Reformers Win in California Grad Union Election By Barry Eidlin Labor Notes May 10 2011 http://labornotes.org/print/blogs/2011/05/reformers-win- california-grad-union-election Graduate workers across the University of California have voted to transform their union. The Academic Workers for a Democratic Union slate swept all 10 executive board positions and nearly 60 percent of Joint Council positions in United Auto Workers Local 2865. The local is the largest graduate worker union in the country and the largest UAW local in the West, representing 12,000 academic student workers at nine UC campuses. AWDU ran a hard-fought campaign against the incumbent leadership, which dubbed itself United for Social and Economic Justice. The campaign itself was tough, but getting the votes counted was even tougher. When it looked like USEJ might lose, the elections committee abruptly suspended the vote count last week and abandoned the ballots. Only in the face of marches, petitions, a sit-in in the union office, political pressure, and national media exposure did the committee resume the count. AWDU won 55 percent of the vote statewide and up to 90 percent on some campuses. Its presidential candidate, Cheryl Deutsch, a second-year grad student in anthropology at UC Irvine, garnered 56 percent of 3,241 votes cast, a record turnout in a union where members have largely been uninvolved. AWDU formed in early 2010 out of frustration with that lack of involvement and with the union’s absence from the movement to defend public education, which has at times been heated on UC campuses. The reform movement picked up steam in late 2010, when members mobilized (unsuccessfully) for a 'no' vote on what they saw as a substandard contract negotiated with little member input. Last month, AWDU campaigned on a platform of fighting for public education through grassroots, bottom-up organizing. "We believe only a participatory, bottom-up union can get UC’s priorities back on track," Deutsch said. The new leadership is making plans to build a more member- driven, movement-oriented union. On top of fighting massive cuts to public education and developing new strategies for contract enforcement, the local is also gearing up for a major campaign to organize more than 10,000 UC graduate research assistants. For more information, go to awdu.org . [Barry Eidlin is a sociology grad student at Berkeley.]
Monday, May 23, 2011
Reformers Win in California Grad Union Electio
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Technology Will Destroy Teacher Unions
Terry Moe was a huge promoter of Edison Schools 10 years ago and teamed up with Edison executive John Chubb to write a book promoting market-based education. Edison failed. Both those characters should get "fool me twice shame on me" treatment and be treated with suspicion and skepticism now -- how do they just get to continue pontificating as if they had credibility?
On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 5:28 PM, Leonie Haimson <leonie@att.net> wrote:
Fortune Magazine
Innovation in Education
The real threat to teachers unionsStanford's Terry MoeFORTUNE -- What are the most reviled institutions in America? Next to big banks and oil companies, it's probably the teachers unions. The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have more than 4 million members between them and spend tens of millions on lobbying and other political activities every year. Legislators in both parties are moving to reduce their bargaining power and limit their pension booty. Last year's ballyhooed documentary Waiting for Superman makes teachers union leaders look like Al Capone with a picket sign. Parents demand to know why Billy and Susie's lousy first-grade teacher gets lifelong job protection when assembly-line workers are laid off by the thousands.Roiling debates in state capitals across the land demonstrate a backlash against the unions. But a new book by Terry Moe argues that it's technology, not politics, that will be their undoing. Moe is a political science professor at Stanford and has long been a leading advocate for charter schools and vouchers. Special Interest is in part a solid history of the rise of the unions not so long ago -- in the 1960s and '70s. But the book's analysis of sweeping trends is what's most compelling. Moe says legislative reforms like No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top "are small things by comparison, and they can be blocked." By contrast, "education technology is a tsunami that is only now beginning to swell." Unions "can't stop it, although they will try."·Moe, 61, is talking about the web, fast connections, improved screens, and a growing consensus that there are truly superstar teachers. He says cheap technology will massively substitute for expensive labor. Geography and economic disparity will become irrelevant for teaching -- and that means teachers "no longer need to be concentrated in districts." These transformative, entrepreneurial changes -- a "historical accident, a force from the outside" -- will "undermine the very foundations of union power." Since teachers can be anywhere -- and there will be fewer of them -- it'll be harder for unions to organize.Imagine your high-schooler learning American history from a teacher in Milwaukee and calculus from someone in Boston. Interactive software will facilitate tailored instruction, but it won't require a human in front of a classroom for every 23.138 students. States will still oversee such virtual learning. And even with online learning, students will still attend physical schools.It's not all fantasy. That "hybrid" approach is already in place. Pilot curriculums in different cities, like the Rocketship program in San Jose that Moe discusses, are experimenting with computerized individualized instruction.Moe's predictions and prescriptions may or may not happen. Nobody knows whether depersonalized learning works in the long run, notwithstanding a generation of kids facile with keyboards. The notion that a middle-school boy in front of a computer is going to be productive might make some parents (like me) chortle. And the teachers unions themselves have already lodged challenges, political and judicial, to virtual learning. Even so, Moe's book offers hope that the public education system may yet be changing.
NY Times School Mural
Classes Come and Go, but the Mural Grows and Grows
By FERNANDA SANTOSIt began in the fall of 2006 with a palm-size magnet, the kind you might find holding a calendar to a refrigerator door. The magnet pictured a Norman Rockwell illustration of “Rosie the Riveter” sitting on a stool, her gaze trained over her right shoulder, a sandwich in her left hand.
Thomas J. Buxton, an English teacher at the school, William McKinley Intermediate School 259 in Dyker Heights, had received the magnet as a gift from a student and brought it to class one day, along with a book depicting the paintings by Michelangelo on the Sistine Chapel ceiling. He zeroed in on a picture of Isaiah the prophet and the students immediately noted the similarities: his eyes turned in the same direction as Rosie’s, their posture and expression essentially identical.
Something clicked, Mr. Buxton would say years later, and all of a sudden his students found pleasurable meaning in the day’s lecture on the many ways art seeps into popular culture.
“I think I’ve got a hook here,” Mr. Buxton, 63, recalled realizing at the time. He teamed up with the school’s art teacher, Roma Karas, to get the students to paint what they learn in class.
The mural started on the third floor of the school, between the two doors that lead to the library, with paintings from New York City in the 1930s to go with a lesson on the Great Depression.
It was never meant to be more than a year’s project, but something Mr. Buxton said he noticed in the students who had been working on it made him extend it for another year, and then another, and then another, and then another.
Shy students became more outgoing and rowdy students became more introspective, he said. Students who had never before visited a museum or browsed through an art book found themselves painting the Art Deco borders that frame many of the pictures or gluing mosaic tiles together above a water fountain to form an image of Aphrodite, the Greek goddess of love.
In a school of roughly 1,400 students, most of whom come from poor or immigrant homes, the mural “ushered the kids into a world they never knew existed,” said Mr. Buxton, who has been a teacher for 39 years.
“It’s like they can’t get enough of it,” he said.
Maham Abbas, 13, who is in seventh grade, arrives at the school before classes start every morning to work on the mural. Caroline Johnston, 13, who is in eighth grade, comes by on Saturday mornings, joining former students of Mr. Buxton’s who volunteer their time on weekends to help the students paint. Victor Rivera, 14, also an eighth grader, stays after class to cut into shape the plywood boards where the paintings are made and drill them into the walls.
After her parents moved to Staten Island, Jenny Ramirez, 14, who is in eighth grade, refused to leave the school because of the mural. Rime Nakhlawi, 13, who is in seventh grade, said as she sauntered out of Mr. Buxton’s class one recent afternoon, “It feels like we’re in a museum!”
The school covers the cost of the mural, which includes overtime pay for certain teachers; one of them must come in early or stay late to monitor and guide the students at work.
“I could buy more books, more computers, but the money is better spent this way,” said the principal, Janice Geary. “Our kids aren’t exposed to a lot of the things privileged kids are. We’re giving them an experience they would never have had.”
Mr. Buxton’s classroom looks like a construction zone. There’s a drill on his table, a jigsaw in a cabinet out back, a level on the floor and sketches on the walls. Students are assigned to work in the mural in seventh grade, and the decade of the 1930s has been a recurring element of the paintings every year, an unspoken homage to the decade the school was built.
For Year 2, the theme was the influences of Greek mythology in 1930s architecture; the naked Hermes that figures on a relief sculpture at Rockefeller Center appears in the mural on the passenger seat of a 1930 Chrysler 70 roadster, wearing a cape.
The mural is now on its fifth year, its paintings connecting the Italian Renaissance to the Harlem Renaissance.
It has more than 600 poems and essays from the students. It has used 1,300 feet of plywood and countless tubes of acrylic paint. The smallest of the paintings is 5½ feet high; the tallest rises 16 feet on the stairwell leading to the gym. To make it, the students took a Thomas Hart Benton’s painting called “July Hay” and transformed it based on the words of Robert Frost’s “Road Not Taken.” The result was a man on a hay field, his back to the spectator, contemplating a fork in a road.
Mr. Buxton is already making plans to continue the mural in the school year that begins in the fall. He wants to do a 100-foot painting honoring the first responders who died on Sept. 11, 2001, retaining the connection that the project has always had to works of art and literature.
Every Tuesday, education beat reporters for The New York Times take you inside the New York City schools, public and private. Have a tip? Send it to IntheSchools@nytimes.com.
Despicable charter industry tactics in Albany - Mailings encouraged voters to reject public school district budget
Charter link in Albany fliers
Mailings encouraged voters to reject public school district budget
By SCOTT WALDMAN Staff writer
Updated 11:33 p.m., Tuesday, May 17, 2011
After voting, Richard Poulopoulos of Albany, left, chats with election inspectors Carol Carpenter and John Deyoe on Tuesday, May 17, 2011, at Eagle Point Elementary in Albany, N.Y. (Cindy Schultz / Times Union)
At least three separate fliers were sent to Albany residents in the last two weeks that encouraged voters to reject the school budget and intentionally exaggerated a tax rate increase to mislead voters. A telephone push poll also asked city residents leading questions including if they were fed up with tax increases and wasteful spending.
A postal record, obtained by a Times Union Freedom of Information request, lists the customer who paid for the mailings as "School Performance." Tom Carroll, who founded the Brighter Choice Foundation -- which supports all of the city's 11 charter schools -- is on the board of School Performance Inc., according to the most recent public records available. Chris Bender, executive director of Brighter Choice, has also served on the School Performance board.
Two mailings sent out by Mail Works, a direct to mail company, went to 32,178 city residents, records show. Postage alone cost $6,766. However, the total cost spent by the charter affiliate to defeat the Albany budget is likely far greater because a third mailing went out and the push poll was conducted over a few weeks. The professionally printed cards could have also cost thousands of dollars.
Albany's charter schools are currently reimbursed about $12,000 per student by the Albany school district. A defeat of the budget would have no effect on the charter schools, which received $30 million in Albany taxpayer money this school year.
Albany Superintendent Ray Colucciello said the mailings show voters that some charter operators would stoop to a clandestine attack just to harm the public schools. He said that it will make it harder to have collaboration with charter schools in the future.
"How can you work together with someone who would try to defeat the resources for 8,500 kids?" he said.
Colucciello said the sneak attack could turn public sentiment against charter leaders who don't even live in the city. Tuesday, some voters at the polls echoed that sentiment.
"I think the budgets are fine, I'm just wondering where all these mystery, highly expensive fliers are coming from," said Vincent Thomas of Albany. "It just makes people very uncomfortable. If there's going to be this kind of money put into voting in non-partisan elections, then there needs to be disclosure."
Bender, who was compensated $217,000 in 2009, lives in Loudonville and Carroll, who earned $328,000 in 2009, lives in Clifton Park.
Carroll did not respond to requests for comment and Bender has denied that the Brighter Choice Foundation was involved in the mailings. Though that is technically true because School Performance is a separate entity, the organization has received a significant amount of money from Albany's charter schools. Its board members also run many of Albany's charter schools.
School Performance, which provides management services to Albany's charter schools, is listed as being funded entirely by public money on its 2009 tax return. Some of the money for the organization has come from Albany's charter schools, which means Albany taxpayers may have supported an entity that has encouraged them to vote down the district's $206.5 million budget proposal. Money has been contributed to School Performance by the Walton Family Foundation, the charitable arm of Wal-Mart.
The battle between charter schools and traditional district schools has become pitched this year, particularly as revenues dwindle. City school officials lobbied against a proposal to grant charter schools access to low-interest public financing for new building projects and the district is the only one in the state that refuses to pay the state-mandated charter reimbursement rates, which were raised this school year. Albany's charter reimbursement rate is $14,072, but the district is only paying the previous rate of $11,712 per student.
On its tax form, the stated mission of School Performance is "the fostering of the academic performance of students." The organization has also received a number of no-bid contracts for test-grading services with Albany's charter schools. Carroll has described School Performance as a BOCES-like organization that allows charter schools to bundle educational services.
Reach Waldman at 454-5080 or swaldman@timesunion.com.
Monday, May 16, 2011
How I Beat The DOE’s Phony Charges, Exposed The Bad Cops Of OSI and OEO, And Ripped Lying Witness On Cross-Examination At My 3020-a Hearing … And Still Got Fined $10,000
BOOMERANG
How I Beat The DOE’s Phony Charges, Exposed The Bad Cops Of OSI and OEO, And Ripped Lying Witness On Cross-Examination At My 3020-a Hearing … And Still Got Fined $10,000.
By Philip Nobile
Four substantiated cases: all tossed
After three years in suspension and seven days of hearings last fall, Arbitrator Roger P. Kaplan squashed two corporal punishment charges that removed me from the the Cobble Hill School of American Studies in 2007 as “a danger to children.”
The Arbitrator also rebuffed a third complaint that I uttered a “racist remark” in Brooklyn’s Chapel Street Temporary Reassignment Center. A black teacher named Richard Walker was kidding around, or so I thought, when he asked me a question including the word Negroes. In reply, I repeated the term in the same tone. My usage, but not his, was instantly blown up into a full-fledged race incident. Suddenly, I was Imus in the rubber room.
In a deserved rebuke of Cobble Hill Principal Kenneth Cuthbert and the Chancellor’s Office of Special Investigations, DOE lawyers declined to charge me on a substantiated but malodorous fourth complaint regarding some Christmas cards sent from the rubber room to my colleagues back at Cobble Hill in 2008. As Chapter Leader, it was my custom to send handmade XMAS greetings to chapter members. Mr. Cuthbert stooped to smear four of my cards, copies of Barry Blitt’s parodic New Yorker illustration of the Obamas as the father and daughter in Grant Wood’s American Gothic, as “racist” and/or “threatening.” The nimrod OSI investigator, since retired, endorsed Mr. Cuthbert’s analysis after walking out of our interview in a snit. I protested to Superintendent Linda Waite who had the power to accept or discard OSI’s report. Apparently, I convinced her that the race charge was a stinker. Julianne Newman, the DOE lawyer who prosecuted me, said that the case was tossed as “too subjective.” Translation: too Ken Cuthbert.
On top of explicit acquittals for corporal punishment and discrimination, the Arbitrator took swipes at the DOE’s arguments, disparaged their gendarmes, and, in his fashion, implied that three of their vengeful witnesses committed perjury. So whence the $10,000 fine?
A fondness for split verdicts
In the Bermuda Triangle of Education Law 3020-a, which regulates the discipline of tenured teachers and administrators, strange things obtain. One of the most vexing is the inordinate fondness for split verdicts. My first union lawyer Yvonne Mariette had only one acquittal and one termination in five years. My second union lawyer Kathy Battle had but one acquittal and a handful of terminations in more than five years.
It is said, and statistics confirm, that Arbitrators are predisposed to cutting the toddler in two because their annual contracts can be vetoed by either the DOE or the union. Ms. Mariette concurred that all three charges were bogus, but predicted that I would go down on one. When asked why, she deadpanned, “Because there are three of them.”
All along my defense plan was to go on the offense, to expose the DOE’s bad faith and bad cops. In light of the Delegate Assembly’s May ’09 resolution condemning OSI for framing chapter leaders and dissident teachers, I saw my hearings as chance to put the DOE on trial.
The union lawyers balked. It’s not the right venue, Ms. Mariette said. What was the right venue? She had no answer. Ms. Battle said that she would not allow me to make the corruption argument in my direct testimony either. Before I could fire these warriors, they withdrew from the case. I got my wish. I always intended to represent myself. The temptation to interrogate my accusers was irresistible. I might have stepped aside for a mad dog advocate. I pushed and pushed, but the UFT refused to help fight the madness my way.
Consider Specification 1, wherein on May 10, 2007 I allegedly “a) Grabbed Student A by the arm” and “b) Pushed Student A toward the classroom door.” From the beginning I affirmed a harmless grab while attempting to quell a major classroom disruption inflamed by a large, deeply disturbed 10th grade girl who had made a recent death threat. I denied the push and the Arbitrator believed me. He wisely judged that the fleeting grasp of Student A did not fit the Chancellor’s Regulation defining corporal punishment as “any act of physical force upon a pupil for the purpose of punishing that pupil.” Thus he concluded: “Nobile did not violate A-420 by imposing corporal punishment on Student A.”
Nevertheless, he went hardcore on me: “[Nobile’s] use of physical force on Student A was totally unacceptable. That is so even if A thought it was no big deal.” Thus a split verdict: innocent of a punitive push, but guilty, guilty, guilty of a non-punitive grab--which under Chancellor’s Regulations does not rise to chargeable misconduct!
“negro” is not a Racist Term
An even finer bifurcation occurred in Specification 3, in which the DOE accused me of stating “words to the effect of: (a) I will control those Negroes at that table (referring to a table containing African-Americans).” Note the qualifier—“words to the effect of”—meaning that the DOE was vague as to what I actually said.
Where did DOE lawyers come up with that paraphrase? It was not in the findings of the original report from the Chancellor’s Office of Equal Opportunity. OEO officer William Brewton offered a different construction of my remark: “This investigation has substantiated that by stating, in sum and substance, ‘I’m going to tell these Negroes to quiet down,’ Mr. Nobile violated Chancellor’s Regulation A-830.” (emphasis in original) Note the switch from “control” to “quiet down” and the continuation of a qualifier.
The conflict in language sprang from two versions of the incident—the complainant’s and mine. The black teacher told OEO that I approached him in the rubber room on October 21, 2009 and just blurted out: “I will control those Negroes at that table.” Nothing more. I told OEO a different story: the teacher asked me first, “Are you going to tell those Negroes to quiet down?” referring to a noisy faraway table and my periodic requests to lower the volume in our overcrowded space. And I replied, “No, I’m going to tell these Negroes to quiet down,” referring to an often noisier nearby table where he sat.
Although the OEO investigator and the DOE lawyers could not agree on my verb--whether the polite “quiet down” or the uppity “control,” they were unanimous that “Negroes” was discriminatory, though they cited no evidence of its supposed racist tinge. The Chancellor’s General Counsel Michael Best signed off on OEO’s damning report and Supt. Waite condemned me to racial rehab via OEO’s online training, warning me in writing that the incident could “lead to your termination of employment.”
Granted the preponderance of indecision around my remark, the Arbitrator himself hedged on my exact saying. On page thirty-one of his thirty-eight-page decision, he wrote: “Nobile acknowledged saying words to the effect I am going to control those Negroes.” Yet four pages later, without explanation or proof, he erased the ambiguity for strict literalism:
While [Nobile’s] statement did not contain a racial epithet, that does not mean it was an appropriate statement in the workplace. Nobile was an employee just like the other people in the Center. He was not in a position of authority. He had no right to control any group of employees. He also did not have the right to announce in a loud voice that he was going to control any group of employees. … Specification 3 is sustained.
Horse feathers. First, my statement related to manners, not authority. The Arbitrator zinged the DOE for neglecting the context behind “Negroes” (e.g., “Nobile’s use of the word Negroes should have been considered by the Department in the context in which it was made.”), yet ignored the context of control. Anyone has the right to request a zone of relative peace and quiet from admittedly rowdy colleagues in the workplace without being impugned and fined for overbearing behavior management as imagined by the Arbitrator.
Second, the DOE neither placed quotes around control in the text of Specification 3, nor did the prosecutor subsequently argue in the hearing that I said the word, nor did she distinguish between the alleged verb (control) and admitted noun (Negroes) at any time. My supposed “racist remark,” the gravamen of Specification 3, was never chopped into parts of speech. Once the Arbitrator killed the racism charge as “unconvincing,” even citing the Supreme Court in my defense, Specification 3 should have been dismissed outright.
Third, the Arbitrator’s skewed finding rested entirely on the testimony of a perjurer. The teacher swore on direct that he did not “recall” posing the Negro question first. But minutes later on cross-examination he miraculously recalled that he did not initiate an exchange and righteously denied saying Negro, ever:
I would never use that terminology, okay. This is a problem that's system wide in the Department of Education. They allow the young people to run around the school using the "nigger" word. Now I don't like that. Thusly, I would never use Negro either because I feel that that's offensive, too. So I would never use that word.
The teacher lied about baiting me. “I find that [the teacher] did make the statement first to Nobile,” concluded the Arbitrator. Two African American rubber roommates swore that they heard the teacher ask me about Negroes on the fateful day and two said that he used “nigger” in conversations with them. If the teacher lied about speaking first and using “Negro” and “nigger,” why would the Arbitrator grant him absolute credence on control?
The incident that never was
Thanks to the ludicrous testimony of paraprofessional Michelle Williams, the second corporal punishment case collapsed. According to Specification 2, I allegedly “a) Grabbed Student D by the arm and b) Pushed Student D into a wall.” This incident began with a mini-riot among seniors on May 29, 2007. Mr. Cuthbert did not alert the Online Occurrence Reporting System as required by Chancellor’s Regulations, nor did he inform the police of my assault complaint against Student D, also mandated by Chancellor’s Regulations. At the next Safety Committee meeting he congratulated himself for covering up the fight. His secretary’s meticulous minutes read: “Mr. Cuthbert said that the alternative for the students involved in the fight was having a stain on their records, because of the severity of the fight.” My record, however, was suitable for splotching. Without bothering to interview me, he hastened to input my alleged manhandling of Student D, which of course never happened.
The OSI probe was a fiasco. According to the interview notes of investigator Dennis Boyles, the same ex-NYPD detective who botched the Student A case, Student D said that he “was standing with” Safety Agents Philip Joseph and Nichelle Medina “when Mr. Nobile grabbed and pulled his arm.” But the two agents told Boyles that they saw no such contact. Math teacher Julio Sanchez, who joined me in breaking up the melee, confirmed their observation. But there was a fourth adult witness and she had a motive to lie. Ms. Williams was nursing a grudge because OSI dumped her cockamamie complaint that I had verbally abused her son earlier in the year. Alone, the Student A case was insufficient for suspension. At worst, it would generate a letter to my file. Ms. Williams’ added allegation was the tipping point, an excuse to suspend me first, two days before the end of school, and find the evidence later. “In view of the fact that Mr. Nobile was the subject of two OSI corporal punishment cases, OSI recommended that Mr. Nobile be reassigned,” Mr. Boyles wrote in his report. But hree years later, the Arbitrator scorched her false witness in scathing terms:
The Department urged the undersigned to credit Ms. Williams’ account of what happened between Student D and Mr. Nobile. I am unable to do so. There are major credibility problems with Williams’ testimony. … Williams’ testimony did not hold up under cross-examination. Her version of events was internally inconsistent. Her note to Cuthbert [recounting D’s complaint] did not indicate that she saw Nobile make contact with Student D. If she had seen Nobile push Student D, she would have said so in her note. The discrepancy between her note and her testimony is fatal to her credibility. … Nobile immediately and consistently denied grabbing and pushing Student D. He immediately formally complained about Student D assaulting him. There is every reason to believe Nobile, and several reasons not to believe Williams and student D. Specification 2 is not sustained.
The Masseuse from osi
As for the integrity of OSI’s corporal punishment inquiries, the Arbitrator mildly echoed my objections to Boyles’ m.o. and took a soft shot at the DOE for relying on his work product:
Nobile claimed that Boyles was biased against him. While I find no reason to conclude that Boyles was intentionally biased, there are discrepancies in Boyles’ handwritten notes and his investigative report which raise questions about how the Department would have handled this allegation had it been privy to both Boyles’ notes and report.
A stricter Arbitrator might have pointed out that the prosecutor had the same pre-hearing access to Boyles’ notes as I did. She read what I read and could have dropped Specification 2 owing to Boyle’s obvious mishandling of the evidence. Instead she put him on the stand as a reliable witness. Contrary to the Arbitrator, Boyles’ bias was unmistakable. For example, the difference between what Mr. Sanchez said in the interview notes and what Boyles wrote in his report casts suspicion on his professional ethics. According to Boyles’ handwritten notes, Mr. Sanchez exculpated me:
He did not see Mr. Nobile pull [Student D] when it was all over & [D] was against the wall.
This pinpoint testimony, directly contradicting Ms. Williams, was missing from Boyles’ report. A fair and honest investigator surely would have cited it in my favor. On cross-examination I inquired into this key deletion as far as the Arbitrator allowed. Boyles’ answer was laughable:
Boyles: Again, when you write your notes and then when you write the report, sometimes you change things to make it somewhat clearer or it reads better, but I believe that the facts given to me by Mr. Sanchez are all included in my report.
Nobile: How does it make it clearer by not writing [Mr. Sanchez] did not see Nobile pull [Student D] when he was, when it was all over--
Ms. Newman: [Interposing] I'm going to object. Now we're in an argument-
Nobile: --and when he was against the wall. How is that clearer?
Arbitrator: Mr. Nobile, you're arguing with the witness.
Plainly, Boyles had tried to fix the Student D case. By ignoring the significance of the agents’ and Mr. Sanchez’s statements on one hand and exalting Ms. Williams’ incriminations on the other, he succeeded … for three years.
The principal’s conscience
OSI cops do not wag the dog. Mr. Cuthbert could have defied Mr. Boyles and saved me from suspension. But that would have been out of character. The mercy bestowed on the rioting students was not extended to me. After I initiated a presciently unflattering staff survey on his leadership in February 2007, I was Chapter Leader non grata. Breaking the contract, he declined to meet with the Chapter Committee and me the entire second semester and rudely threw me out of his office three times when he became befuddled. Mr. Metzler, a stand-up guy unlike Mr. Slater, was witness to one of these meltdowns and wrote it up at my request: “The hearing of Mr. Nobile and Mr. Cuthbert was called to an early adjournment by Mr. Cuthbert when out of the blue, he declared ‘this meeting is over’. In addition, he refused to read any documents that Mr. Nobile handed him and yet wouldn't listen when Mr. Nobile read aloud. His demeanor was uncooperative, antagonistic and could only be interpreted as hostile towards Mr. Nobile.”
Where do I go from here? To State Supreme Court in Brooklyn to vacate the Arbitrator’s too Solomonic decision and $10,000 fine. If I win, I will shed ATR status and in theory have the right of return to Cobble Hill. But prosecutor Julianne Newman advised me that such restoration was out, saying that the Principal did not want me back. That is hard to believe. Once it sinks in that Ms. Williams lied about Student D and me and that my short-lived grab of Student A did not amount to corporal punishment, in good conscience he will feel compelled to apologize and call me home, even though he was kicked upstairs to mentor Principal after NCLB rated him Unsatisfactory.
P.S. I now ATR at Abraham Lincoln High School in Coney Island.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
The Myth of the Bad Teacher
http://jaxkidsmatter.blogspot.com/2011/01/myth-of-bad-teacher.html
by: Adam Bessie
In this political season of faux anti-establishment anger born of very real economic desperation, public educators have become the villain du jour, their reputations collateral damage in the war against "big government." In a remarkable slight of hand, the super rich who imploded the economy, manufacturing the recession which now enrages the public, have successfully misdirected the public's justifiable anger away from them and toward teachers.
This anti-teacher rage is focused on the mythical cartoon character the "Bad Teacher," who - according to the recent explosion in press on education generated by the documentary "Waiting for Superman" - plagues our public schools. The Bad Teacher is no one specific, but rather, a sort of free-floating, ill-defined stereotype: he is an inept, uncaring, self-interested bureaucrat waiting for his pension, not only disinterested in students, but actively engaged in standing in the way of student achievement, rather than encouraging it. I imagine the Bad Teacher as slovenly dressed, with stains on his shirt, showing up to class late, and once there, reading the newspaper while his students throw paper airplanes at each other. He looks up at the clock occasionally, waiting for his time to be up in order get out of school as fast as possible, so he can get home and watch "Glee" on his plump, faux-leather couch. Or he could be a really "Bad Teacher," such as the one soon to be depicted in a 2011 movie of the same name, which is focused on a "foul-mouthed, junior high teacher who, after being dumped by her sugar daddy, begins to woo a colleague - a move that pits her against a well-loved teacher."
All alone, the Bad Teacher is single-handedly, with one lazy bound, destroying a generation.
The corporate media has unabashedly promoted this myth as fact. According to Oprah, the Bad Teacher is everywhere, royally screwing up classrooms across America. In "The Shocking State of Our Schools," a promotional piece on Oprah's web site for the documentary, she claims that the students featured in the film are "eager to get an education," but have to fight their way through a "system riddled with ineffective teachers." NBC stalwart Tom Brokaw echoes Oprah, though he broadens the Bad Teacher to a sort of systematic educational conspiracy to ensure students don't learn, in a recent report for Education Nation. Doing his best impression of Glenn Beck, he asks a new teacher if she has met resistance from "the teacher establishment," authoritatively confirming to any naysayers that "there is one," consisting of "unions" and veteran teachers. In Brokaw's "balanced" view, the teacher establishment is set firmly against students, not there to serve them.
Bill Gates, interviewed approvingly by Brokaw in that report, expresses the same message in his speech to the American Federation of Teachers, though far less explicitly. He notes that public schools have been "struggling for decades," and then a few paragraphs later, claims, "the single most decisive factor in student achievement is excellent teaching." In other words, the single most decisive factor for public schools' failures is the teachers. Gates has committed $500 million of his own money, through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, to more definitively identify the precise ingredients that compose a good teacher and, thus, by contrast, the Bad Teacher, who will then be fixed as though he's an annoying bug to be rooted out in the latest edition of Windows.
"In the past five years, that attack on public education has ratcheted up to dimensions that were unthinkable 30 years ago," observes educator Bill Ayers (yes, the same Ayers vilified by the right-wing media to prove Obama was really a "terrorist" in the 2008 elections). "And so people talk about the public schools in a way that is disingenuous and dishonest and also frightening in its characterization: they say the schools are run by a group of self-interested, selfish, undertrained, under-committed teachers, who have a union that protects them." This misguided characterization, as Brokaw, Gates and Oprah show us, is no longer a far-right argument, but an accepted fact, a commonplace not subject to dispute.
The myth is now the truth.
The Bad Teacher myth, Ayers admits, is appealing, which is why it's spread so far and become so commonly accepted. Who can, after all, disagree that we "need to get the lazy, incompetent teachers out of the classroom?" Even Ayers agrees that he, like all of us, "nods stupidly" along with this notion. As a professor at a community college and former high school teacher, I nod stupidly as well: I don't want my students held back, alienated, or abused by these Bad Teachers.
This myth is also seductive in its simplicity. It's much easier to have a concrete villain to blame for problems school systems face. The fix seems easy, as well: all we need to do is fire the Bad Teachers, as controversial Washington, DC, school chancellor superstar Michelle Rhee has, and hire good ones, and students will learn. In this light, Gates' effort to "fix" the bug-riddled public school operating system by focusing on teacher development makes perfect sense. The logic feels hard to argue with: who would argue against making teachers better? And if, as a teacher, you do dare to, you must be "anti-student," a Bad Teacher who is resistant to "reforms," who is resistant to improvements and, thus, must be out for himself, rather than the students.
The only problem with the Bad Teacher myth, as anyone involved with education is intimately aware of, is that problems in education are anything but simple. "The discourse of these so-called educational reformers is simplistic and polarizing," as Henry A. Giroux claims in a recent, comprehensive essay on the subject here at Truthout. "It lacks any understanding of the real problems and strengths of public education, and it trades in authoritarian tactics and a discourse of demonization and humiliation." The debate has been reduced to a superhero comic, a simplistic battle between good and evil, a cartoon version of a complex reality. The debate has been reduced to a minor plot point in this election cycle's "anti-establishment" political narrative.
Problems in education don't just rest on the teachers' shoulders, as Gates suggests, just as issues of health don't rest solely on doctors' shoulders (After all, we don't blame doctors for the obesity epidemic, but rather, look to the greater culture, the conditions that encourage overeating and inactivity). This is not to say we shouldn't focus on teacher development. Gates' efforts to systematically improve teacher performance make sense, though they should be led by education professionals, not CEOs.
Yet, this lopsided, cartoonish focus on teachers' performance distracts us from looking at education holistically, as an institution situated in an economy and culture. The myopic focus on eliminating the Bad Teacher obscures the greater problems in the socio-economic fabric - the fabric torn by the super rich in ways that bear directly on student achievement.
As Giroux observes:
Real problems affecting schools such as rising poverty, homelessness, vanishing public services for the disadvantaged, widespread unemployment, massive inequality in wealth and income, overcrowded classrooms and a bankrupt and iniquitous system of school financing disappear in the educational discourse of the super rich.
The Bad Teacher is an effective myth, a convenient scapegoat for ignoring these greater systemic problems that would require real, substantive reform, reform that would threaten the super rich like Gates and others who are bankrolling the corporatization of public education. This myth, while appealing, stands in the way of real educational reform, by misdirecting the public's attention from the socio-economic conditions that make for a poor learning - and living - environment.
http://www.truth-out.org/the-myth-bad-teacher64223
Teacher Reviews Will Put More Focus on State Tests
Posted by Leonie Haimson to NYCEDNews List:
NYS Regents now want to do end run around the law to allow state tests – which were not designed for that purpose – to account for 40% of a teacher’s evaluation, despite all the evidence that test-based value added evals of teachers are unreliable, unfair to teachers and damaging to kids. This system – rushed through the Legislature to get Race to the Top funds - were originally supposed to account for 20%, with another 20% from “local assessments”.
“The new system is scheduled to be used in the coming school year for English and math teachers in Grades 4 through 8, and then for all teachers the following year.”
The article also says there will be new “state tests by 2012-13, for middle school science and social studies, and ninth- and 10th-grade English, where none exist now. “
And then we are supposed to get a whole new raft of standardized tests for the Common Core by 2014? Are these people insane?
Perhaps Shael Suransky thinks he cannot get his proposed 16 new local standardized tests through in this budget climate – and w/out the assent of the UFT – so he is pushing King and Tisch to allow the state tests to be used instead for the whole 40%. Tests, again, that were never designed for this purpose.
All hugely expensive, at a time of rampant budget cuts, at a time when parents are already up in arms at their children’s steady diet of testing and test prep, and all to evaluate teacher performance by means of a dysfunctional method that no one with any expertise believes in. Unbelievable.
SED also posted a new draft of the regs two days before voting on them; this should be illegal in itself.
Cuomo also is using Duncan’s trick to try to bribe districts, saying that “Only those districts that put the evaluation system into effect would be eligible for money from $500 million set aside in the state budget to reward school performance. “ How did the legislature let this $500 million boondoggle go through?
How did things get so bad?
Teacher Reviews Will Put More Focus on State Tests
Published: May 13, 2011
Responding to criticism from Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo and others, state education officials on Friday revised their plans for evaluating teachers so that up to 40 percent of their annual reviews could be based on students’ scores on state standardized tests.
A measure passed last year had outlined 20 percent as the standard.
State officials have been developing the details of a new evaluation system for teachers and principals since legislation was passed last year as part of New York’s successful effort to win a $700 million federal grant.
The regulations are expected to be enacted on Monday by the Board of Regents, the state’s education policy-making body.
“These are not perfect tools by any means,” the chancellor of the Board of Regents, Merryl H. Tisch, said. “But that being said, I believe it is important to have an objective system to evaluate teachers on a professional basis. This is the beginning of such a process.”
After negotiations between state and union officials, the Legislature passed a bill last year that said 60 percent of a teacher’s evaluation would be based on subjective measures like a principal’s observations, a review of student work, or surveys of parents and students; 20 percent on local tests or other assessments; and 20 percent on state tests, potentially rising to 25 percent in subsequent years.
For years, teachers’ unions were bitterly opposed to the use of standardized test scores to measure teacher achievement, and evaluation systems across New York remain inconsistent.
The new system is scheduled to be used in the coming school year for English and math teachers in Grades 4 through 8, and then for all teachers the following year.
Mr. Cuomo, however, has been critical of the law, particularly since March, when he indicated that a high-quality evaluation system had to be in place before he could support a push by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to end seniority protections in layoffs.
Over the last several weeks, the governor’s office lobbied the Regents to make the evaluation system more objective and more comparable across the state’s roughly 700 school districts.
Ms. Tisch said on Friday that all of the governor’s concerns had been addressed in the new draft of the regulations, which essentially put the law into effect.
The new regulations permit local districts to use state test scores for the local-test portion of the evaluation, meaning that in some districts, the state scores could count for 40 percent of a teacher’s rating. State officials said that because such a change would require the agreement of both a local district and the union in the district, it was within the law.
But Richard C. Iannuzzi, the head of the state union, New York State United Teachers, said in a statement on Friday that he was opposed to the revision, calling it “clearly outside the scope of the legislation.”
The new regulations also make other changes. Before, the bar was set so low that teachers could get a passing rating even if their students utterly bungled their standardized tests. The new version makes that nearly impossible.
The regulations also outline plans to create new state tests by 2012-13, for middle school science and social studies, and ninth- and 10th-grade English, where none exist now.
In subjects in which there is no state testing, it would be up to local districts, with state approval, to determine how to judge their teachers against goals established for student performance.
The governor’s office had also expressed concern that it could take years before the evaluation system was in place across the state, because each district must agree to it individually.
So Mr. Cuomo said on Friday that he planned to offer an incentive: Only those districts that put the evaluation system into effect would be eligible for money from $500 million set aside in the state budget to reward school performance.
In a letter to Ms. Tisch on Friday, Mr. Cuomo wrote, “We must not squander the opportunity to set the right course and make New York a leader in evaluating performance in our education system.”
A version of this article appeared in print on May 14, 2011, on page A17 of the New York edition with the headline: Teacher Reviews Will Put More Focus on State Tests.
__._,_.___
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Haimson: Chester Finn Derides Class Size, Favors Computers
Leonie Haimson:
Chester Finn of the conservative Fordham institute attacks the whole notion of the importance of class size in an oped in the Daily news, proposing that putting kids on computers would be more cost-effective and produce better results than providing them with classes where they can get individual help from real live teachers:
Chester Finn of the conservative Fordham institute attacks the whole notion of the importance of class size in an oped in the Daily news, proposing that putting kids on computers would be more cost-effective and produce better results than providing them with classes where they can get individual help from real live teachers:
Technology holds huge potential to magnify the effectiveness of great teachers and customize the educational experience of more students. New York City is experimenting with this potential, and "hybrid" schools around the country are blending face-to-face instruction with high-quality online instruction. No, technology is no panacea, and it does carry some near-term costs. In the long run, though, it will save money for districts and states while also delivering their young people a better - and more modern, and very likely more motivating - education.
There is absolutely no evidence for any positive results for virtual instruction, as a NYT article pointed out a few weeks ago.
Nevertheless, NYC is determined to spend billions of dollars on expanding online learning over the next few years, with $540 million next year to be spent in the capital plan alone just on hardware, software and wiring . This is a huge waste of money and a large scale experiment being heavily promoted by the likes of Bill Gates and Joel Klein, who now heads an arm of Rupert Murdoch’s corporation focused on virtual instruction, as well as lots of the other computer and testing companies, who are drooling over the prospect of making even more money off our kids.
Just yesterday in fact, there was an article showing that the Pentagon rejects volunteers for the military who have HS diplomas from schools that focus on online instruction, and consider them no better than GEDs.
Write a letter to the Daily news, the shorter the better! voicers@edit.nydailynews.com
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Punishing the Victim: DOE’s Approach to Banana Kelly High School
MAY 10, 2011
tags: DOE Neglect
by Norm Fruchter
In December, 2010, the New York State Education Department placed Banana Kelly High School on the State’s list of Persistently Low Achieving (PLA) schools. Many critics, including some of the writers for this blog, have charged the DOE with setting up for failure high schools that struggle with difficult-to-educate student populations. (See, for example, New York City Independent Budget Office. (2011).Demographics, Performance, Resources: Schools Proposed for Closing Compared with Other City Schools. New York: IBO; Bennett, J. (2011). Third Turn of the Screw: The DOE and Closing Schools. New York: United Federation of Teachers, UFT Blog, http://www.uft.org/node/
That seems to be the case with Banana Kelly. The school serves very high proportions of students eligible for free lunch — 72% compared to 58% citywide, very high special education (17%) and ELL populations (17%) – compared to 12% and 13% respectively citywide, and its incoming students have quite low proficiency levels – a 2.63 eighth grade proficiency rating for their entering class, compared to a 2.94 rating citywide.
Worse, between 2006 and 2009, Banana Kelly’s enrollment increased by 60% (291 students to 465 students), its percentage of homeless students went from 2% to 9% (5 homeless students to 40 homeless students), and its four-year graduation rate dropped from 62% to 52%, compared to a citywide increase from 49% to 59%.
When the State Education Department (SED) identifies a school as Persistently Low Achieving (PLA), the city’s Department of Education (DOE) is required to develop an action plan to better support the PLA school’s students. All four of the federal action plan options that the DOE can consider – (1) Transformation, (2) Turnaround, (3) Restart and (4) Closure – require the removal of the principal, and the replacement of half or more of the present teaching staff. On Monday, May 9th, the DOE sent its federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) application to the state. In that application, the DOE defined which option it will impose on Banana Kelly.
The SED identification of Banana Kelly as a PLA school also triggered a “pre-Engagement” process which the DOE is required to convene with the school’s constituencies — staff, parents, students and community — to discuss what should happen to the school. So on the evening of March 31st, Bronx High School Superintendent Papaliberios convened a meeting about the fate of Banana Kelly that packed the school cafeteria with over 200 parents, students, community members, local political figures, and leaders of local educational and social support organizations.
The students, parents, and community members who spoke at the March 31st meeting praised the effectiveness, commitment, and dedication of the school’s principal, Joshua Laub, as well as the teachers and staff of Banana Kelly. All the speakers urged Superintendent Papaliberios take into account, in her recommendations, all the great work that the Banana Kelly principal and staff had accomplished. Below three students recapitulate the testimony they presented.
***********
Aqieb Ahmed, Student
I am currently a senior at Banana Kelly high school, graduating as of June 2011. I was once considered a former LTA ( long-term absentee) student during my sophomore year. I never came to school because I never gave it a chance, and I was easily influenced by negative surroundings and people. My sophomore guidance counselor had gotten deeply worried, had a meeting with me and pushed me to come to school.
The teachers here always take time to help tutor us for our Regents exams after school. They don’t get paid extra to tutor us but they still devote their time to us. They make sure we understand the Regents subjects so we can achieve high scores. My principal Joshua Laub worked hard to create a safe environment for Banana Kelly students; he is like a surrogate father to many.
The option of transforming my school highly disappoints me and angers me. Supposedly Banana Kelly has to be transformed because of our “low graduation rates”. There are a couple of reasons why we have low graduation rates. One, because we are being over-filled with ELLs (English language learners), Special Education students and over-age freshman students. Secondly, we do not have luxuries such as a gym, auditorium, and a library. For our physical education classes we have to walk a block to the Police Athletic League and borrow their gym. We do not even have enough tables and chairs in our school.
There are some classes students wish to have, and some extra-curricular activities and after school programs, but the school can’t afford them. If Banana Kelly was funded properly and the amount of ELL, Special Education and over-age freshman students was limited, I guarantee a dramatic increase in our graduation rates. Why can’t we get support from the Board of Education to overcome these issues and work with us to improve our school, rather than destroy it?
Banana Kelly High School has helped me realize my potential, not only as a student but as a young adult. The teachers have not only taught me subjects like history, mathematics, reading and writing and art, they have equipped me to think about life after high school and what I can achieve. This school is my home and if you take that away from me I have nothing.
The option of transforming my school highly disappoints me and angers me. Supposedly Banana Kelly has to be transformed because of our “low graduation rates”. There are a couple of reasons why we have low graduation rates. One, because we are being over-filled with ELLs (English language learners), Special Education students and over-age freshman students. Secondly, we do not have luxuries such as a gym, auditorium, and a library. For our physical education classes we have to walk a block to the Police Athletic League and borrow their gym. We do not even have enough tables and chairs in our school.
There are some classes students wish to have, and some extra-curricular activities and after school programs, but the school can’t afford them. If Banana Kelly was funded properly and the amount of ELL, Special Education and over-age freshman students was limited, I guarantee a dramatic increase in our graduation rates. Why can’t we get support from the Board of Education to overcome these issues and work with us to improve our school, rather than destroy it?
Banana Kelly High School has helped me realize my potential, not only as a student but as a young adult. The teachers have not only taught me subjects like history, mathematics, reading and writing and art, they have equipped me to think about life after high school and what I can achieve. This school is my home and if you take that away from me I have nothing.
***********
Alejandra Ciriaco, Student
I spoke about the lack of tools to help the school function properly. I mentioned how the school needs a gym and an actual laboratory. I spoke about how the Board of Education expected so much from us even though we lacked many supplies. Banana Kelly is a big family where I have grown into this school.
I spoke about the lack of tools to help the school function properly. I mentioned how the school needs a gym and an actual laboratory. I spoke about how the Board of Education expected so much from us even though we lacked many supplies. Banana Kelly is a big family where I have grown into this school.
A school is like a house. We need bricks to create a house, even though we have the architects and constructors. The bricks are every piece of the environment so that this house will stay strong as to creating a home. We need the bricks to create and to make our dream home to come true.
The moment I talked to the representative [Superintendent Papaliberios], my words came from the heart. The message I said was meant to be heard by everyone. I said those words because there is no reason to destroy the bond between me and my classmates and the teachers at Banana Kelly High School.
Why break hopes and dreams when we can make them come true instead?
Why break hopes and dreams when we can make them come true instead?
***********
Xian Padilla, Student
I attend Banana Kelly High School, and I think that this school is one of the best high schools ever. The teachers are hard-working and really care for the students and their education. This school has the programs and the help you need to succeed in life. During my time here I have taken tests and classes that benefit what I need for my future. The Children’s Aid Society’s program at Banana Kelly has the help you need in subjects like History, Global, Science, Art, Music, cooking class, Math, English, and Health. I pretty much have no complaints towards this school and am looking forward to graduating as a senior this year.
I attend Banana Kelly High School, and I think that this school is one of the best high schools ever. The teachers are hard-working and really care for the students and their education. This school has the programs and the help you need to succeed in life. During my time here I have taken tests and classes that benefit what I need for my future. The Children’s Aid Society’s program at Banana Kelly has the help you need in subjects like History, Global, Science, Art, Music, cooking class, Math, English, and Health. I pretty much have no complaints towards this school and am looking forward to graduating as a senior this year.
The students’ testimony adds their experience to the argument that Banana Kelly’s identification as a PLA school was caused by the DOE’s student assignment policies, combined with its failure to provide the school with the necessary resources. Banana Kelly’s history seems another clear example of the DOE’s tendency not simply to blame the victim, but to create victims and then punish them.
CEC Elections Stopped
|
| ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||
Monday, May 09, 2011
Haimson on Joel Klein's Lies
Godawful piece by Joel Klein in the Atlantic, full of huge whoppers.
During my maiden testimony before the State Assembly, I said that we would end patronage hires, which were notorious under the old system of 32 school districts, run by 32 school boards and 32 superintendents (a 2002 state bill granting Bloomberg mayoral control of the city’s schools abolished the 32 boards). At my mention of patronage, the legislators, like Captain Renault in Casablanca, purported to be “shocked.” Nevertheless, after the hearing, when I went to thank committee members, one took me aside and said: “Listen, they’re trying to get rid of a principal in my district who runs a Democratic club for us. If you protect him, you’ll never have a problem with me.” This kind of encounter was not rare.
What a liar! The CSB’s lost the power to hire and fire in 1996, years before Klein was appointed.
It’s possible for a teacher in New York City to retire at 55 and draw down an annual pension of more than $60,000, plus lifetime health benefits for herself and her family.
Yes , this was what Klein and the mayor approved in return for teacher merit pay!
As a result of backloaded policies like this, after 10 years fewer than 1 percent of teachers leave the system, and after 15 years only about 0.1 percent leave.
What? About 45% of NYC teachers leave after four years!
In my experience, many of the best public-school teachers apply to high-functioning charter schools, even though they usually give up job security, and lifetime health care and pensions, while generally getting a similar or slightly higher salary (although often augmented by modest merit pay). They go because they want to be part of a successful school, where teachers are treated like professionals and not subjected to endless administrative and union micromanagement.
Not true at all! To the extent that some teachers apply to charters it’s for the smaller classes; which he refused to implement despite the law in NYC public schools. To this day, charter schools have trouble recruiting experienced teachers to their schools – and keeping them.
There is so much else that is tripe in this article, it’s unbelievable what a reputable magazine will publish w/out any attempt at fact checking.
Leonie Haimson
Parents Across America/Class Size Matters
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)