Principals and teachers who recently administered Pearson-developed Common Core-related tests in New York have asserted that they are barred from speaking about the test content and its implications for student success because of “gag orders” written into the testing contracts. These gag orders and the lack of transparency are fueling the growing distrust and backlash among parents, students and educators in the United States about whether the current testing protocols and testing fixation are in the best interests of children. When parents aren’t allowed to know what is on their children’s tests, and when educators have no voice in how assessments are created, and are forbidden from raising legitimate concerns about the assessments’ quality or from talking to parents about the these concerns, Pearson not only increases distrust of testing but also denies children the rich learning experience they deserve. Parents, students and teachers need assessments that accurately measure student performance through questions that are grade-appropriate and aligned with state standards—especially since standardized tests have increasingly life-altering consequences for students and teachers. By including gag orders in contracts, Pearson is silencing the very stakeholders the company needs to engage with. Poll after poll makes clear that parents overwhelmingly trust educators over all others to do what is best for their children—educators’ voices, concerns and input should be included in the creation and application of these assessments. (Read the full letter the AFT delivered to Pearson's board of directors here: http://www.aft.org/pdfs/press/ltr_Randi-Pearson042414.pdf)

We care about these wonderful kids. They have bright futures which are in jeopardy now because nobody seems to care that they are about to lose their school district. We have something to say about that!

Why is the City willing to pay taxpayer dollars to settle a case of serious homophobic slander, and not hold the administrator responsible? He wrote that my partner and I used our pets as" lures" to seduce and infect the local boys with AIDS, so I (Michael) should be ousted from my apartment, and my foreign-born partner (Andre) deported. These malicious letters to my co-op management were copied to ICE, FBI, Precinct 36, IRS, and Homeland Security. The emotional terror this action inflicted upon us is difficult to describe. There are two forensics reports which tie Smolkin to the letters, (one in the office of the Manhattan DA), but the City refuses to act to remove Principal Smolkin.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recently unveiled proposed updates for local school wellness policies. 
As part of that proposal, only foods and beverages that meet USDA’s new Smart Snacks nutrition standards could be marketed in schools. USDA is currently accepting comments on the proposal, but the comment period ends on April 28, less than a week away! Take action NOW and tell the USDA you support the proposal.

I, as well of many other classmates, have been affected negatively affected by current standardized test practices in our local school systems. These negative effects have brought us down academically, and have made our chances of succeeding in the way we would like to succeed decrease. Changes in our standardized test practices will not only be better for our students, but better for society as a whole, creating a society full of students with high potential.

I have witnessed the decline of respect for our educators. I am a teacher at a Middle School. I see the urgent need to provide security for our teachers in this state.

District 47 Board Policy Section 7:190 states a knife is a weapon & the student shall be expelled for a period of at least 1 calendar year unless modified by the Superintendent or the Board. Our child is a student in this classroom and has been personally affected by this troubled child for the last 2 years. This child is known by other students, teachers and parents because of this child's issues with physical & violent aggression towards other students over the years in the classroom & at recess. We have zero tolerance for weapons in schools and believe every child has a right to a safe learning environment.

I am signing this petition because I have simply had enough of being told what is going to happen without an explanation. The Arch Diocese has continually (sometimes with the assitance of local influence)tried to close Saint Joseph School. We as parents, and paying consumers, deserve an explanation as to why a school in the same demographic would have a significantly lower tuition, and why when we were told we'd all be at the same level, there continues to be a huge disparity.

As a student who has graduated from Peters Township High School, I have had to endure the start time for four years. I, as well as my peers, have had trouble getting to school on time and have experienced the negative consequences of not getting enough sleep. After reading through research and success stories over the last few years of schools that have changed their start time, I believe Peters Township High School should change their start time as well.

A senior student, Chris, needed to run home during his lunch hour to get a text book for a class he had. He asked his friend if he could borrow his car to do so. Friend tosses keys to Chris and he puts them in his pocket and goes to his next class. Administration wants to search the friends car and calls Chris to office because he was in possession of the keys (all of this was completely unknown to Chris). Whatever the issue was regarding the search of the vehicle had nothing to do with Chris but when he gave administration the keys of his friend they saw a small key chain pocket knife and suspended Chris for being in possession of a weapon on school campus, despite them not being his keys and not knowing the keys had this small pocket knife on them. He is now not allowed to attend the Prom, which is unfair when administration has bent rules for other students. Administration cannot pick and choose when to uphold policies for some students and then allow other students to not have consequences for their actions. Chris did nothing wrong and he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. We want administration to spend their time upholding the rules and protecting students from the students who are breaking policies and rules knowingly and with intent as opposed to cracking down on an innocent student with a technicality. Please support us in sending Chris to Prom!!!!

HB 921 would drop all state textbook reviewing responsibilities. It would require that counties review and buy their own textbooks. Our public schools are already underfunded and overwhelmed. They do not have the time or the means to select their own textbooks. Not only that, but it would allow ideological ideas to seep into our public school system. Our children wouldn't be on the same page as those in other counties. This would create a great inconsistency across the whole state. HB 921 was approved by the Senate and now goes to the House. We need your voice to tell our local Representatives to vote NO on HB 921!

The PhD students and TAs of the Northeastern University College of Social Sciences and Humanities have recently learned that the incoming PhD students for the 2014-2015 academic year will receive a TA stipend of $20,000, while the stipends of the current students will remain unchanged at much lower rates - barely adjusted for inflation. This means that many current PhD students in the social sciences will lag behind their newer cohorts by as much as 25% in funding per year. For PhD students predominantly supporting themselves on a TA stipend, this monetary discrepancy is very significant to our standards of living. Yet such considerations are not even as distressing as the effects that this unequal structure of incentives will have on graduate departments, cohort dynamics, and overall university standing. As dedicated, hard-working Northeastern PhD students, we demand equal stipend rates for all. Therefore, we urge the College of Social Sciences and Humanities to equalize current students’ stipends to those of the new incoming class for the following dominant reasons: FAIRNESS & PROMOTION OF A COLLEGIAL ENVIRONMENT: Different stipend rates for PhD students within the same program will breed an environment of inequality. The university is implicitly stating that newer students deserve more financial support than older students, and this may lead to negative relations between students in the department. As a matter of principle, a PhD program should value its students equally, yet this funding policy assures that some students will appear more valuable than others and receive more material support in their academic pursuits. In this way, the department also fails to value the accumulated experience of its older cohorts, especially their roles as mentors to newer students. Moreover, due to the Graduate School’s new 10-hour TA policy for first year students, the older cohorts are increasingly taking over responsibility for TA/RA activities - yet they continue to receive lower compensation over the years. We understand that as Northeastern University and our departments increase in stature, the university must offer more attractive incentive packages to new students in order to compete with other universities. However, those of us who have already been accepted and are currently enrolled in the program are at least in part responsible for the enhanced reputation of our programs. Further, we also face the dilemma of leaving the program (or supplementing our TA pay with other work that ultimately can detract from our effectiveness as teachers and aspiring scholars) in order to generate more income. A competitive stipend is necessary, but should be applied to all of us. DISTORTED INCENTIVES: Unequal stipend rates create a structure of disincentives for current students. This structure rewards new recruits at the expense of students making progress in the department, and this pattern becomes more troubling with each passing year. As it stands now, the new students will receive significantly higher monetary support than other students, regardless of the other students’ years of experience, accomplishments, or other merits. Along with damaging department morale, funding is only one factor considered by potential PhD students and is usually dwarfed by other considerations, including research interests and job placement opportunities. RETENTION RATES & ACADEMIC SUCCESS: In time, the distorted incentives created by this funding system may show themselves in the performance of PhD students across programs. With less funding and support, older graduates will have less time to dedicate to their classes and research, and they will have less incentive to remain fully dedicated to their programs. In the long run, these trends may harm the success of graduate program rankings overall, as too many graduate students will not be supported at the same level as others, hindering their potential for publications and other projects. In light of these main factors, the Northeastern PhD students petition for the equalization of stipend rates across cohorts. As it stands, the current system promotes only unfairness, disunity, and disincentives that harm the future of our university as a whole.