White Plains CitizeNetReporter

Westchester County Airport Terminal

WPCNR COUNTY CLARION-LEDGER.  By John F. Bailey. August 13, 2018:

It will be months, well into 2019 OR 2020 perhaps before any directions and decisions on the Westchester County Airport  future will be made.

That was clear after the early afternoon news conference  today at Westchester County Executive George Latimer (above) held at the airport above.

The County Executive said the next steps in deciding the future of the airport would be to develop a supplemental Master Plan to address the county vision for the facility in view of the age of the previous master plan to counter Federal Aviation Administration criticism of the current Master Plan including “Lack of a Strategic Vision.”

To help the county execute the supplement, Latimer said a new consultant would be hired that would work on the Master Plan. That consultant has not been hired yet.

Latimer said comments from public hearings two months ago would be considered in creating the new plan, as well as comments from the Board of Legislators and the Board reactions.

As part of that review the matters of governance of the airport, possibilities for the airport future and its management, presumably from a financial standpoint would be reviewed.

Asked by WPCNR if a leasing of the airport to an independent airport managent company with more profit to the county,and  a contract that gave Westchester County jurisdiction over any changes any potential lessor wanted to make in the airport would possibly be considered in the Master Plan. Mr. Latimer did not rule such proposals out,nor did he say he would consider such proposals.

Early in the news conference, Latimer disparaged former County Executive Robert Astorino’s lease plan that gave up county control of the airport in a long term lease deal that would have balanced the 2018 budget. The County Board of Legislators declined to consider that plan.

Mr. Latimer did not rule out exploring any such proposals that kept county control of the airport with more lucrative financial returns to the county,  and a shorter duration of contract. Whether the master plan preparation will explore leasing with a new start is not apparent, nor ruled out.

(One of the major flaws of the Robert Astorino Administration plan to lease the airport was its duration, 40 years, lack of adequate revenues and the county giving up control of the airport, to fill the 2018 budget gap ).

He said the former airport lease plan, (that the Westchester County Board of Legislators declined to consider in December), has expressed interest in revising their proposal, and if they wanted to come up with a new proposal, they would be welcome to do that. He said emphatically to one reporter that original proposal was dead. “It ceased to exist January 1,” he said

Meanwhile, Mr. Latimer announced county airport intiatives on complaints and issues expressed during the public hearings in June.

Joan McDonald, Director of Operations for the County announced the county would be purchasing 10 new portable state-of-the-art Noise Measurement  devices (shown above), and would upgrade the existing 6 monitors. She said the 10 new monitors should be operative by the end of this month. McDonald said the county was organizing a new  automated complaint system consumers could use to report their observations.

John Nonna, the county attorney said the county is working with the Department of Environmental Conservation to measure and monitor drain off into the Kensico Resevoir (off Runway 34), and has located 49 monitoring wells at the airport. Nonna said those wells would begin to be monitored August 31.

The wells have not been monitored since 2007 (during the Andrew Spano and Robert Astorino administrations), according to the county news release on today’s conference.

The county news release also stated the last air quality emissions report was from 2007.

Nonna announced that monitoring of air quality  from aircraft exhaust would also be upgraded and the county was working with DEC to ascertain equipment to monitor air pollution. He said it would take four months before readings on air quality from the new monitors would be available.

Mr. Latimer said the county would begin to consider the 2019 county budget September 10 as to what options the county had in filling the reported gap in the budget, previously reported by the county auditors as $47 Million.

(Editor’s Nate:) To date the county sales tax receipts through July are on a pace to deliver half of that deficit by the end of the year. Another option the county has to consider to eliminate the alleged deficit, is to raise the county sales tax by ¼% which according to the auditors would address the present rate of growth of county expenses for the next two years.

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. August 11, 2018:

The New York Council of School Superintendents knew that with the shortening of the duration  of the 2018 State Assessments in English and Math to two days, there would be a delay in receiving Assessment scores but not as long as the State Education Department confirmed to WPCNR this past week.

Robert Lowry, spokesperson for the Council of School Superintendents, issued this statement on the delay of scored assessments to WPCNR Friday:

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. August 9, 2018:

White Plains Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Joseph Ricca told WPCNR  today  the New York State Education Department announcement  that scores New York State Students achieved on 2018 Assessment Tests would not be released to the public and the school districts until mid to late September was “unfortunate,” but would not affect the district’s ability to adjust curriculum to continue improving students’ performance.

Ricca said White Plains students continue to perform well and grow academically based on the district’s internal assessment outcomes; however, the raw scores sent to the district in June provide little assistance in measuring growth and planning for the next academic year.

Planning ahead, he said White Plains teachers and administrators have instead used their own benchmark testing and outcomes analysis from the end of last year (2017-18) to monitor student progress and plan for what needs to be done to prepare for the new academic year.

Asked if he was pleased with the raw scores the district was provided in June from the NYSED, he said, “we will need to learn more from the State Education Department once they ‘recalibrate’ their cut scores.”

However, he said White Plains school-based assessments indicated the elementary and middle school children  (Grades 3 to 8) did very well according to district goals.

While that data was not immediately available, he said he would get WPCNR the figures the school district has determined according to the district testing and performance standards for the students in Grades 3 to 8 at the end of 2017-18

Ricca told WPCNR  the district had not used the raw scores (received from the state the beginning of June) to determine new directions in the school curriculum because the raw scores did not include the cut score levels, or curve to determine what level of score passes at each of the 4,3,2, and 1 levels.

The state has the ability and can set the cut scores, which can inflate the number of students passing or failing by the determination of the cut score level.

“We have assessments (per grade) in place teachers can use to plan for our children. We don’t have to follow the state assessment scores (for guidance) and we recognize that assessments are simply one measure of student achievement,” Ricca explained.

Ricca noted that depending how the cut scores are set, the district could show marked improvement or not. He said that holding back the test scores was “unfortunate and a challenge for school district.” He noted  it increased stress for students and parents alike.

“People want to know where they are.”

WPCNR notes that before the new state Common Core assessments began in 2013,replacing previous state testing,  the previous tests were criticized by colleges and business for not measuring performance accurately because of students being unprepared for college and not as prepared for jobs.

In those state tests before 2013, cut scores for a passing grade could be set low by the state to give the indication more students were competent in English or Math. (Cut scores were never revealed to the public). When Common Core assessments debuted, achievement gaps for minority students compared to white students which had closed to within 10%, dropped substantially, calling into question whether the earlier assessments were scored too leniently. Not only did minority scores drop, the scores of white students plummeted, too.

The 2017-18 New York State assessments are the first tests created for the NYSED by Quesar, its new test contracter which replaced Pearson, the world wide creator of assessments, which created the previous tests reflecting Common Core standards which were criticized by parents, teachers, Superintendents and politicians.

WPCNR has contacted the New York State Council of School Superintendents for a statement on the problems, if any, caused by the State Education Depart delay in scoring the 2017-18 tests.

WPCNR SCHOOL DAYS. By John F. Bailey. August 8, 2018:

The scores of State English and Math Assessment tests from the State Education usually released to the School Districts and public by the first week of August will not have the results until “mid or late September.”

The State Education Department told WPCNR , District administrators statewide were provided “raw scores in June so as not to affect curriculum planning for the 2018-19 school year. The raw scores were not released to the public at that time.

After  WPCNR inquired about the tardiness of the results, the New York State Education Department Communications Department which issued this statement on why the results were delayed:

 ”At its June 2017 meeting, the Board of Regents voted to reduce the number of sessions of the grades 3-8 State assessments in ELA and mathematics from three days each to two.

This change took effect beginning with the assessments administered in spring 2018 and applied to grades 3-8.

The Department shortened the tests in a manner that still provides for the valid and reliable measurement of student achievement of the standards.

As a result of the decision, New York State educators will review the performance standards this summer. Given the need for this standards review, the statewide scores will be released in mid-to-late September.

We anticipate the delay to only affect this year’s release.       

School districts will receive their score information just prior to the public statewide release, as is standard practice each year.

We had hoped to be able to provide the results to individual districts before the start of the school year; however, it was determined in January that the  schedule would have to be delayed slightly, to mid-to-late September this year because of the change in testing format.

     Please also note: In early June, instructional reports, based upon the raw score results, for the 2018 Grades 3-8 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Testing Program were made available for schools and districts. The reports are used by schools and districts for summer curriculum-writing and professional development activities. This early release provides educators additional time to use the results to plan for the upcoming school year.”

“School districts will receive their score information just prior to the public statewide release, as is standard practice each year.

We had hoped to be able to provide the results to individual districts before the start of the school year; however, it was determined in January that the  schedule would have to be delayed slightly, to mid-to-late September this year because of the change in testing format.

Please also note: In early June, instructional reports, based upon the raw score results, for the 2018 Grades 3-8 English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics Testing Program were made available for schools and districts

The reports are used by schools and districts for summer curriculum-writing and professional development activities. This early release provides educators additional time to use the results to plan for the upcoming school year.”

This year the State Education Depart put out an extensive news release saying how the new 2018 assessments have been adjusted ti address those concerns.

The State Education Department told parents and “stakeholders” prior to administering the state tests in the spring that the 2018 would be improved based on the widespread criticisms of the 2016- 2017 assessments by parents, teachers, administrators and state representatives. A new test creating firm was hired. Teachers were included in formulating the 2018 tests. In a WHAT PARENTS NEED TO KNOW section on the NYSED website, parents were told the following changes to the tests

1. Fewer Test Sessions

2.Untimed tests

3.Test questions reviewed and written by New York State Teachers

4.Providing Results for Teachers and Improved Resources for Parents

5. Computer-Based Testing.

The delay in the results at least to the public is unfortunate since the first administration of the new Assessments are a test of state officials, teachers, as well as the students.

Whether the skills tested and the prowess of students’ abilities to answer and handle the new tests with more acceptable success that shows students are getting the material, just were tested wrong is at stake here.

This result will be test of the state education experts ability to devise a test that is both comprehensive to students taking them and reflective of education officials’ judgment of an effective, fair tests.

WPCNR OBSERVATIONS. By John F. Bailey. Reprinted from the WPCNR Archives. August 6, 2018:

Seventy-three years ago today in 1945, the Enola Gay, a single American bomber dropped an Atomic bomb on the city of Hiroshima, Japan.

The terrible effects of that single bomb are a horror that has never been repeated

A second bomber, Bock’s Car on August 9, dropped another atomic bomb on Nagasaki.

Unknown thousands of Japanese citizens’ lives were vaporized, burned,  and maimed and two cities leveled to the ground in an instant in both bombings.

To grasp what one atomic bomb did to Nagasaki. Readers may see the photographs Japanese photographer Yosuki Yamato took of the aftermath of Nagasaki the day it happened at http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/photos.html#journey/63.jpg

The decision to drop the bombs was made after the United States, Great Britain and the Republic of China demanded Japan  surrender in the Potsdam Declaration on July 26 or face  ”prompt and utter destruction”.

The Japanese government did not surrender.

The United States deployed two nuclear weapons  dropping one on Hiroshimi, 73 years ago today and one on Nagasaki on August 9.

Over four months the bombs resulted in the deaths of   90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, half dying the day the bombs fell.

The Hiroshima prefecture health department estimated that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness.

In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizable garrison.

The horror of those two bombings and the aftermath, the injuries created have resulted in an effort and reluctance on the part of nuclear-armed powers to avoid any nuclear attacks since that date.

Within a few days of those bombings, Japan surrendered unconditionally, officially ending World War II.

The decision to use the bombs by the United States has long been debated. A dialogue on what the bombs did, why the decision was made was collected in 1995, the fiftieth year since the bombings. It is available at http://www.exploratorium.edu/nagasaki/commentary/decision.html