch the last debate, but I will now. Unless she says something very different from her written responses to the Village Green questions, Lind is getting my third vote.

Is anyone else on this board a supporter? I know most here are in the Pai-Eastman-Freedson contingent. I'd love to connect with some Lind supporters. Hello out there ???

Here are some excerpts form the VG:

Lind’s Bio: While at the San Francisco Foundation she worked to identify
interventions to increase academic achievement for K-12...While at the NYC
Mayor’s Office, conducted research on school intervention programs geared
towards reducing absenteeism and the academic achievement gap.
Her experience managing complex programs and budgets can be
parlayed to tackle persistent and intractable challenges within the SOMSD.
Dorcas earned a BA from Brown University, and a MPH from University of
California, Berkeley. She is married to Dharmvir Gehlaut, a 10-year veteran NYC
high school math teacher and champion cricket coach. Their two daughters attend
Kindergarten and 4th grade at Clinton Elementary School.

Lind’s Views on Education: The district’s most critical challenge is
communicating the new Access & Equity policy to families and implementing
the policy at the school and classroom level...The new board
must be accountable for ensuring key changes are taking place that are
different from how we’ve proceeded as a district thus far.

I would also encourage us to also consider the topic of a quality school lunch program which continues to be a culinary and dietary disappoint and often not considered a viable option for many district families.

The new Access & Equity policy is symbolic and a
powerful indication that we are serious about reducing the achievement gap and
affording all of our children the educational pathways they deserve. We need to
be clear that while this policy has the backing of Dr. Ramos and the board; our
district has a similar access to choice policy already in place. What we have
been missing is the district-wide cultural competency required to address and
enact change around the profound achievement gap we face.

Immediate reduction areas to address include:
• Spending on consultants
• Spending on communications band aids vs. a master plan
• Spending on multiple, sometimes overlapping professional
development that is not focused on areas specific to decreasing the achievement
gap; for example, cultural competence.

Our district faces serious challenges around access and
equity. We struggle with incomplete, ineffective, and sometimes contradictory
communications. Critical pieces of information, including budget details,
district and school level policies around special education and placement, and
decisions around testing and leveling, are often complex and buried within
district documents that are inaccessible to most parents. We’ve gotten in
trouble because we stopped paying attention to what matters.
Given this context, my priorities for serving on the
board include collaborating to:

• Effectively shepherd implementation of the Access and
Equity policy across all schools in the district
• Identify a fiscal approach that will address the $20
million projected deficit without diminishing quality education in the
classroom, in the art studio, in the field, or on the stage
• Establish a district wide master communications plan to
ensure transparency, accuracy, timeliness and access to all relevant district
news across and within district schools
• Efficiently assess which indicators and what outcomes
matter most and securing funding to deliver against those outcomes
• Safeguard that all students are being academically
challenged and engaged in order for them to reach their fullest potential and,
• Ensure teachers across the district have the core
competencies needed to effectively engage students in learning that leads to
new ways of thinking and mastery inside and out of the classroom.
.

While reading her Q&A, I wasn't sure how being anti-PARCC can be reconciled with being so concerned with the racial achievement gap (how would you then monitor the gap?).

And I am again confused by her PARCC stance with the bullet point: "Efficiently assess which indicators and what outcomes matter most and securing funding to deliver against those outcomes".

Also, with wanting a master communication plan, but not providing much info about herself for voters (does she have a website? I couldn't find one), I was also confused.

Finally, her being anti-Montrose preschool, hinting that it is a drain on our resources (when I believe it is intended to bring in revenue), seems odd. Also -- seems opposite of the achievement gap reduction intent.

I agree with many of her premises... but I became confused by the fuller messages or suggested implementations.

sprout said:
While reading her Q&A, I wasn't sure how being anti-PARCC can be reconciled with being so concerned with the racial achievement gap (how would you then monitor the gap?).
And I am again confused by her PARCC stance with the bullet point: "Efficiently assess which indicators and what outcomes matter most and securing funding to deliver against those outcomes".
Also, with wanting a master communication plan, but not providing much info about herself for voters (does she have a website? I couldn't find one), I was also confused.
Finally, her being anti-Montrose, hinting that it is a drain on our resources (when I believe it is intended to bring in revenue), seems odd. Also -- seems opposite of the achievement gap reduction intent.
I agree with many of her premises... but I became confused by the fuller messages or suggested implementations.

Agree with your points and am still perplexed by her sitting out the first third of the campaign and no-showing the first debate. It is hard to campaign, I get that -but it is even harder to serve

Thank you Sprout. I agree that a website would be helpful. Curious she doesn't have one. I was hoping one of her supporters would post something. There are several signs around town, so she has supporters. Oh well.

I read her bio on the Village Green site, and as a former Bronx girl, she's got my vote... All kidding aside, she has a rather impressive background and on that alone, she's getting my vote.

Dorcas was not invited to and not informed of the debate.

She hasn't campaigned much, so I have my doubts that she will attract enough votes.

orzabelle said:
Dorcas was not invited to and not informed of the debate.

That's odd. Her name tag was up on the dais and it had been promoted on local media, the Hilton Neighborhood Association does a debate every year and is always the first one.

sprout said:
While reading her Q&A, I wasn't sure how being anti-PARCC can be reconciled with being so concerned with the racial achievement gap (how would you then monitor the gap?).

You know very well that it's one thing to have accurate assessments to monitor various achievement levels and quite another thing to have questionable, high-stakes testing that penalizes schools and teachers and distort the overall educational experience for EVERYONE. You do know the difference.

sprout said:
While reading her Q&A, I wasn't sure how being anti-PARCC can be reconciled with being so concerned with the racial achievement gap (how would you then monitor the gap?).
And I am again confused by her PARCC stance with the bullet point: "Efficiently assess which indicators and what outcomes matter most and securing funding to deliver against those outcomes".
Also, with wanting a master communication plan, but not providing much info about herself for voters (does she have a website? I couldn't find one), I was also confused.
Finally, her being anti-Montrose preschool, hinting that it is a drain on our resources (when I believe it is intended to bring in revenue), seems odd. Also -- seems opposite of the achievement gap reduction intent.
I agree with many of her premises... but I became confused by the fuller messages or suggested implementations.

Of course you can be anti-PARCC and still be concerned with the racial achievement gap. PARCC is hardly the only way to measure progress and many think it does not even do that. There are many reasons to be against PARCC. I don't know anything about this candidate, but I would not see her as inconsistent becuase of that.

xavier67 said:

sprout said:
While reading her Q&A, I wasn't sure how being anti-PARCC can be reconciled with being so concerned with the racial achievement gap (how would you then monitor the gap?).

You know very well that it's one thing to have accurate assessments to monitor various achievement levels and quite another thing to have questionable, high-stakes testing that penalizes schools and teachers and distort the overall educational experience for EVERYONE. You do know the difference.

So, which ones are the accurate assessments to monitor various achievement levels?

None of them are accurate really, for various reasons. It's a complex problem. But, getting rid of the high stakes part, and especially peanalizing teachers would be a step in the right direction.

nan said:
None of them are accurate really, for various reasons. It's a complex problem. But, getting rid of the high stakes part, and especially peanalizing teachers would be a step in the right direction.

FWIW: New Jersey counts the standardized test as 10% of a teacher evaluation score -- which is a low percentage (Florida, for example, counted standardized test scores as 50% of teacher's evaluations, but after some protest, reduced that to about 33%).

In NJ, mathematically, even the lowest possible standardized test score won't move a teacher's evaluation rating (in most cases).

For example, if a teacher has a score of 4 (highly effective) for the other 90%, even if they get the lowest score (of "1") on student growth on the test, they will still get a "highly effective" rating since the weighted average of 3.7 is still above the cutoff for "highly effective" of 3.5.

Same if a teacher has a 3 (effective) on the other 90%: They will still receive a final rating of effective, since weighting a "1" for 10% of this score would be 2.8, which is still above the cutoff for "effective" of 2.6.

Even a "2" (partially effective), will remain at that level, as a "1" for 10% of the score brings them down to 1.9, which is above the "partially effective" cutoff of 1.85.

In other words, the "high stakes" part of evaluations are actually the administrators' formal observation ratings of teachers, which count for 70%-80% of the Teacher Effectiveness evaluations. This is the piece that makes the most difference in their scores. From what I've seen in practice, if a teacher's standardized test scores are low, even though they don't change the teacher evaluation rating, they may be used by the administrator to inform professional development needs.

sprout said:

So, which ones are the accurate assessments to monitor various achievement levels?

I haven't yet seen one that actually matches the value placed on them by the politicians, edu-commerce industry (including nonprofits), the media, and the families snookered by all three.

xavier67 said:

sprout said:So, which ones are the accurate assessments to monitor various achievement levels?

I haven't yet seen one that actually matches the value placed on them by the politicians, edu-commerce industry (including nonprofits), the media, and the families snookered by all three.

So, you're saying the racial achievement gap cannot be monitored?

sprout, -- there is no validity for basing a teacher's salary on test results. The tests were designed to evaluate students, not teachers. You cannot use a test designed to measure one thing to measure another thing. There has been much writing on this, and no real statistician will support it. There are many problems and there have been teacher suicides over this. It's just a political move and it hurts kids and the whole profession. I don't care if it's 10% or 50%. It's wrong.

nan said:
sprout, -- there is no validity for basing a teacher's salary on test results. The tests were designed to evaluate students, not teachers.

I agree -- and the tests are generally better for evaluating groups of students than individual students -- and hence for monitoring achievement gaps (the original reason for my questions).

My secondary thought, is that in this state, at this time, although the tests in teacher evaluations are a political piece, the standardized test results are not really high stakes for teachers, as they don't usually impact evaluation ratings mathematically.

(Do the evaluation ratings inform teacher salary increases in NJ public schools?)

sprout said:

xavier67 said:

sprout said:So, which ones are the accurate assessments to monitor various achievement levels?

I haven't yet seen one that actually matches the value placed on them by the politicians, edu-commerce industry (including nonprofits), the media, and the families snookered by all three.

So, you're saying the racial achievement gap cannot be monitored?

It's hard to monitor because it only evaluates aggregate data, as it changes from year to year, often based on shifting demographics. The best way would be to separate cohorts and be able to back into whatever you want to analyze, and even then it's tough statistically. Now there is full day K for at least 5 years, you could determine an achievement gap looking at whatever standardized tests in place score for kids who were in k-5. But you would need to also account for income and kids who enter/ exit within that period.

It's difficult to do anywhere, even tougher to do in MSO which had a more transitory group. The achievement gap is most pronounced in elementary/middle schools and is not measured in highschool. But until there is an evaluation that can compare like to like across schools, it will always exist. If a child goes K-6 at Lima or OLS how do her scores compare to child going K-6 in an MSO elementery. Likewise, how does a kid who transfer from an Irvington public school k-6 compare to kids who have been in MSO. Even then,it's hardto get kids who match up equally. The only way to monitor achievement gap solely based on race , not income, parent education, would be to put two children with the same profile into the same school, assign the the same teachers, and monitor their test scores. My guess is that the differential would be neglble

sprout said:

xavier67 said:

sprout said:So, which ones are the accurate assessments to monitor various achievement levels?

I haven't yet seen one that actually matches the value placed on them by the politicians, edu-commerce industry (including nonprofits), the media, and the families snookered by all three.

So, you're saying the racial achievement gap cannot be monitored?

Of course it can be measured and monitored--if we define the purpose of education in a narrow way.

Tests like PARCC, which is designed to measure ONE FACET of student achievements in certain areas as snapshots through their school career (whether it's 4th grade or 11th grade), doesn't come close to reflecting the goals of education. It doesn't measure skills and qualities like perseverance, creativity, leadership, collaboration, etc., that studies show are crucial ingredients for future success. Yet the politicians, edu-data industries, and the media do not recognize this, focussing on the numbers derived from standardized testing as the only measure of educational quality.

Now, we may ask: So what if we rely on standardized testing, as limited and narrowly focussed as it may, as a yardstick? What's the harm? Well, once it's used or viewed as the main currency of educational system (and used for things like teacher evaluation, determining whether to close schools or level of funding, etc.), it exerts inexorable pressure for schools and teachers to define their mission in the same narrow way.

And I have witnessed this slow transformation in our own district. Under constant and ever increasing budgetary pressure, it's only natural for the district as such as ours to give priority to resources focussed on helping students to be more proficient on these tests. As such, in the 15 years that I have been in our district, I have seen non-LA or math courses slowly being deemphasized. Moreover, even in LA and math, there has been increased movement towards so-called "teaching to the tests." For instance, homework and in-class tests are increasing mirroring the standardized tests in format and object of their measurement.

Districts serving less-privileged demo are bending most to this pressure. How could they not, when their jobs and salaries are on the line. Some will even cook the numbers (see what happened in Atlanta.) And even as wealthier districts are also narrowing their curriculum, their students aren't feeling the effects as much as their less-privileged counterparts because their families have the resources to provide them with the educational experiences the districts are de-emphasizing. So in the end, who's getting the short end of the stick here? Even within the civil rights organizations there is increasing dissent against high-stakes standardized tests. For instance, the Seattle chapter of NAACP explicitly encouraged everyone to opt out.

How does all this affect the national effort to close the achievement gap, the purported mission of high-stakes testing? Indicators of achievement gaps (not only on standardized testing results but also things like college admissions data, etc.) of last 10-15 years show not much as changed.

So the question is, why are we continuing to rely on a tool that is negatively impacting EVERYONE's experience even though i's not working as designed? And why should parents blithely participate in all this?

xavier67, how would you measure and monitor the achievement gap?

Johngillam189said:
Just read the Village Green post on Dorcas Lind's candidacy. I've been trying to find information about her, and there isn't much. Sounds like she doesn't have much by way of a campaign. I can't even find a website. But what I read there is excellent. She even discusses the district's very disappointing food service program, which is probably one area in our district that the School Board may actually have full power to change. I haven't yet had a chance to watch the last debate, but I will now. Unless she says something very different from her written responses to the Village Green questions, Lind is getting my third vote.
Is anyone else on this board a supporter? I know most here are in the Pai-Eastman-Freedson contingent. I'd love to connect with some Lind supporters. Hello out there ???
Here are some excerpts form the VG:
Lind’s Bio: While at the San Francisco Foundation she worked to identify
interventions to increase academic achievement for K-12...While at the NYC
Mayor’s Office, conducted research on school intervention programs geared
towards reducing absenteeism and the academic achievement gap.
Her experience managing complex programs and budgets can be
parlayed to tackle persistent and intractable challenges within the SOMSD.
Dorcas earned a BA from Brown University, and a MPH from University of
California, Berkeley. She is married to Dharmvir Gehlaut, a 10-year veteran NYC
high school math teacher and champion cricket coach. Their two daughters attend
Kindergarten and 4th grade at Clinton Elementary School.


Lind’s Views on Education: The district’s most critical challenge is
communicating the new Access & Equity policy to families and implementing
the policy at the school and classroom level...The new board
must be accountable for ensuring key changes are taking place that are
different from how we’ve proceeded as a district thus far.
I would also encourage us to also consider the topic of a quality school lunch program which continues to be a culinary and dietary disappoint and often not considered a viable option for many district families.
The new Access & Equity policy is symbolic and a
powerful indication that we are serious about reducing the achievement gap and
affording all of our children the educational pathways they deserve. We need to
be clear that while this policy has the backing of Dr. Ramos and the board; our
district has a similar access to choice policy already in place. What we have
been missing is the district-wide cultural competency required to address and
enact change around the profound achievement gap we face.
Immediate reduction areas to address include:
• Spending on consultants
• Spending on communications band aids vs. a master plan
• Spending on multiple, sometimes overlapping professional
development that is not focused on areas specific to decreasing the achievement
gap; for example, cultural competence.
Our district faces serious challenges around access and
equity. We struggle with incomplete, ineffective, and sometimes contradictory
communications. Critical pieces of information, including budget details,
district and school level policies around special education and placement, and
decisions around testing and leveling, are often complex and buried within
district documents that are inaccessible to most parents. We’ve gotten in
trouble because we stopped paying attention to what matters.
Given this context, my priorities for serving on the
board include collaborating to:


• Effectively shepherd implementation of the Access and
Equity policy across all schools in the district
• Identify a fiscal approach that will address the $20
million projected deficit without diminishing quality education in the
classroom, in the art studio, in the field, or on the stage
• Establish a district wide master communications plan to
ensure transparency, accuracy, timeliness and access to all relevant district
news across and within district schools
• Efficiently assess which indicators and what outcomes
matter most and securing funding to deliver against those outcomes
• Safeguard that all students are being academically
challenged and engaged in order for them to reach their fullest potential and,
• Ensure teachers across the district have the core
competencies needed to effectively engage students in learning that leads to
new ways of thinking and mastery inside and out of the classroom.
.

I am voting for Dorcas Lind and, knowing her personally, I believe that she will be a great asset to the board. She is incredibly smart, an amazing listener, a positive, forward-thinking individual who is passionate about affecting positive change for all in our district. Out of all the candidates, I believe she has the "people smarts" to be a truly effective board member.

dg64 said:
xavier67, how would you measure and monitor the achievement gap?

That's the burning question. I certainly don't have an answer, though do have many larger-context thoughts about it. But I would love to hear your thoughts on the issues raised in my post above. And I'll take the time later to answer your question (not on this thread since it's about Dorcas Lind, but on the PARCC thread started by tjohn.)

xavier67 said:
Districts serving less-privileged demo are bending most to this pressure. How could they not, when their jobs and salaries are on the line. Some will even cook the numbers (see what happened in Atlanta.)

This is absolutely true in some places, but NJ is not GA. The GA (and DC...) system incentivized cheating to the max by making high test scores the golden ring to reach for, and this was worth oodles of money.

New Jersey has almost the opposite policies of GA and DC. The test does not count much here (10% of teacher effectiveness ratings), and doesn't even apply to most teachers (less than 20% of NJ teachers get the test scores incorporated into their effectiveness ratings as the results are limited to teachers of grades 4-8 of Math and ELA, who must have at least 20 students on their roster who took the standardized test for 2 consecutive years), and (at least as far as I've seen) there are no financial bonuses attached to achieving higher test scores.

xavier67 said:
And I have witnessed this slow transformation in our own district. Under constant and ever increasing budgetary pressure, it's only natural for the district as such as ours to give priority to resources focussed on helping students to be more proficient on these tests. As such, in the 15 years that I have been in our district, I have seen non-LA or math courses slowly being deemphasized. Moreover, even in LA and math, there has been increased movement towards so-called "teaching to the tests." For instance, homework and in-class tests are increasing mirroring the standardized tests in format and object of their measurement.

I'm looking at my 5th grader's homework from the past 2 months.... read each night and write a couple sentences about it; do a research report in social studies; ST Math and traditional math workbook/worksheet homework (culminating in chapter tests); Spanish practice; Band instrument practice...

He's been getting each night's homework done quite quickly, so it seems like it's distributed well, and it hasn't been overwhelming.

Not seeing anything that seems alarming, or teach-to-the-test-ish. Some of the research report requirements seemed the opposite of test-prep (they needed to make the journal piece look like the paper was aged, handwrite it, and bind the pages together by hand).

So, I guess I'm not really seeing what you're seeing.

sprout said:

xavier67 said:
And I have witnessed this slow transformation in our own district. Under constant and ever increasing budgetary pressure, it's only natural for the district as such as ours to give priority to resources focussed on helping students to be more proficient on these tests. As such, in the 15 years that I have been in our district, I have seen non-LA or math courses slowly being deemphasized. Moreover, even in LA and math, there has been increased movement towards so-called "teaching to the tests." For instance, homework and in-class tests are increasing mirroring the standardized tests in format and object of their measurement.

I'm looking at my 5th grader's homework from a past 2 months.... read each night and write a couple sentences about it; do a research report in social studies; ST Math and traditional math workbook/worksheet homework (culminating in chapter tests); Spanish practice; Band instrument practice... He's been getting each night's homework done quite quickly, so it seems like it's distributed well, and it hasn't been overwhelming.
Not seeing anything that seems alarming, or teach-to-the-test-ish. Some of the research report requirements seemed the opposite of test-prep (they needed to make the journal piece look like the paper was aged, handwrite it, and bind the pages together by hand).
So, I guess I'm not really seeing what you're seeing.

I agree with Sprout. The homework I'm seeing is similar, and class work like digital diaries in Social Studies and learning how to take notes are promoting skills and not teach to the test drill and kill

Agree with the above. Honestly, I think the anti-PARCC movement - at least here in NJ - is way overblown.

In my nearly 20 (cumulative) years in the district, I have seen very little teaching to the test. For last year's PAARC, my kids (middle schooler and high schooler) did not have any test prep that I am aware of. In fact, I spent a little time at home familiarizing them with the online format of the test. Way back when, at SB there was some after school tutoring for the NJASK. I remember that most kids were invited to take part in it.

I, too, haven't found the in-class tests mirroring the standardized tests. This year, in the AP classes my junior takes, there are a few tests that mirror the AP tests, but I understand the motivation for that. So, I am not too concerned about the internal testing in the district.

i do think that perhaps our kids are tested too often. Maybe testing every 2 or 3 years might be enough. But we do need some sort of external examination as in class evaluation is often not objective and can have bias. I, too, do not agree with standardized testing having an impact on teacher evaluation, and am happy to note that NJ is very light in this requirement. I would love to see more SS and Science in the elementary schools. Perhaps, our PD needs to focus more on helping teachers integrate SS and Science into ELA and math. Some of Freedson's recommendations suggested such a focus.

I completely agree! I find the whole anti-PARCC thing to be completely overstated--it seems like people were heated up beforehand. If anything, my kid's middle school experience thus far has been so much more inquiry based than it was a few years ago, when my other kid was there. Pursuing their own historical question in each social studies; going outside to observe and do writing; learning how to 'visualize' negative and positive numbers. Last year, yes, they worked on the format of the test but it seemed pretty seamless, and didn't particularly take away from what they were doing in class.

Agreed on the last five posts.

I finally got thru some technical difficulties watching the CCR debate and was really perplexed at a statement Dorcas Lind made in answer to a question about the disproportionate suspension rates . At one hour and 41 minutes in she claims "they found" we were doling out different punishment for the same offense based on race.

This is absolutely factually incorrect. I presume the They is OCR and no such Finding was made in the complaint. In the update by Thelma Ramsey of Sage Consultants, at the board meeting it became clear that we needed to collect and analyze the data related to suspensions to understand the why's behind stats and make sure we were capturing the correct data in order to put policies in place.

Did anyone else catch that