Andrew Buher, 27 Years Old, Is Hired To Be Chief Operating Officer of The NYC DOE

Jersey boy wonder a new top DOE exec

• By YOAV GONEN and M.L. NESTEL, NY POST
• Last Updated: 2:04 PM, April 13, 2013
• Posted: 12:55 AM, April 13, 2013
• LINK

Andrew Buher in front of City Hall

Dudes, I’m the new COO!

City education officials yesterday appointed a fresh-faced 27-year-old — who graduated from college just in 2007 — as the chief operating officer of the nation’s largest school system.

Andrew Buher, a graduate of New Jersey’s Rider University, has had a meteoric rise to the pinnacle of the 135,000-employee Department of Education since he was hired in September 2010 as a “special assistant.”

Since then, in just 30 months, the political-science and public-policy major has more than doubled his salary — from $75,000 to $152,000 — while working his way up to chief of staff to the chancellor.

With his appointment as COO, Buher will be getting his fourth raise in fewer than three years — though a DOE spokeswoman said the size of his salary bump has yet to be determined.

But Buher’s predecessor as COO, Veronica Conforme, earned $202,000.

“Andrew’s experience managing key operations, his deep knowledge of the system and his commitment to driving solutions that work for students make him the ideal person to serve as our chief operating officer,” Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott said of the young third-year staffer.

Buher echoed Walcott’s enthusiasm. “I am excited and honored by this opportunity,” he said.

Buher grew up in Lawrence, NJ, and briefly attended Tulane University in New Orleans until returning home following Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

As a senior at Rider, Buher became the first student from the college to receive a presidential fellowship from the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress in Washington, DC.

He also interned as a policy adviser in the office of then-NJ Gov. Jon Corzine.

He worked with several charter schools in New York City before earning a master’s degree in public policy and administration from Columbia in 2010.

Last year, he got married to Caroline Burns — also a New Jersey native and Columbia graduate, who works in physical therapy.

“Andrew was someone who carried himself with a degree of professionalism; he was always in business attire or, at the least, business casual,” said Jesse Forsythe, who was Buher’s teammate at Rider University’s mock-United Nations group.

“He was looked to as the guy who could handle the situation.”

Conforme, Buher’s predecessor, is leaving to become a vice president at the College Board.

She had worked at the DOE for eight years — including as chief financial officer and deputy chief schools officer for operations — before being appointed COO in 2011.

Also yesterday, Deputy Chancellor Marc Sternberg was tapped to be senior deputy chancellor for strategy and policy.

yoav.gonen@nypost.com

Why Andrew Chose Rider

Andrew transferred to Rider from Tulane University in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. A Lawrenceville native, he was familiar with Rider and heard good things about the political science program. It was also close to home and convenient — important issues for someone who had to make a quick decision.

Rider's Impact on Andrew’s Career

Upon enrolling, he spoke with Dr. Arlene Wilner about joining Rider’s Baccalaureate Honors Program. “I was interested in the scope of issues covered. I liked the fact that it was team taught in a seminar style with lots of classroom discussion. There’s value in learning from peers as well as teachers.

“It was a great experience — probably one of the best learning experiences I’ve ever had. Our professors didn’t just encourage us to learn, they encouraged us to think and to respond. It was a great opportunity to meet people, learn from other students and learn from top professors who are highly motivated and interested in the subject they are teaching.”

As an undergraduate, Andrew became the first Rider student to receive a presidential fellowship from the Center for the Study of the Presidents in Washington, D.C. Through the fellowship, he attended two conferences in Washington and worked with Political Science professor and honors thesis advisor, Dr. Harvey Kornberg, on a paper on the modern presidency. Also while at Rider, Andrew interned at the Office of the Governor of New Jersey where he worked on education policy issues.

Continued Success

After graduating magna cum laude from Rider, Andrew served as chief operating officer of an education start-up that helped low-income and first generation high education enrollees navigate the college admission process. He joined Education Pioneers in New York City as a fellow in 2009 while pursuing a master’s in public administration at Columbia University. As a fellow, he worked on The Equity Project (TEP) Charter School where he was responsible for development, operations and event planning. In September 2010, he joined the staff of the New York City Department of Education as special assistant to the deputy chief schools officer and became chief of staff to the chief financial officer three months later. He served as chief of staff to the chief operating officer for the past two years before recently being appointed to serve as chief of staff to the Chancellor Dennis M. Walcott.

“My professors at Rider gave me a foundation of tools and knowledge to build on. My interaction with other students, professors and administrators — including President Rozanski — allowed me to observe firsthand the habits and resilience of purpose necessary to be a transformational leader. Today, I’m in a position where I have the opportunity to positively transform education for all children in the United States.”

Babies At The Bar Part 1: Violations of Law by NYSUT and NYC DOE Attorneys

Michael Bloomberg and Michael Cardozo

 From Betsy Combier:

First, I am not an attorney, just a writer/journalist. I, like most people, have opinions. Below are a few of them.

The New York City Department of Education as set up by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his sidekick New York City Law Department Corporation Counsel Michael Cardozo, (see below for a 2009 rebuke from the NY Appellate Court Judges) are breaking the law. Specifically, New York State Education Law Section 3020-a. Lawyers who work for The Gotcha Squad and prosecute tenured teachers brought up on bogus charges of misconduct and/or incompetency know this, so do NYSUT Attorneys, and attack anyone who notices their lawless procedures in bringing "Just Cause for Termination" to all cases of 3020-a arbitration. 

Both NYSUT and the DOE Attorneys are contracted to "prosecute" teachers under the presumption that all individuals brought to 3020-a are guilty of the charges. Other presumptions that effect all cases are: the case must look at ONLY the specifications, and nothing else (i.e., the principal is breaking the law with special needs children, stole money, has skeletons in his/her closet, the person making the charge is not in the school, didnt see what happened, wasnt there...). Obviously, anyone who says that ALL facts must be brought in to the hearing to give motive and prove innocence is someone who must be tarred and feathered. That's me and the lawyers I work with, but  we do not care about this fluff and stuff, and all of that leads to a stronger case in court for any kind of appeal against the arbitrator.

For instance, on April 19, 2013, I walked by a hearing room with the door open, at 49-51 Chambers Street, and I heard NYSUT Attorney Maria Elena Gonzalez Lichten telling Arbitrator Stephen O'Beirne how "she" put my email on her blog, and...". You dont think that the Attorneys speak to arbitrators only about the cases they are doing before them, do you? Anyway, I am posting the stuff I have already placed on this blog about Maria Elena Gonzolez Lichten, wife of Stuart Lichten, to update Mr. O'Beirne on what I have written, see here, here, and here. Mr. O'Beirne is an excellent Arbitrator, in my opinion, and can see through this infantile approach to squashing opposition to the Plan ("terminate any DOE employee who has tenure and is brought to 3020-a") . By the way, Mrs. Lichten, when you said in your email that I lied, I am still waiting to hear about what, so that I may address whatever it is that I lied about? My email address is betsy.combier@gmail.com, as you know.

Now to the charging process and determination of probable cause. If you are handed your specifications with a cover letter that says "...Principal __________ has found probable cause on the charges preferred against you" tell your attorney to ask, on the record and to the arbitrator, how the principal can find probable cause against you, considering the fact that Education Law 3020-a states that the school board must go into Executive Session and vote on whether there is probable cause, bring in Appendix A, usually served with the specifications - if you dont get this document, print out Education Law 3020-a and bring in those pages. (New York State Education Law 3020-a(2)(a)). New York City is part of New York State, and as far as I know, no agreement which conflicts with the law is valid.

The April 15, 2010 so-called 'agreement' signed by Joel Klein and Mike Mulgrew cannot be legally binding because Joel Klein signed the 'agreement' as chancellor, and he was never legally chancellor because he never had a contract, required by Education Law Section 2590-h. I wrote the "Who Are You Kidding Award Goes To Joel Klein" in 2007, but Mike Bloomberg never gave out any contracts to Klein, Black or Walcott. On January 7, 2013, Arbitrator Roy Watanabe asked DOE Attorney Lisa McFadden if Walcott had a contract. She said yes, and brought into the 3020-a hearing the waiver given to Walcott by New York State Commissioner David Steiner, giving Walcott permission to be chancellor:

Waiver from Steiner To Dennis Walcott

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that as Mr. Walcott did not sign this document, there is no term of office, and for many other reasons, this is not a contract, howevermuch the Gotcha Squad says it is. Compare with the contracts of Harold Levy and Rudy Crew in my 2007 article "The Who Are You Kidding Award Goes To Joel Klein"

I noticed what they were doing eight years ago. For 5 years I remained a silent observer, writing notes on everyone from a corner by the wall as a member of the public. Then someone at the DOE made up that I taped during a hearing, and this was completely false, but I became the omen of doom when the Attorneys realized that I knew what the fraud was. NYSUT Attorney Shawn T. Kelly, for example, on May 25, 2011 while everyone at 49-51 Chambers Street was on the sidewalk due to a firedrill, screamed "Dont talk with Betsy Combier, you will be terminated..." and other nonsense.

Then there are the screamers and naysayers from the DOE, Ian Nikol, Nancy Ryan, Dennis Da Costa, and Mallory Sullivan, all Department Attorneys who would rather scream  at me and try to get me run over by a bus than address the fact that they are harming innocent people without just or probable cause.

EDUCATION LAW §3020-A MANDATES A VOTE ON SPECIFICITY BY A SCHOOL BOARD

Education Law requires a vote by the school board precede a determination of “probable cause” upon which to bring charges against teachers removed from their schools. (Education Law §3020-a, Article 61) This provides all pedagogues protection from vindictive Principals who may want to remove senior teachers from their positions because they make salaries that could pay for two teachers instead of one.

NYS Education Law §2590-g does not address the issue of review and scrutiny of whether there is probable cause to proceed with the prosecution of disciplinary charges against tenured educational personnel. The requirements of NYS Education Law §3020-a and §3020-a (2)(a) , under which tenured personnel may be disciplined for “Just Cause”, are absolute and require that before charges can be brought against a tenured educator, the School Board must:

a. Determine that there is “probable cause” for the proceeding with charges by a majority vote by the Board.
b. Make this determination within 5 days of the charges being filed with the Board.
c. Ensure that the decision to proceed with the charges is not frivolous, arbitrary, capricious or discriminatory.

Without a school board to perform these functions – and, the New York City Panel For Educational Policy (“PEP”) never has taken on this function – there is no oversight by anyone other than the tenured teacher’s Principal to initiate the disciplinary process and Local Superintendent to endorse the Principal’s request to prefer file charges against any educator a Principal chooses to remove from the school the Principal administers.

The lack of independent review and lack of oversight by anyone other than the tenured teacher’s Principal to initiate discipline is not consistent with Education Law §3020-a. This constitutes a de facto denial of equal protection of the §3020-a law, as all arbitrators who sit on the panel to hear 3020-a charges are not permitted by law, collective bargaining agreement, or any other contractual arrangement to make a decision on charges unless they have been voted on by the New York City Board of Education before a tenured teacher is given these charges, pursuant to Education Law §§ 2590-j, 3020, and 3020-a.

The relevant parts are as follows:
“Filing of charges. All charges against a person enjoying the benefits of tenure as provided in subdivision three of section one thousand one hundred two, and sections two thousand five hundred nine, two thousand five hundred seventy-three, twenty-five hundred ninety-j, three thousand twelve and three thousand fourteen of this chapter shall be in writing and filed with the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board during the period between the actual opening and closing of the school year for which the employed is normally required.”

Section 3020a(2)(a) of The NY Education Law states:

“Disposition of charges. Upon receipt of the charges, the clerk or secretary of the school district or employing board shall immediately notify said board thereof. Within five days after receipt of charges, the employing board, in executive session, shall determine, by a vote of a majority of all the members of such board, whether probable cause exists to bring a disciplinary proceeding against an employee pursuant to this section. If such determination is affirmative, a written statement specifying the charges in detail, the maximum penalty which will be imposed by the board if the employee does not request a hearing or that will be sought by the board if the employee is found guilty of the charges after a hearing and outlining the employee’s rights under this section, shall be immediately forwarded to the accused employee by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested or by personal delivery to the employee.”

Furthermore, Section 2590(j)(7)(b) of The NY Education Law specifically states:

“Charges may be initiated by the community superintendent against any such employee.” There is no mention of a principal finding probable cause. Certainly it is unreasonable to believe that due process exists when a principal charges a teacher without any accountability to anyone for that decision, and then finds probable cause for charging the teacher. Therefore the Just Cause Standard is not reached, and no hearing can proceed.

Before a tenured teacher can be brought up on disciplinary charges, the Education Law lays out a number of procedural hurdles that a Board of Education must comply with. These procedural hurdles are in place to protect the rights of the tenured teacher to fair process, and constitute jurisdictional pre-requisites to a §3020-a disciplinary hearing. Chief among these procedural hurdles is the requirement that probable cause to prefer charges must be voted on by the Board of Education (see, e.g., Education Law §3020-a(2)(a)).

Compliance with this provision is a jurisdictional condition precedent to a §3020-a disciplinary hearing. Without it, the hearing cannot go forward. Prohibition is the appropriate procedural remedy for the assertion of a claim where prohibition is available “to prevent a body or officer from proceeding or threatening to proceed without or in excess of its jurisdiction.” See: Matter of Schumer v Holtzman, 60 N.Y. 2d 46, 51; Garzilli v Mills, 250 A.D.2d 131 (3d Dep’t 1998); Community School Board No. 29, SED No. 3562 (Howard Edelman, a member of the UFT-DOE arbitration panel in New York City -Dec. 14, 1998).

In New York City, §3020-a teacher disciplinary proceedings have become penal in nature and not arbitral in the same manner labor grievances are resolved. Matter of Clayton v Bd. of Educ., 49 A.D.2d 343 (3rd Dept 1975). Submission to these disciplinary hearings are compulsory and the jurisdiction of the hearing officer is derived from statute. Teachers are charged, similar to an indictment in the criminal world, upon determination of probable cause.

When I started examining the procedures used by the newly instituted Department of Education, I saw that my knowledge of education law and arbitration, which I got by reading my own books (I am not an attorney) did not give me any clue as to the random and arbitrary nature of the 3020-a hearings I was asked to attend in NYC. So, I studied the lawyers and the arbitrators to try to find out how the law could be ignored. Then the Gotcha Squad realized that I was on to something, and took it upon themselves to attack me.

So now I can write about the lawyers who decided to attack, and will provide my website with the names of the Attorneys who threw aside the lives, careers, health benefits and tenured positions of teachers in order to make a profit.

NY Appellate Bench Rips Cardozo in Law Journal Letter

LINK
In a stunning rebuke to NYC’s top lawyer, Michael Cardozo, 18 of the 20 justices that sit in the Appellate Division, First Department have taken him to the woodshed with a letter in the New York Law Journal coming out tomorrow (12/17/09). The response comes due to Cardozo’s attack on the state’s judiciary last week. Cardozo is now starting his third term as the city’s Corporation Counsel.
The appellate court judges are responding to Cardozo’s December 7th column on improving efficiency in the courts, a subject I wrote about a few days ago when both bench and bar came down on him hard in NYC’s Top Lawyer Gets Reamed For Inefficiency (By Both Bench and Bar).
But now it is not simply one panel of judges ripping the city for its own inefficiency, or lawyers writing letters to the paper. Now the vast majority of the appellate bench that hears NYC cases has called Carozo’s “imperious outpouring of advice” “insulting.” They went on to write, led by Presiding Justice Luis Gonzalez (pictured), that:

“We feel compelled to respond to his misguided assertions, his misplaced blame and his attacks on the state trial judges…”

The First Department hears cases from the Manhattan and Bronx courts. And the Second Department, which sanctioned the city just last week in Byam v. City of New York for a decade of delay in providing discovery, handles Queens, Brooklyn and Staten Island (as well as other downstate counties).
You could almost see the smoke pouring off the keyboards of the judges as they wrote of Cardozo regarding changes in the use of 60-day reports that judges make to track cases:

In large measure, his facile proposals amount to an echo of reforms that are under way or have already been adopted by our former and current chief judges… Every one of these items has already been implemented by the Office of Court Administration, which on a constant basis compiles and circulates large amounts of information regarding judges’ job performance.

The idea that current reports are being inaccurate implied, to the court, that some dishonesty was going on. The letter stated:

The idea that complaints must be filed with the Judicial Conduct Commission in order to ensure accuracy in 60-day reporting requirements baselessly implies that there is actually a problem with inaccuracy, an implication for which Mr. Cardozo provides no support.

After defending the trial judges against Cardozo’s charges, the appellate judges lowered the hammer on him, placing the blame for much delay and inefficiency squarely at his feet (just as this letter Helene Blank and Marc Dittenhoefer did the other day):

In fact, it is ironic that the Corporation Counsel blames the courts for a failure to deal appropriately with litigation delays, since it is the office of Corporation Counsel of the City of New York that plays a significant role in causing those undue delays. For one thing, there is always a backlog of ready city cases in the dedicated city parts, and, with each part being assigned only two city attorneys, neither plaintiffs’ attorneys nor the trial judges have the means to ensure that ready cases can proceed immediately to trial; the city alone wields that authority. A vast amount of inefficiency impeding the resolution of litigation is also created by the city’s oft-demonstrated cavalier attitude toward its discovery obligations. The city’s almost routine failure to timely and fully cooperate with its discovery obligations, even in the face of repeated court orders, is regularly confronted by city part judges attempting to solve the city’s intransigence (see e.g., Lewis v. City of New York, 17 Misc. 3d 559 [2007]).

What followed then was a litany of First Department cases in which the sanction of attorneys fees was imposed on the city as a result of its “inexcusably lax” responses to discovery orders.
And then a concession about city cases that all the personal injury attorneys in this town already knew, but had always been simply implied by the courts:

[A]s a rule, our courts give far more leeway to the city than we typically do to other defendants in civil actions.

Cardozo isn’t having a very good holiday season. In fact, having so many judges angry at him, I’m thinking this will be his last holiday season in his office.
It’s worth noting, however, that in an interview with the Law Journal that accompanied the letter (can’t find link), Justice Gonzalez said the First Department’s “track record of evenhandedness in our treatment of Mr. Cardozo’s client, New York City,” would continue despite the judges’ criticism. He went on to say, “The bottom line is our judges are always mindful of our ethical responsibilities and our members have always dealt with Mr. Cardozo’s client in a fair and even-handed manner and we will continue to do so.”
The Corporation Counsel has 650 attorneys working for it, and handles a wide range of legal issues on behalf of the city. Background here on Cardozo as he prepared to start his third term.

ACR/ATR Meeting

ACR/ATR meeting: Wednesday April 10, 4:30 pm, Park Plaza Diner, Brooklyn (open to all ACRs/ATRs, regardless of whether Brooklyn based)

220 Cadman Plaza West (north of Clark Street), Brooklyn Heights. This would be near the Clark St. 2,3; the High St. A,C; the Montague R; riders from B, D, Q can change at Atlantic and Pacific to the 2/3, from the F at A, C. Primo Spot search for parking (no guarantees):  http://primospot.com/spots/search

Please RSVP to saferatr@gmail.com

Re-Thinking Common Core As A "National Standard"

Common Core "State" Standards Test Items to Get Federal Review

EDWEEK

By Anthony Cody on April 3, 2013 9:56 AM

LINK

Neal McClusky at the Cato at Liberty blog highlighted some news yesterday related to the Common Core.

Yesterday news came out that made clear just how serious--and unfunny--concerns about a federal takeover are. According to Education Week, the U.S. Department of Education will start a "technical review process" for the Department-selected consortia creating the national tests to go with the standards. And what will that review look at? Not compliance with accounting standards or something administrative, but test "item design and validation." That means, most likely (in-depth information from the Department was off-line as of this writing) reviewing the specific questions that will go on the tests. And what is tested, of course, ultimately dictates what is taught, at least if the test results are to have any concrete impact, ranging from whether students advance to the next grade, to whether schools gain or lose funding. Since the ultimate point of uniform standards is to have essentially uniform accountability from state to state, they will have to have some concrete impact, rendering this a clear next step in a major Federal incursion into curricula.

The reason this is significant is that the Federal government is forbidden, under the law that created the Department of Education, from establishing "national standards." That was part of the deal made by Congress when the Department of Ed was created under the Carter administration.

Secretary of Arne Duncan has insisted quite indignantly that the Common Core is a state-led initiative. When pressed by John Merrow in 2011 about the expanding role the federal Department of Education was playing, he said this:

Well, it's not more control over education. It IS saying where states are raising standards, we want to give them room to hit those higher standards. Right now under the current law, they get penalized for doing the right thing. And I just think we have to give a lot more flexibility, a lot more autonomy, so I would argue it's a narrower, a smaller federal footprint, a lot more autonomy, a lot more flexibility at the local level. I am frankly trying to get Washington out of the way.

But Washington -- and the Gates Foundation -- are pretty much everywhere you look in the Common Core project. The states were given significant incentives under Race to the Top to sign on the "career and college ready standards," with the Common Core being the primary means to accomplish this. And now we see that the test items themselves will undergo technical review in a process managed by the Department of Education.

It is significant also that this analysis comes from the conservative/Libertarian source, the Cato Institute. As I have noted, opposition to the Common Core is rising in conservative circles, where people have historically been against Federal involvement in schools. The debacle of No Child Left Behind left educators weary, and as Common Core has been promoted as an improvement, many have embraced the shift. I have been a skeptic from the start, because I believe that the primary goal of the new standards is the creation of uniform high stakes assessments. Thus this will create MORE pressure to teach to the tests, rather than less. Whatever flexibility we experience during the transition period will be lost when the inevitable tests arrive.

This report on Cincinnati, Ohio, local Fox News affiliate shows how the reaction to the Common Core is developing.

What do you think? Are Common Core "State" Standards a Federal project? Is this a bad thing?
Continue the dialogue with Anthony Cody on Twitter.

Accountability for Mr. Gates: The Billionaire Philanthropist Evaluation

By Anthony Cody on April 5, 2013 12:24 AM

LINK

Bill Gates, who is more responsible than anyone for the absurd evaluations by which teachers are now being held accountable, had the gall to write this week in a tone of exasperation about the results of his own advocacy for these very practices.

Yesterday I asked when Mr. Gates, the great enthusiast for accountability for others, might hold himself accountable for his own handiwork.

As wealth has concentrated in the accounts of individuals such as the Gates, Walton and Broad families, they have used this to wield unprecedented power over the lives of those of us without access to such resources. They pay for research that creates the very "facts" upon which public debate is based. They pay for their own media outlets, and heavily subsidize others. Their money redirects existing grassroots groups, and underwrites new ones. They work with ALEC to write legislation, and funnel money through PACs to buy off politicians to move it forward across the country. They are utterly insulated from any sort of accountability. They do not face voters in any election. Nobody "evaluates" them. They cannot be fired. They may on occasion choose to engage in a dialogue, but they are not obliged to respond to the substance of the criticisms raised. As my question indicated, this accountability they demand from teachers is a street that goes one way only.

But let's imagine we could turn the tables on Mr. Gates and evaluate his performance as a philanthropist. Might we establish some goals to which we could hold our billionaires accountable? We do not have any measurable indicators such as test scores to use, but since I do not find these to be of great value in any case, I will offer a more qualitative metric, based on my knowledge of the subject's work. Since he has spoken glowingly of the salutary effect of feedback on teachers, surely he will welcome this feedback, even though it is unsolicited.

In the tradition of the Danielson and Marzano teacher evaluation frameworks, I offer the Cody Billionaire Philanthropist Evaluation Model, as applied to Bill Gates.

Standard 1: Awareness of the Social Conditions Targeted by Philanthropy
Rating: Below Standard
Mr. Gates does not demonstrate an understanding of the social conditions that are the focus of his philanthropy. Actions and statements by him and his representatives indicate ignorance of the pervasive effects of poverty, and the overwhelming research that indicates the need to address these effects directly. Mr. Gates has not attended public schools, nor worked in an educational context, and thus he has no personal expertise. He primarily cites research he has paid for himself, which tends to conform to his views. His representatives claim their Foundation lacks the resources to address poverty, and insists that educators bear the burden for overcoming its effects with minimal support. 

Recommendation for Professional Growth:
We recommend Mr. Gates take a year off from his work as a philanthropist, and work as a high school instructor in an urban setting. His students should include English learners, students who are homeless, and those designated as Special Education. He should work alongside a fully credentialed professional educator, who will provide him with feedback, and reflect with him as he gains an understanding of how we create effective learning conditions for students.

Standard 2: Understanding of how Learning is Measured
Rating: Below Standard
Mr. Gates has concluded that measurement is the primary means by which social progress can be made. He has determined that test scores are an adequate means of measuring learning, and promoted a wide variety of ways by which these scores are used to measure learning, and reward teachers and students accordingly. This is based on a fundamental error. In fact, test scores measure only a small part of what we value. 

Recommendations for Professional Growth:
Mr. Gates should first read Stephen Jay Gould's Mismeasure of Man, for an understanding of the history of testing. He should also read Daniel Koretz' book, Measuring Up, What Educational Testing Really Tells Us.

Mr. Gates should, with the help of an experienced educator, design a series of rich PBL projects that allows each of his students to demonstrate their learning through authentic products in real-world contexts. He should compare the work they are capable of producing to their standardized test scores, and reflect on the things that each mode of measurement captures.

Standard 3: Understanding of How Teaching is Evaluated
Rating: Below Standard
Compounding the fundamental error regarding the measurement of learning described under Standard 2 above, Mr. Gates has promoted the use of teacher evaluations based in significant part on test scores and VAM systems. Research does not support this use of test scores, and raising the stakes on test scores has promoted widespread teaching to the test. Mr. Gates has made statements that indicate he is unaware of effective evaluation practices, such as the Peer Assistance and Review program and others.

Recommendations for Professional Growth:
Mr. Gates should spend a week shadowing PAR consulting teachers as they work with teachers in Toledo, Ohio. He should review the research on forms of effective evaluation practices.

As recommended above, he should serve as a classroom teacher for a full year, and have his performance rated based on VAM scores derived from standardized tests taken by his students. He should reflect with his colleagues on the validity of these ratings. He should also meet with a peer evaluator to set professional goals at the start of the year, and several times during the year meet with this person to reflect. At year's end he should compare the models of evaluation he experienced, and reflect on which were of greater validity and value. 

Standard 4: Understanding of Effective Instruction
Rating: Below Standard
Mr. Gates has repeatedly stated that he believes we ought to stop spending money on keeping class sizes small, and instead should use that money to provide performance bonuses for teachers. He has also indicated that we should "personalize" learning through the use of computers and videos that allow students to work at their own pace. This does not comport with what we know about child development, or the importance of personal relationships with students.

Recommendations for Professional Growth
Mr. Gates should spend a week shadowing children in elite schools such as the one attended by his own children, and study the way personalization is accomplished. He should then spend a week shadowing children at a Detroit school where class sizes have been significantly increased due to budget cuts, and the pressure of high stakes have focused instruction on test preparation.

In the year he teaches, he should be assigned at least one class no larger than 15, and another no smaller than 38, and reflect on the learning conditions in these two environments.

Summary of Evaluation Results and Recommendations: 
Mr. Gates falls below standards in all four of the areas that were observed. His philanthropic activities should be suspended immediately pending his completion of the recommended professional growth activities.

A panel of expert reviewers composed of students, parents and educators from communities that are the targets of his philanthropy should be convened to review his reflections at the end of his year of investigation and reflection. This panel should subsequently review and approve the re-initiation of philanthropic projects following this process.

This is the beginning of what might be a far more complex process of reflection for Mr. Gates. It might be seen as absurd, but my intention is sincere. His thinking is magnified in its effect by the billions he has to spend as he chooses. With such power comes a huge responsibility to learn from one's mistakes. I do not know how Mr. Gates reflects on the successes and failures of his work - there is no evidence of thoughtful reflection in his public writing.

Fairness demands that accountability cannot be a one way street. If Mr. Gates demands that teachers be held accountable for their work, surely he must accept some accountability for his. What is good for the poor geese ought to be good for the billionaire gander, even if he does lay golden eggs.

What do you think of this feedback? Are there other standards we might use to judge the quality of the work of billionaire philanthropists? Have I been fair with Mr. Gates?

Continue the dialogue with Anthony Cody on Twitter.

Atlanta Cheating Scandal: Jail Time

Next stop: New York City Cheating Scandal

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

• Beverly Hall, the district's former superintendent, turns herself in
• 26 other educators had surrendered to authorities by Tuesday night
• Some Atlanta educators' bonds were set at $1 million
• 35 were indicted, accused of cheating on standardized testing dating back to 2001

 Former Atlanta schools superintendent reports to jail in cheating scandal

By CNN Staff

updated 10:00 AM EDT, Wed April 3, 2013

LINK

Beverly Hall

 The former superintendent of Atlanta Public Schools was among the educators who surrendered to authorities Tuesday after being indicted by a grand jury in a cheating scandal that rocked the district and drew national attention.

Beverly Hall resigned from her position in 2011 after a state investigation into large, unexplained test score gains in some Atlanta schools. She has denied any role in the cheating scandal.

A Fulton County grand jury last week indicted 35 educators from the district, including principals, teachers and testing coordinators. They were ordered to turn themselves in by Tuesday, District Attorney Paul Howard said.

By 10:00 p.m., 27 of 35 educators had turned themselves in at the Fulton County Jail to face charges including racketeering, theft by taking and making false statements about their roles in an alleged plot to falsify students' standardized tests. Eight of them had been released on bond late Tuesday, the Fulton County Sheriff's office said.

In 2009, Hall was named the National Superintendent of the Year by the Schools Superintendents Association, which at the time said her "leadership has turned Atlanta into a model of urban school reform."

Grand jury indicts 35 in Georgia school cheating scandal

Cheating scandal hits Atlanta schools

First indicted educator turns self in

35 employees indicted in cheating scandal

But the indictment paints another picture of Hall, one of a superintendent with "a single-minded purpose, and that is to cheat," Howard told reporters last week.

According to the indictment, Hall placed unreasonable goals on educators and "protected and rewarded those who achieved targets by cheating." It also alleges she fired principals who failed to achieve goals and "ignored suspicious" test score gains throughout the school system.

Her bond was reduced from $7.5 million to $200,000, the Fulton County Sheriff's office reported.

On Tuesday, bond was set at $1 million for Donald Bullock, a testing coordinator at Usher/Collier Heights Elementary School, Theresia Copeland, a testing coordinator at Benteen Elementary School, and Gregory Reid, a Parks Middle School assistant principal. Bond amounts were set by grand jurors.

Others who turned themselves in included testing coordinators, teachers and an instructional coach, said Fulton County Sheriff spokeswoman Tracy Flanagan.

Investigations into the remarkable improvements on standardized tests were first reported by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution newspaper. A state review determined that some cheating had occurred in more than half the district's elementary and middle schools. About 180 teachers were implicated initially. Cheating is believed to date back to early 2001, when standardized testing scores began to turn around in the 50,000-student school district, according to the indictment.

For at least four years, between 2005 and 2009, test answers were altered, fabricated and falsely certified, the indictment said.

"We've had cheating all up and down the line. It was absolutely amazing," said Michael Bowers, a former Georgia attorney general who investigated the cheating scandal.

Bowers said there were cheating parties, erasures in and out of classrooms, and teachers were told to make changes to tests. "Anything that you can imagine that could involve cheating, it was done."

During the investigation, he heard that educators cheated out of pride, to earn bonuses, to enhance their careers or to keep their jobs, he said. Some teachers, overcome with emotion, fainted during his interview with them, he said.

"Not only were the children deprived, a lot of teachers were forced into cheating, forced into criminal acts," Bowers said. "Now, granted, they did wrong, but a lot of them did this to protect jobs."

Educators and community members reacted Tuesday to the charges.

"The Atlanta school community is obviously very upset about this," said Stephen J. Alford, Atlanta Public Schools' executive director of communications. "I don't want to pass judgment on the people, but we've had a lot of parents who wanted to express their disappointment."

In a statement, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and Georgia Federation of Teachers President Verdaillia Turner wrote: "We do not condone cheating under any circumstances. Academic achievement can never be separated from academic integrity, which is why the Georgia Federation of Teachers was the first whistle-blower to expose Atlanta testing irregularities.

"Tragically, the Atlanta cheating scandal harmed our children and it crystallizes the unintended consequences of our test-crazed policies."

CNN's Jamie Gumbrecht, Catherine E. Shoichet, Joe Sutton, Josh Levs and Chelsea J. Carter contributed to this report. 

 http://www.glass-castle.com/clients/www-nocheating-org/adcouncil/research/cheatingfactsheet.html