Sarah Knopp, a public school teacher in Los Angeles, reports on her union's sit-in at a school board meeting to protest planned layoffs.
March 12, 2009
Los Angeles teachers sit in at a school board meeting to protest planned layoffs (Kim Turner | UTLA)Los Angeles teachers sit in at a school board meeting to protest planned layoffs (Kim Turner | UTLA)
FIFTY TEACHERS along with parent supporters disrupted a Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) School Board meeting March 10 and occupied the boardroom in an attempt to stop a vote on sending out "reduction in force" notices to almost 9,000 district employees.
Claiming a $718 million budget shortfall, the district is threatening to lay off teachers--both permanent and non-permanent--as well as counselors, administrators, custodial and support staff, and other district employees.
The board, led by Monica Garcia--an ally of LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa--slunk out of the boardroom and into an undisclosed location somewhere in the building. There, on display to the public only via a closed-circuit broadcast to the cafeteria of the building, they voted 5-2 to authorize Superintendent Ramon Cortines to send out the notices. Board members Julie Korenstein and Richard Vladovic dissented.
For the United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) members who participated, the action was transformative.
We had planned the civil disobedience in advance, and the union paid for substitutes so that we could attend the board meeting. School board meetings always start at 1 p.m., so teachers attending is usually not possible.
The meetings take place in a room in a fancy glass building in the middle of downtown LA with seating for about 250. There are 740,000 students in LAUSD, so if only one-tenth of 1 percent of parents wanted to participate, the room would need to be three times bigger.
Most of us on the protest were seasoned activists, but when we chanted "One! Don't cut the budget! Two! A little bit louder! Three! We need the money! Four! our students!" for an hour in the hot sun before being permitted into the building, we all felt more angry, more energized and many times more confident than we had at such protests in the past. This time, they'd have to drag us out of there if they wanted to shut us up!
And while most of us were veterans whose jobs were not on the line, we were joined by a handful of probationary teachers who won't be returning next year if the layoffs go through.
We were also joined in our civil disobedience by parents and grandparents who were organized by the community group ACORN. One of the protesters, 83-year-old Julia Botello, has 12 children and more than 30 grandchildren who have gone through the public school system. Four of her granddaughters are now teachers.
Julia had just stepped up to the mic to plead with board members not to make the cuts when they stood up to leave the room for their secret chambers. Later, surrounded by a dozen TV cameras, she said, "I'm calling on the president, the governor, and all those above us to help us...I want them to arrest me, if that's what it takes to be heard."
When the school board left the room, the media stayed. School police were ordered not to arrest teacher-occupiers while the media was still present, so we were never arrested. As UTLA President A.J. Duffy explained to reporters and participants:
Some people say that what we are doing today is improper. Was it improper when they did it in the civil rights movement? Was it improper when César Chávez used civil disobedience to force Gallo wine to meet the demands of the field workers? Isn't this how India won its independence from the British Empire? In fact, this whole country that we love was born out of civil disobedience!
Then, each of the teachers present took turns standing up and explaining what would happen at their schools if the cuts went through. Gym teachers who have used their own paychecks to buy volleyballs, teachers with more than 40 students in remediation classes, and a cohort from a social justice academy at a large high school, afraid to lose the energy, drive and innovation of their newest teachers--all told their stories. Teachers made it clear that layoffs resulting in larger class sizes will be a disaster for students.
Since we had the boardroom occupied, we used the opportunity to debate strategies, tactics and the next actions we could take to escalate the fight and involve more parents and teachers. Afterwards, we joined a support rally outside. Students from three prominent high schools had organized a bus to bring them to the protest. The action drew widespread coverage in the local media..
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
THE SIT-IN was the latest in a series of actions by UTLA in the last few months.
On June 6 of last year, the union organized a one-hour strike to protest state budget cuts targeting schools. The next big action came December 10, when some 10,000 UTLA members demonstrated at seven regional school board offices to protest LAUSD's insulting "last, best, and final offer" that threatened draconian cuts to teachers' health care coverage.
Since then, UTLA and seven other school employee unions have reached a tentative agreement on health care, a deal that turns back LAUSD's most aggressive demands. That agreement will soon be voted on by members.
In parallel bargaining, negotiators for the teachers and LAUSD are far apart on the main contract. Key issues are salary and a series of non-monetary demands dealing with workplace democracy, shared decision-making, rights for school counselors and substitutes, and a fair grievance procedure.
UTLA has been rebuilding the union's capacity to fight since a reform leadership took over in 2005. Teachers won a 6 percent raise in the 2006-07 negotiations. The re-opener rounds in years two and three of our three-year contract have so far yielded nothing but offers of less than zero from the district.
Employees who receive pink slips will not definitely lose their jobs until after a final school board vote in June. Many hope that by then, federal stimulus money will have provided a way for LAUSD to avoid most of the layoffs.
But we intend to make it clear to the district that if they don't find the money by any means necessary to save every single job, they will pay the price of massive unrest.
David Rapkin contributed to this article.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
UFT Pathetic Response to Obama Speech
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 10, 2009
Peter Kadushin 212-510-6463 (O)
Statement by Randi Weingarten, President, United Federation of Teachers, on President Obama’s Remarks Today To the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce:
Today President Obama argued for a comprehensive plan for public education focused on finding real world solutions to the challenges facing our schools and our kids.
We support the President’s call for shared responsibility and providing all our children with a comprehensive education.
Here in New York, the United Federation of Teachers has actively been on the forefront of many of the initiatives proposed by the President.
The UFT has always been prepared to step up and support changes which improve schools for kids. We negotiated a voluntary school-wide- performance- bonus system currently in place in more than 200 of New York City’s highest need schools. This program has collaboration, not competition, at its core.
We have supported the use of data to aid teachers in figuring out each student’s academic needs and tailoring instruction to meet those needs.
We operate two charter schools in Brooklyn, and partnered with Green Dot Public Schools to open a third charter school in the Bronx, to show what can be done when schools can focus on educating the whole child, not just on prepping for standardized tests on a narrow number of subjects.
And we have pioneered peer intervention and peer review, with educators taking responsibility for the quality of our own profession.
We agree with the President that education reform should be done with teachers, not to them.
Collaboration means listening to the voice of teachers and providing good teachers and students the tools they need to lower class size and the supportive learning environment they need to succeed.
We must work together to help retain programs like music, art, sports, diverse career and technical programs and Advanced Placement courses.
We still have a long way to go to improve our schools and we want to share in that responsibility, as the President said. Turning around low-performing schools, should always be our first aim; closing them should be only a last resort.
We stand ready to work with the President to help America, and New York, lead the way in education.
Peter Kadushin 212-510-6463 (O)
Statement by Randi Weingarten, President, United Federation of Teachers, on President Obama’s Remarks Today To the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce:
Today President Obama argued for a comprehensive plan for public education focused on finding real world solutions to the challenges facing our schools and our kids.
We support the President’s call for shared responsibility and providing all our children with a comprehensive education.
Here in New York, the United Federation of Teachers has actively been on the forefront of many of the initiatives proposed by the President.
The UFT has always been prepared to step up and support changes which improve schools for kids. We negotiated a voluntary school-wide- performance- bonus system currently in place in more than 200 of New York City’s highest need schools. This program has collaboration, not competition, at its core.
We have supported the use of data to aid teachers in figuring out each student’s academic needs and tailoring instruction to meet those needs.
We operate two charter schools in Brooklyn, and partnered with Green Dot Public Schools to open a third charter school in the Bronx, to show what can be done when schools can focus on educating the whole child, not just on prepping for standardized tests on a narrow number of subjects.
And we have pioneered peer intervention and peer review, with educators taking responsibility for the quality of our own profession.
We agree with the President that education reform should be done with teachers, not to them.
Collaboration means listening to the voice of teachers and providing good teachers and students the tools they need to lower class size and the supportive learning environment they need to succeed.
We must work together to help retain programs like music, art, sports, diverse career and technical programs and Advanced Placement courses.
We still have a long way to go to improve our schools and we want to share in that responsibility, as the President said. Turning around low-performing schools, should always be our first aim; closing them should be only a last resort.
We stand ready to work with the President to help America, and New York, lead the way in education.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Harlem Parent takes a stand against a greater parent role in governance, against smaller classes and against CDECs.
Here is a new development. A charter school parent from the Moskowitz organization takes a stand against a greater parent role in governance, against smaller classes and against CDECs.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/03/08/2009-03-08_forget_seats_on_political_panels_give_fa.html
By Natasha Shannon
Saturday, March 7th 2009, 7:23 PM
Natasha Shannon with her daughters Alaisia (l.) and Ananda. Watts/News
Natasha Shannon with her daughters Alaisia (l.) and Ananda.
When I grew up in Harlem, my mother didn't know she had a choice in where to send me to school. She thought her only option was to enroll me in a failing District 5 school and hope I turned out all right.
I guess things wound up okay - but not really because of the public education I received. I did well in school, even graduated first in my class at the city public school I attended. But I wasn't prepared for the world. I went to Borough of Manhattan Community College, where they told me I needed to do remedial work just to stay.
Valedictorian of my class - and not ready for community college? Something was wrong with that picture.
Now, I'm a Harlem parent, mother of two girls: Ananda and Alaisia. I have so many hopes and dreams for my girls, but most of all I want them to have a first-rate education, one much better than I got. I want them to have true opportunity. But it's hard in New York City. I work at Best Buy. I live in public housing. My simple dream for my girls is not a guarantee.
Last month, I went to a hearing on mayoral control of our public schools. There were many parents who were saying that to have better schools we need a louder "parent voice." They said the mayor has too much power. They said that we as parents need checks on his power, and that we need parents appointed or elected to more community boards so they can make policies for the system.
I'm sorry, but that's not what I want - or what I think is good for my kids. Remember, I have two girls who are 7 and 5. I don't want a vote on a panel or to have a voice in policymaking.
I want power - real power. I want the power to decide where I send my kids to school. I don't want to be seen but not really "heard."
The best way my voice can be heard is if I get to choose where my child goes to school. I should have excellent choices in my own neighborhood, the kinds of choices my mother wasn't able to take advantage of. I don't want my girls to be assigned to a failing zone school, and then be told by so-called elected parent representatives that I should be happy with it.
The parent voice I want is parent choice.
The truth is, giving parents more official political clout by letting them vote on official policy might actually do more harm than good for me and my daughters.
The parents who want to make policy are not necessarily the parents who are in the same boat that I'm in. They may want resources spent on decreasing class size - when I may think money should be spent on improving teacher quality. Or the parents on a Community Education Council may not think a public charter school should be sited in a failing zone school - when to me and my neighbors, that's a saving grace.
There are some parents who are politically well-connected in this city, who think we shouldn't have a right to choose their child's school, that I should just wait for my zoned school to get better. They have been saying that schools in District 5 were on the verge of "getting better" since I was a student. My children deserve better now, and nobody but me should decide whether a school is good enough for them.
Having more parent say in policy decisions may not be the best way to protect my children's interests. In fact, it may limit my choices.
Last Saturday, Harlem Parents United, a group of which I'm a proud member, held the Harlem Education Fair to inform moms, dads and kids about their options for choosing schools. An unprecedented 5,000 parents came.
That's because in Harlem, we now have more school choices per square mile than almost anywhere in the country. Finally, we're being heard - in the only way that really counts. Don't take that away from us.
Shannon, mother of two children who attend Harlem Success Academy Charter School, is a founding member of Harlem Parents United.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/03/08/2009-03-08_forget_seats_on_political_panels_give_fa.html
By Natasha Shannon
Saturday, March 7th 2009, 7:23 PM
Natasha Shannon with her daughters Alaisia (l.) and Ananda. Watts/News
Natasha Shannon with her daughters Alaisia (l.) and Ananda.
When I grew up in Harlem, my mother didn't know she had a choice in where to send me to school. She thought her only option was to enroll me in a failing District 5 school and hope I turned out all right.
I guess things wound up okay - but not really because of the public education I received. I did well in school, even graduated first in my class at the city public school I attended. But I wasn't prepared for the world. I went to Borough of Manhattan Community College, where they told me I needed to do remedial work just to stay.
Valedictorian of my class - and not ready for community college? Something was wrong with that picture.
Now, I'm a Harlem parent, mother of two girls: Ananda and Alaisia. I have so many hopes and dreams for my girls, but most of all I want them to have a first-rate education, one much better than I got. I want them to have true opportunity. But it's hard in New York City. I work at Best Buy. I live in public housing. My simple dream for my girls is not a guarantee.
Last month, I went to a hearing on mayoral control of our public schools. There were many parents who were saying that to have better schools we need a louder "parent voice." They said the mayor has too much power. They said that we as parents need checks on his power, and that we need parents appointed or elected to more community boards so they can make policies for the system.
I'm sorry, but that's not what I want - or what I think is good for my kids. Remember, I have two girls who are 7 and 5. I don't want a vote on a panel or to have a voice in policymaking.
I want power - real power. I want the power to decide where I send my kids to school. I don't want to be seen but not really "heard."
The best way my voice can be heard is if I get to choose where my child goes to school. I should have excellent choices in my own neighborhood, the kinds of choices my mother wasn't able to take advantage of. I don't want my girls to be assigned to a failing zone school, and then be told by so-called elected parent representatives that I should be happy with it.
The parent voice I want is parent choice.
The truth is, giving parents more official political clout by letting them vote on official policy might actually do more harm than good for me and my daughters.
The parents who want to make policy are not necessarily the parents who are in the same boat that I'm in. They may want resources spent on decreasing class size - when I may think money should be spent on improving teacher quality. Or the parents on a Community Education Council may not think a public charter school should be sited in a failing zone school - when to me and my neighbors, that's a saving grace.
There are some parents who are politically well-connected in this city, who think we shouldn't have a right to choose their child's school, that I should just wait for my zoned school to get better. They have been saying that schools in District 5 were on the verge of "getting better" since I was a student. My children deserve better now, and nobody but me should decide whether a school is good enough for them.
Having more parent say in policy decisions may not be the best way to protect my children's interests. In fact, it may limit my choices.
Last Saturday, Harlem Parents United, a group of which I'm a proud member, held the Harlem Education Fair to inform moms, dads and kids about their options for choosing schools. An unprecedented 5,000 parents came.
That's because in Harlem, we now have more school choices per square mile than almost anywhere in the country. Finally, we're being heard - in the only way that really counts. Don't take that away from us.
Shannon, mother of two children who attend Harlem Success Academy Charter School, is a founding member of Harlem Parents United.
Blame for School Achievement Gap Misplaced
March 9, 2009
New policy report explains how poverty's effects are the real culprit
Contact: David Berliner -- (480) 861-0484; berliner@asu.edu
Kevin Welner -- (303) 492-8370; kevin.welner@gmail.com
TEMPE, Ariz. and BOULDER, Colo., March 9, 2009 - A new report issues a fundamental challenge to established education policies that were promoted by the Bush administration and are likely to be continued by the Obama administration. These policies are based on a belief that public schools should shoulder the blame for the "achievement gap" between poor and minority students and the rest of the student population. But the new policy report argues that out-of-school factors are the real culprit--and that if those factors are not addressed, it will be impossible for schools to meet the demands made of them.
"Schools are told to fix problems that largely lie outside their zone of influence," says David Berliner, Regents Professor of Education at Arizona State University, and author of the report, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. The report is jointly published by the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) of ASU and the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Berliner's report comes as debate continues over the renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act, which imposed stiff accountability measures on schools in return for federal aid. NCLB requires public schools to demonstrate "adequate yearly progress" toward the eventual elimination of gaps in achievement among all demographic groups of students and imposes a variety of sanctions if they fall short.
"This report provides exactly the type of information that should guide policy," says EPIC director Kevin Welner of CU-Boulder. "It clearly and concisely explains why poverty must be directly addressed by anyone who hopes to close the achievement gap. Just as importantly, it explains why just tinkering with NCLB is a fool's errand."
Last week, Education Secretary Duncan told the Washington Post that those who would use the social ills of poor children as an excuse for not educating them "are part of the problem." Welner agrees. "But," he says, "those who point to schools as an excuse for failure to address social ills are equally at fault."
Berliner explains that NCLB "focuses almost exclusively on school outputs, particularly reading and mathematics achievement test scores." He says, "The law was purposely designed to pay little attention to school inputs in order to ensure that teachers and school administrators had 'no excuses' when it came to better educating impoverished youth."
Yet, as explained in the new report, that position is not merely unrealistic, but certain to fail. Berliner says that NCLB's accountability system is "fatally flawed" because it makes schools accountable for achievement without regard for out-of-school factors.
Berliner reviews a half-dozen out-of-school factors that have been clearly linked to lower achievement among poor and minority-group students: birth weight and non-genetic parental influences; medical care; food insecurity; environmental pollution; family breakdown and stress; and neighborhood norms and conditions. Additionally, he notes a seventh factor: extended learning opportunities in the form of summer programs, after-school programs, and pre-school programs. Access to these resources by poor and minority students could help mitigate the effects of the other six factors.
Because of the extraordinary influence of the six factors that Berliner identifies, "increased spending on schools, as beneficial as that might be, will probably come up short in closing the gaps." Instead, he calls for an approach to school improvement that would demand "a reasonable level of societal accountability for children's physical and mental health and safety."
"At that point," he concludes, "maybe we can sensibly and productively demand that schools be accountable for comparable levels of academic achievement for all America's children."
Find David Berliner's report, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, on the web at:
http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential
CONTACT:
David Berliner, Regents Professor of Education
Arizona State University
(480) 861-0484
berliner@asu.edu
Kevin Welner, Professor and Director
Education and the Public Interest Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
(303) 492-8370
kevin.welner@gmail.com
**********
###
The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University collaborate to produce policy briefs and think tank reviews. Our goal is to promote well-informed democratic deliberation about education policy by providing academic as well as non-academic audiences with useful information and high quality analyses.
Visit EPIC and EPRU at http://www.educationanalysis.org/
EPIC and EPRU are members of the Education Policy Alliance
(http://educationpolicyalliance.org)
**********
New policy report explains how poverty's effects are the real culprit
Contact: David Berliner -- (480) 861-0484; berliner@asu.edu
Kevin Welner -- (303) 492-8370; kevin.welner@gmail.com
TEMPE, Ariz. and BOULDER, Colo., March 9, 2009 - A new report issues a fundamental challenge to established education policies that were promoted by the Bush administration and are likely to be continued by the Obama administration. These policies are based on a belief that public schools should shoulder the blame for the "achievement gap" between poor and minority students and the rest of the student population. But the new policy report argues that out-of-school factors are the real culprit--and that if those factors are not addressed, it will be impossible for schools to meet the demands made of them.
"Schools are told to fix problems that largely lie outside their zone of influence," says David Berliner, Regents Professor of Education at Arizona State University, and author of the report, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success. The report is jointly published by the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) of ASU and the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder.
Berliner's report comes as debate continues over the renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act, which imposed stiff accountability measures on schools in return for federal aid. NCLB requires public schools to demonstrate "adequate yearly progress" toward the eventual elimination of gaps in achievement among all demographic groups of students and imposes a variety of sanctions if they fall short.
"This report provides exactly the type of information that should guide policy," says EPIC director Kevin Welner of CU-Boulder. "It clearly and concisely explains why poverty must be directly addressed by anyone who hopes to close the achievement gap. Just as importantly, it explains why just tinkering with NCLB is a fool's errand."
Last week, Education Secretary Duncan told the Washington Post that those who would use the social ills of poor children as an excuse for not educating them "are part of the problem." Welner agrees. "But," he says, "those who point to schools as an excuse for failure to address social ills are equally at fault."
Berliner explains that NCLB "focuses almost exclusively on school outputs, particularly reading and mathematics achievement test scores." He says, "The law was purposely designed to pay little attention to school inputs in order to ensure that teachers and school administrators had 'no excuses' when it came to better educating impoverished youth."
Yet, as explained in the new report, that position is not merely unrealistic, but certain to fail. Berliner says that NCLB's accountability system is "fatally flawed" because it makes schools accountable for achievement without regard for out-of-school factors.
Berliner reviews a half-dozen out-of-school factors that have been clearly linked to lower achievement among poor and minority-group students: birth weight and non-genetic parental influences; medical care; food insecurity; environmental pollution; family breakdown and stress; and neighborhood norms and conditions. Additionally, he notes a seventh factor: extended learning opportunities in the form of summer programs, after-school programs, and pre-school programs. Access to these resources by poor and minority students could help mitigate the effects of the other six factors.
Because of the extraordinary influence of the six factors that Berliner identifies, "increased spending on schools, as beneficial as that might be, will probably come up short in closing the gaps." Instead, he calls for an approach to school improvement that would demand "a reasonable level of societal accountability for children's physical and mental health and safety."
"At that point," he concludes, "maybe we can sensibly and productively demand that schools be accountable for comparable levels of academic achievement for all America's children."
Find David Berliner's report, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, on the web at:
http://epicpolicy.org/publication/poverty-and-potential
CONTACT:
David Berliner, Regents Professor of Education
Arizona State University
(480) 861-0484
berliner@asu.edu
Kevin Welner, Professor and Director
Education and the Public Interest Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
(303) 492-8370
kevin.welner@gmail.com
**********
###
The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University collaborate to produce policy briefs and think tank reviews. Our goal is to promote well-informed democratic deliberation about education policy by providing academic as well as non-academic audiences with useful information and high quality analyses.
Visit EPIC and EPRU at http://www.educationanalysis.org/
EPIC and EPRU are members of the Education Policy Alliance
(http://educationpolicyalliance.org)
**********
Monday, March 09, 2009
PS 154X Doins
1. September 29th, 2008 Derrick Townsend drags a five year old student forty feet when the student refuses to walk with him.
2. November 7, 2008 Derrick Townsend grabs an eleven year old boy by the arm, drags him approximately 125ft, tears his shirt, causes discoloration and numbness to his fingers. Linda Amil-Irizarry is aware, and contrary to A-420 never reports it to OSI, nor is the parent notified.
3. December 12, 2008 Derrick Townsend punishes a student's behavior in the cafeteria by making him clean the entire cafeteria.
4. December 18, 2008 Derrick Townsend grabs a student by the arm and pulls him when his directions are not being followed.
5. January 16, 2009 Derrick Townsend picks a student up by the arm, twists it, and pulls him by the arm.
6. February 13, 2009 Derrick Townsend verbally abuses a 8 year old girl in front of a class, and then drags and pulls her by the arm for ten minutes, leaving bruises on her arm.
2. November 7, 2008 Derrick Townsend grabs an eleven year old boy by the arm, drags him approximately 125ft, tears his shirt, causes discoloration and numbness to his fingers. Linda Amil-Irizarry is aware, and contrary to A-420 never reports it to OSI, nor is the parent notified.
3. December 12, 2008 Derrick Townsend punishes a student's behavior in the cafeteria by making him clean the entire cafeteria.
4. December 18, 2008 Derrick Townsend grabs a student by the arm and pulls him when his directions are not being followed.
5. January 16, 2009 Derrick Townsend picks a student up by the arm, twists it, and pulls him by the arm.
6. February 13, 2009 Derrick Townsend verbally abuses a 8 year old girl in front of a class, and then drags and pulls her by the arm for ten minutes, leaving bruises on her arm.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Meltdown: The Economic Collapse and a People's Plan for Recovery
March 6
Meltdown: The Economic Collapse and a People's Plan for Recovery
Where: New York Society for Ethical Culture, NYC
When: 8 pm
Join Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Nation Institute Fellow and Nation columnist Naomi Klein, author and activist Barbara Ehrenreich, Black Commentator's Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Nation D.C. editor Christopher Hayes in a wide-ranging and incisive conversation as they discuss the origins on the financial collapse, debate President Obama's stimulus package and consider what form economic recovery should take to ensure a more equitable future for everyone.
The event marks the publication of Meltdown: How Greed and Corruption Shattered Our Financial System and How We Can Recover (Nation Books) by Katrina vanden Heuvel and the editors of The Nation.
Audience questions will be taken, and a book-signing will follow the conversation.
DATE: March 6, 2009
LOCATION: New York Society for Ethical Culture, 2 West 64th Street, New York City
TIME: 8PM. Doors open at 7:25PM.
FREE OF CHARGE
If you can't make the actual event, follow us on Twitter
Co-sponsored by The New Society for Ethical Culture, Public Concern Foundation, Democrats.com, Democracy Now!
Meltdown: The Economic Collapse and a People's Plan for Recovery
Where: New York Society for Ethical Culture, NYC
When: 8 pm
Join Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz, Nation Institute Fellow and Nation columnist Naomi Klein, author and activist Barbara Ehrenreich, Black Commentator's Bill Fletcher, Jr. and Nation D.C. editor Christopher Hayes in a wide-ranging and incisive conversation as they discuss the origins on the financial collapse, debate President Obama's stimulus package and consider what form economic recovery should take to ensure a more equitable future for everyone.
The event marks the publication of Meltdown: How Greed and Corruption Shattered Our Financial System and How We Can Recover (Nation Books) by Katrina vanden Heuvel and the editors of The Nation.
Audience questions will be taken, and a book-signing will follow the conversation.
DATE: March 6, 2009
LOCATION: New York Society for Ethical Culture, 2 West 64th Street, New York City
TIME: 8PM. Doors open at 7:25PM.
FREE OF CHARGE
If you can't make the actual event, follow us on Twitter
Co-sponsored by The New Society for Ethical Culture, Public Concern Foundation, Democrats.com, Democracy Now!
Email 18: Rally, etc.
Here is a regular email contact one teacher provides to her fellow teachers and contact list. Loaded with info and opinions, something like this is a great educating and organizing tool.
March 4, 2009
RALLY tomorrow — Thursday, March 5th, City Hall (4, 5, 6 train, reach it by the north side of the park), starts at 4 p.m.
Bring noisemakers, instruments and a bullhorn. The UFT is supplying some signs and some hats, but people are encouraged to make their own. Recent suggestions:
1. End Mayoral Control ; Parent, Teacher & Student Control Now.
2. Mayoral Control, NO! Democratic Control, YES!
3. Money for Schools, Not for Wall St!
4. Money for Schools, Not for War!
5. Smaller Class Size Now!
6. Out with Bloomberg, Out with Klein.
7. Public Education, Yes! Privatization, NO!
8. Defend our ATR Teachers, NOW.
9. Hey, Hey, Ho Ho — High Stakes Testing Has Got To Go!
10. Teachers, Parents, Students United Will Never Be Defeated.
11. Tax the Rich, Not the Poor!
12. Tax the Corporations, Not the Workers!
13. Corporations: Out of Schools, NOW!
14. Stop School Closings, Now.
15. Stop the ATR Teacher Abuse, Now
16. Stop High Stakes, Testing Now.
17. Bail Out Schools, Not Wall Street
All the caucuses and educator activists (NYCoRE, ICE, Time Out from Testing, etc.) seem to be supporting this rally, but they are not all thrilled with the union's positioning up to this point. TJC (Teachers for a Just Contract) writes:
"The UFT leadership has done a bad job of building this important rally. We believe they should have taken a firm condition against all cuts and all givebacks. This has to be an overwhelming show of union strength to lay the foundation for a fightback strong enough to protect our schools and win a good contract. Instead of explaining this, the union has resorted to scare tactics, implying people will be laid off, although layoffs have been virtually ruled out by the provisions of the Stimulus bill Congress passed in February. TJC strongly urges you to participate on March 5, not from fear, but from strength."
Actually there's another RALLY in the works, which needs member participation just as badly, or even more so.
Chapter leaders were told this afternoon that the principal of Fordham High School for the Arts, Iris Blige, has been putting her staff through the wringer for years. Specifically, she has sent CLs and other staff to the rubber room on invented charges or no charges. There they languish for two years, and their cases are dismissed. Blige remains unscathed, protected, it seems, by a chancellor who condones administrator misconduct bordering on or exceeding legal limits. Recently she arranged for 11 cops to arrest a teacher at school; lacking evidence, they wouldn't charge her. At today's meeting, a colleague of the teacher's reported that the arrest was the result of a set-up, a faked letter that had included threats. The teacher had never written such a letter, and the Bronx UFT (if not the rest of the boroughs) is furious. They are asking that other chapters join in the protest to support the teacher and make a strong statement against Blige's continued abuse of authority. The rally will take place on Fri., March 13th, from 4 to 5 outside Roosevelt HS on Fordham Road. The press has been invited. Please show solidarity at this one and attend.
We are up against a level of indecency at Tweed that the public has to know about it. Actually, it would be good if more teachers knew about it also.
In fact there are many protests these days, in particular against school closings, which are based on fabricated data and done without the knowledge or consent of parents and school communities. In fact, some of the closings seem to be related to real estate and corporate schemes. As Ednotes writes:
"Just in the last few weeks, we have heard of the announced closings of large high schools Brandeis (upper West Side — protest and picket Feb. 10th) and Bayard Rustin (Chelsea). Guess in whose hands these massive buildings built and maintained with public funding, all in Toney neighborhoods, will end up?"
There was a rally against the closing of PS/IS 72, written up by John Lawhead thus: "Speakers condemned the destruction of the well-functioning school and declared that Chancellor Klein was "unqualified" to be their judge. Parent leaders are outraged by the erratic series of evaluations that have run from a "school in good standing" in 2007 to a grade D in 2008." MS 399X due to be closed (protest and picket Feb. 12th). Last spring, teachers protested the "strangling" of Jamaica HS at one of Klein's Panel meetings.
From Ednotes again: "Abandoning seniority rules, accepting school closings as a fait accompli, joining in on the influx of charter schools, accepting the CEO model, tacit acceptance of non-educators as chancellors, supporting the Gates and other private interest onslaught on public schools, signing on to the testing mania by supporting merit pay and individual teacher report cards based on these tests – I won’t give you any more of the laundry list – has led to the worst working conditions for teachers in decades and a deterioration in learning conditions for many children, no matter what the fudged numbers might show."
BEING ARRESTED (contd)
While I'm on that subject, chapter leaders were reminded today that if you're arrested — don't laugh, I'll tell you why in a second — you are required by law (Chancellor's Reg. C-105) to "immediately notify the OPI and [your] building or office supervisor in writing and provide a copy of the criminal court complaint."
Please note the "in writing," because failure to to that might lead to further discliplinary action against you. OPI = (Office of Personnel Investigation, 718-935-2665; send documents by certified mail.
You may think that certain arrests have nothing to do with school and therefore don't need to be reported. Apparently not. This reg means all and any arrests, and the examples we were given include: a fight you may have had with someone, drunk driving, and even being caught up in a sweep for drugs (let's say, in the hallway of an apartment building) that did not involve you, but you happened to be there at the time. Apparently, educators are being held to a higher code of conduct because of the nature of our job.
In light of all the protesting and how far each of us wants to carry civil disobedience, I asked if that kind of arrest was included, and the answer was yes. Any arrest whatsoever.
PAYROLL PORTAL
District rep handed out a sheet that starts off "Members can access their salary info and enroll in various DoE programs online."
Full instructions on how to use this system can be found on the UFT website here.
In addition to salary info, you can get to use Employee Self Service for enrolling in the College Savings, EFT/Direct Deposit, Metro Card, Savings Bond and Transit Savings Account programs.
SALARY DIFFERENTIALS: ONLINE APPNS
The DoE's Salary Unit, now called the Office of Salary Services (OSS), set up a way to apply for salary differentials. Applications and eligibility requirements here, or through the Payroll Portal. You must have a DoE email address to access this online.
That's it for now.
March 4, 2009
RALLY tomorrow — Thursday, March 5th, City Hall (4, 5, 6 train, reach it by the north side of the park), starts at 4 p.m.
Bring noisemakers, instruments and a bullhorn. The UFT is supplying some signs and some hats, but people are encouraged to make their own. Recent suggestions:
1. End Mayoral Control ; Parent, Teacher & Student Control Now.
2. Mayoral Control, NO! Democratic Control, YES!
3. Money for Schools, Not for Wall St!
4. Money for Schools, Not for War!
5. Smaller Class Size Now!
6. Out with Bloomberg, Out with Klein.
7. Public Education, Yes! Privatization, NO!
8. Defend our ATR Teachers, NOW.
9. Hey, Hey, Ho Ho — High Stakes Testing Has Got To Go!
10. Teachers, Parents, Students United Will Never Be Defeated.
11. Tax the Rich, Not the Poor!
12. Tax the Corporations, Not the Workers!
13. Corporations: Out of Schools, NOW!
14. Stop School Closings, Now.
15. Stop the ATR Teacher Abuse, Now
16. Stop High Stakes, Testing Now.
17. Bail Out Schools, Not Wall Street
All the caucuses and educator activists (NYCoRE, ICE, Time Out from Testing, etc.) seem to be supporting this rally, but they are not all thrilled with the union's positioning up to this point. TJC (Teachers for a Just Contract) writes:
"The UFT leadership has done a bad job of building this important rally. We believe they should have taken a firm condition against all cuts and all givebacks. This has to be an overwhelming show of union strength to lay the foundation for a fightback strong enough to protect our schools and win a good contract. Instead of explaining this, the union has resorted to scare tactics, implying people will be laid off, although layoffs have been virtually ruled out by the provisions of the Stimulus bill Congress passed in February. TJC strongly urges you to participate on March 5, not from fear, but from strength."
Actually there's another RALLY in the works, which needs member participation just as badly, or even more so.
Chapter leaders were told this afternoon that the principal of Fordham High School for the Arts, Iris Blige, has been putting her staff through the wringer for years. Specifically, she has sent CLs and other staff to the rubber room on invented charges or no charges. There they languish for two years, and their cases are dismissed. Blige remains unscathed, protected, it seems, by a chancellor who condones administrator misconduct bordering on or exceeding legal limits. Recently she arranged for 11 cops to arrest a teacher at school; lacking evidence, they wouldn't charge her. At today's meeting, a colleague of the teacher's reported that the arrest was the result of a set-up, a faked letter that had included threats. The teacher had never written such a letter, and the Bronx UFT (if not the rest of the boroughs) is furious. They are asking that other chapters join in the protest to support the teacher and make a strong statement against Blige's continued abuse of authority. The rally will take place on Fri., March 13th, from 4 to 5 outside Roosevelt HS on Fordham Road. The press has been invited. Please show solidarity at this one and attend.
We are up against a level of indecency at Tweed that the public has to know about it. Actually, it would be good if more teachers knew about it also.
In fact there are many protests these days, in particular against school closings, which are based on fabricated data and done without the knowledge or consent of parents and school communities. In fact, some of the closings seem to be related to real estate and corporate schemes. As Ednotes writes:
"Just in the last few weeks, we have heard of the announced closings of large high schools Brandeis (upper West Side — protest and picket Feb. 10th) and Bayard Rustin (Chelsea). Guess in whose hands these massive buildings built and maintained with public funding, all in Toney neighborhoods, will end up?"
There was a rally against the closing of PS/IS 72, written up by John Lawhead thus: "Speakers condemned the destruction of the well-functioning school and declared that Chancellor Klein was "unqualified" to be their judge. Parent leaders are outraged by the erratic series of evaluations that have run from a "school in good standing" in 2007 to a grade D in 2008." MS 399X due to be closed (protest and picket Feb. 12th). Last spring, teachers protested the "strangling" of Jamaica HS at one of Klein's Panel meetings.
From Ednotes again: "Abandoning seniority rules, accepting school closings as a fait accompli, joining in on the influx of charter schools, accepting the CEO model, tacit acceptance of non-educators as chancellors, supporting the Gates and other private interest onslaught on public schools, signing on to the testing mania by supporting merit pay and individual teacher report cards based on these tests – I won’t give you any more of the laundry list – has led to the worst working conditions for teachers in decades and a deterioration in learning conditions for many children, no matter what the fudged numbers might show."
BEING ARRESTED (contd)
While I'm on that subject, chapter leaders were reminded today that if you're arrested — don't laugh, I'll tell you why in a second — you are required by law (Chancellor's Reg. C-105) to "immediately notify the OPI and [your] building or office supervisor in writing and provide a copy of the criminal court complaint."
Please note the "in writing," because failure to to that might lead to further discliplinary action against you. OPI = (Office of Personnel Investigation, 718-935-2665; send documents by certified mail.
You may think that certain arrests have nothing to do with school and therefore don't need to be reported. Apparently not. This reg means all and any arrests, and the examples we were given include: a fight you may have had with someone, drunk driving, and even being caught up in a sweep for drugs (let's say, in the hallway of an apartment building) that did not involve you, but you happened to be there at the time. Apparently, educators are being held to a higher code of conduct because of the nature of our job.
In light of all the protesting and how far each of us wants to carry civil disobedience, I asked if that kind of arrest was included, and the answer was yes. Any arrest whatsoever.
PAYROLL PORTAL
District rep handed out a sheet that starts off "Members can access their salary info and enroll in various DoE programs online."
Full instructions on how to use this system can be found on the UFT website here.
In addition to salary info, you can get to use Employee Self Service for enrolling in the College Savings, EFT/Direct Deposit, Metro Card, Savings Bond and Transit Savings Account programs.
SALARY DIFFERENTIALS: ONLINE APPNS
The DoE's Salary Unit, now called the Office of Salary Services (OSS), set up a way to apply for salary differentials. Applications and eligibility requirements here, or through the Payroll Portal. You must have a DoE email address to access this online.
That's it for now.
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENDS TEACHERS OF CHILDREN WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES FOR HONORING PARENTAL REFUSALS OF STATE TESTING
Dear Members and Friends of PEN,
The following press release was emailed last night to all of PEN's media contacts. So far, KOMO radio carried the story, and I was interviewed by The Seattle Times. (Their story should run tomorrow or the day after). Please consider making a contribution to PEN, today, so that the organization can continue representing children by empowering their parents and teachers.
PEN is able to speak with complete freedom-- perhaps the only organization in Washington State able and willing to do so-- against atrocities such as the one detailed below, because we are not funded by school districts or other government entities or special interest grants. We count on the financial support of individuals and small businesses to pay for websites, copies, postage, buttons, ink, transportation, phones, and any needed professional services. Your contribution of any amount helps us drop everything and act when we are contacted by individuals in need of our assistance.
http://www.mothersagainstwasl.org/member.html
Parent Empowerment Network
PO Box 494
Spanaway, WA 98387
Thank you,
Juanita
Date: March 3, 2009
PRESS RELEASE- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENDS TEACHERS OF CHILDREN WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES FOR HONORING PARENTAL REFUSALS OF STATE TESTING
Contacts: Juanita Doyon, Director, Parent Empowerment Network- 253-973-1593
Contact information for two teachers and three parents was provided to media contacts.
Two Seattle School District teachers have been suspended for ten days without pay for following legal requests from parents that their children not be tested using the Washington Alternative Assessment System (WAAS).
“This is not another Carl Chew case where the teachers refused to test their students,” said Juanita Doyon, Director of Parent Empowerment Network (PEN). “These teachers were simply honoring parental requests, which were given verbally and later followed up in writing.”
Juli Griffith and Lenora Stahl, teachers in a self-contained, elementary, special education classroom, expressed their concerns that the WAAS portfolio system is not appropriate for their students, in November 2008, first in an email to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and then in a letter to the Seattle School District administrators. They asked that the District work with them to develop an appropriate assessment for their students who have severe disabilities and are medically fragile.
The WAAS portfolio measures students’ abilities to meet grade-level academic standards and does not measure progress for students with severe physical and cognitive disabilities who work each day to learn basic life skills such as hanging up coats, holding a spoon, attending to activities, and responding appropriately in social situations.
“I am the voice that my students do not have and I have to stand up for them. My main concern is what will happen if I refuse to administer this test to my students,” wrote Ms. Stahl to Judy Kraft, Alternative Assessment Specialist at OSPI.
No response was received from the District. An email response was received from Ms. Kraft.
Refusal on the part of the teachers became unnecessary, when parents of the six students who were to be tested told the teachers that they did not want their children tested using the WAAS system. Teachers honored the parental requests and did not begin the near year-long WAAS process. In January 2009, the teachers were informed that they were out of compliance with state and district policy, by Seattle School District administration. District administration contended parents were required to put refusal of state testing in writing. Parents subsequently wrote refusal letters to the school. After undergoing two District disciplinary hearings each, despite the fact that the District had received refusal letters from parents of all students involved, Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl received letters (see attached) on March 2, 2009, stating that they were suspended without pay for 10 days, beginning March 4, 2009. Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl have filed appeals of the suspensions with the District.
State testing policy provides that parents or students may refuse to take part in state testing. In a letter addressed by PEN to Seattle District Superintendent Marie Goodloe-Johnson, February 20, 2009 (see addendum 1, below), wording was included from the OSPI 2009 Assessment Coordinator’s Handbook, “…agency policy adopted has been that students may refuse to participate or their parents may refuse to have their children tested…The policy further requires the school to request that the refusal on the part of either the student or parent be put into writing by the parent and kept on file at the school or district office…If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in writing, the school should document that the request was made but the parent would not put the refusal in writing.”
Through Public Disclosure, PEN requested documents from the Seattle School District containing policies regarding parental refusal of testing and requirements for teacher, parents, and administrators. On March 2, 2009, PEN received an email from Joy A. Stevens, Sr. Legal Assistant/Public Records Officer for the District, stating, “…I have begun the process of locating and gathering the documents you have requested. I anticipate being able to give you a response on or before March 30, 2009.”
Parents involved are extremely upset that Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl are being punished for decisions made by parents and that the teachers who know the needs of their children will not be in the special education classroom for the next two weeks. “This will be a total waste of time for my son. He will learn nothing during these two weeks,” said parent Rachel McKean.
Special requirements for the appropriate care and teaching of the students in question will make it highly unlikely that the District will be able to provide appropriate substitute teachers, particularly under constraints of a two day notice.
Teachers and parents plan to file separate complaints with the Office of Civil Rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination or retaliation against individuals who advocate on behalf of persons with disabilities (see addendum 2, below). “In the next two weeks, PEN will assist parents and teachers in taking appropriate legal action against the Seattle School District and, possibly, the OSPI,” stated Juanita Doyon.
Parent Empowerment Network is a statewide, nonprofit organization. The mission of PEN is to provide education and peer training to parents, teachers, and community members at-large, in developing strategies to promote sound policy for quality public schools.
Addendum 1
Parent Empowerment Network
PO Box 494
Spanaway, WA 98387
February 20, 2009
Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson
Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165
Dear Dr. Goodloe-Johnson:
Parent Empowerment Network (PEN) has been informed by parents and teachers that the Seattle School District is failing to honor the right of parents to refuse to allow their children to take part in the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) and/or Washington Alternative Assessment System (WAAS).
The right of parents to opt their children out of the state assessment system has been well-established. State policy is affirmed in the official WASL Coordinator’s Manual, 2009, which states:
Federal and state laws require public schools to administer assessments to students enrolled in the specified grades and subjects, the assumption apparently being that participation on the part of the student or approval on the part of the parent would not be an issue. Because it is not specifically addressed in the legislation, agency policy adopted has been that students may refuse to participate or their parents may refuse to have their children tested. The policy further requires the school to request that the refusal on the part of either the student or parent be put into writing by the parent and kept on file at the school or district office. It is also recommended that the parent be requested to include the reason for not wanting the child tested. If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in writing, the school should document that the request was made but the parent would not put the refusal in writing.
PEN’s understanding of the situation in question is as follows:
· Parents of six students in special education classes at Green Lake Elementary School informed their children’s teachers that their children were not to take part in the WAAS Portfolio Assessment during the 2008-2009 school year.
· Teachers honored the decision and the rights of the parents and did not begin the WAAS data collection process.
· School and District administrators questioned teachers regarding their failure to begin collection of WAAS-required data for opted out students.
· School and District administrators were informed by teachers that the teachers were acting on the verbal requests of parents that their children not be assessed using the WAAS.
· School and District administrators instructed teachers to incorporate current curriculum into WAAS assessment for students, thus disregarding verbal parental refusals.
· Teachers continued to honor parental refusals of WAAS.
· School and District administrators informed teachers that written requests were needed from parents in order for students to be excused from WAAS.
· School and/or District administrators did not contact parents, but instead placed responsibility for obtaining written refusal from parents solely upon teachers.
· Parents provided written refusal of assessments to school administrator.
· Seattle School District has formally informed teachers that a hearing is scheduled to determine whether or not teachers should be suspended for two weeks without pay for failing to administer the WAAS to students whose parents had verbally notified teachers that their children were not to take part in the WAAS Portfolio.
· Seattle School District alleges that teachers refused to follow written directives of their building principal to administer the WAAS.
· Teachers maintain they acted in good faith and simply honored the verbal requests made to them by parents and, upon instruction from the District, requested written refusals from parents.
· At no time did teachers act on principle based on merits/demerits of the WAAS and its appropriateness for severely disabled, medically fragile students; teachers acted on their principles in following the legal requests of parents.
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction document, “How Students in Special Education Participate in State Testing,” provides the following policy for determining “how a student participates in the state assessment system.”
“The IEP team, which includes a student’s parents or guardians, decides which testing tool to use based on the students’ needs in each content area.”
Parents involved in the current opt out situation were acting not only in their role as guardians of their children but also as members of the students’ Individual Education Plan teams. They decided to remove their students from the assessment process because they believe that no part of the current Washington assessment system is appropriate for their children with special needs/disabilities.
As with parents of students in regular education classes who make decisions regarding their students and the WASL, parents of children with special needs/disabilities do not always agree with state and federal assessment suggestions or requirements for their students. All parents/guardians of students in Washington State Public Schools have the same right to opt their children out of the state assessment system.
Clearly, parents and their children with disabilities have rights that often go beyond those freely offered in the public school setting. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education letter to Washington State, approving the Washington Assessment System, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act, states that “approval of Washington's standards and assessment system under the ESEA is not a determination that the system complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.”
As an organization, PEN recommends that parents opt out their children from state testing, whether children are to be subjected to WASL or WAAS. We do so because we believe that Washington’s current assessment system fails to uphold the civil rights of students and fails to uphold the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite their right to reject the Washington assessment system for their children, parents are often coerced or even harassed by school officials until parents ultimately give in and allow the school to assess their students. In the current case, teachers simply accepted and honored the parents’ decision.
In May 2008, a Seattle School District teacher refused to administer the WASL to his 6th grade class. The action taken by Seattle School District in the case of this teacher’s refusal was to suspend the teacher for eight days without pay. The Seattle School District seems to be equating the case of Green Lake Elementary teachers complying with state policy by honoring parental refusals to the 2008 case of a teacher refusing to administer the WASL. In doing so, the Seattle School District is drawing a parallel where none exists.
In 2008, teacher Carl Chew refused to administer WASL as a matter of principle.. In 2009, teachers at Green Lake Elementary are following state policy and honoring parental refusals.
State policy requires only verbal refusal on the part of the parent or student, leaving it to “the school” to request written documentation from the parent or otherwise document refusal in writing, if the parent chooses not to comply with a request for a written refusal. Unless the Seattle School District has developed and provided a policy requiring that teachers request a written refusal from parents, PEN contends that the school building administrator or assessment coordinator holds responsibility for requesting and obtaining, or otherwise generating, written documentation of parental/student refusal of state assessments.
Regardless of school district policy, simple failure by school personnel to obtain written refusal from the parents does not warrant suspension without pay or any other penalty or record of wrongdoing in the personnel file. In the very suggestion that a two week suspension is warranted, the Seattle School District threatens the rights of the severely disabled and medically fragile students who are in the care of these teachers by potentially removing any hope of provision for a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for a period of two weeks, without due cause.
Further, PEN contends that the Seattle School District has breached parental rights and assessment protocol by directing teachers to assess students against the will and direction of parents. Because of the serious nature of this situation and the possible breach of state and federal regulations and protocols by the Seattle School District, PEN suggests that an investigation by the Puget Sound Education Service District may be in order.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. A hard copy of this letter will follow through US Mail service. Please see attached Public Disclosure Request.
Sincerely,
Juanita Doyon, Director
Parent Empowerment Network
cc Randy Dorn, Rob McKenna, Mary Lindquist, Doug Gill, Jeannette Bliss, Gloria Mitchell, Cheryl Grinager, Joan Bell, Alan Sutliff, Mary Bass, Sherry Carr, Cheryl Chow, Michael DeBell, Peter Maier, Harium Martin-Morris, Steve Sundquist, Jeffry Finer
February 20, 2009
Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson
Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165
Under Public Disclosure, Parent Empowerment Network requests that the Seattle School District provide:
1. Copies of all District policies regarding parental refusal of state assessments, including all policies relating to parents, teachers, building administrators, and district administrators.
2. Copies of all documents, memos, and emails regarding the dissemination of refusal policies and requirements to administrators, schools, teachers, and parents.
Thank you.
Juanita Doyon, Director
Parent Empowerment Network
253-973-1593
Addendum 2
From the Americans with Disabilities Act
Sec.36.206 Retaliation or coercion.
(a) No private or public entity shall discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part, or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act or this part.
(b) No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the Act or this part.
(c) Illustrations of conduct prohibited by this section include, but are not limited to:
(1) Coercing an individual to deny or limit the benefits, services, or advantages to which he or she is entitled under the Act or this part;
(2) Threatening, intimidating, or interfering with an individual with a disability who is seeking to obtain or use the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation;
(3) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is assisting or encouraging an individual or group entitled to claim the rights granted or protected by the Act or this part to exercise those rights; or
(4) Retaliating against any person because that person has participated in any investigation or action to enforce the Act or this part.
The following press release was emailed last night to all of PEN's media contacts. So far, KOMO radio carried the story, and I was interviewed by The Seattle Times. (Their story should run tomorrow or the day after). Please consider making a contribution to PEN, today, so that the organization can continue representing children by empowering their parents and teachers.
PEN is able to speak with complete freedom-- perhaps the only organization in Washington State able and willing to do so-- against atrocities such as the one detailed below, because we are not funded by school districts or other government entities or special interest grants. We count on the financial support of individuals and small businesses to pay for websites, copies, postage, buttons, ink, transportation, phones, and any needed professional services. Your contribution of any amount helps us drop everything and act when we are contacted by individuals in need of our assistance.
http://www.mothersagainstwasl.org/member.html
Parent Empowerment Network
PO Box 494
Spanaway, WA 98387
Thank you,
Juanita
Date: March 3, 2009
PRESS RELEASE- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT SUSPENDS TEACHERS OF CHILDREN WITH SEVERE DISABILITIES FOR HONORING PARENTAL REFUSALS OF STATE TESTING
Contacts: Juanita Doyon, Director, Parent Empowerment Network- 253-973-1593
Contact information for two teachers and three parents was provided to media contacts.
Two Seattle School District teachers have been suspended for ten days without pay for following legal requests from parents that their children not be tested using the Washington Alternative Assessment System (WAAS).
“This is not another Carl Chew case where the teachers refused to test their students,” said Juanita Doyon, Director of Parent Empowerment Network (PEN). “These teachers were simply honoring parental requests, which were given verbally and later followed up in writing.”
Juli Griffith and Lenora Stahl, teachers in a self-contained, elementary, special education classroom, expressed their concerns that the WAAS portfolio system is not appropriate for their students, in November 2008, first in an email to the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI) and then in a letter to the Seattle School District administrators. They asked that the District work with them to develop an appropriate assessment for their students who have severe disabilities and are medically fragile.
The WAAS portfolio measures students’ abilities to meet grade-level academic standards and does not measure progress for students with severe physical and cognitive disabilities who work each day to learn basic life skills such as hanging up coats, holding a spoon, attending to activities, and responding appropriately in social situations.
“I am the voice that my students do not have and I have to stand up for them. My main concern is what will happen if I refuse to administer this test to my students,” wrote Ms. Stahl to Judy Kraft, Alternative Assessment Specialist at OSPI.
No response was received from the District. An email response was received from Ms. Kraft.
Refusal on the part of the teachers became unnecessary, when parents of the six students who were to be tested told the teachers that they did not want their children tested using the WAAS system. Teachers honored the parental requests and did not begin the near year-long WAAS process. In January 2009, the teachers were informed that they were out of compliance with state and district policy, by Seattle School District administration. District administration contended parents were required to put refusal of state testing in writing. Parents subsequently wrote refusal letters to the school. After undergoing two District disciplinary hearings each, despite the fact that the District had received refusal letters from parents of all students involved, Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl received letters (see attached) on March 2, 2009, stating that they were suspended without pay for 10 days, beginning March 4, 2009. Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl have filed appeals of the suspensions with the District.
State testing policy provides that parents or students may refuse to take part in state testing. In a letter addressed by PEN to Seattle District Superintendent Marie Goodloe-Johnson, February 20, 2009 (see addendum 1, below), wording was included from the OSPI 2009 Assessment Coordinator’s Handbook, “…agency policy adopted has been that students may refuse to participate or their parents may refuse to have their children tested…The policy further requires the school to request that the refusal on the part of either the student or parent be put into writing by the parent and kept on file at the school or district office…If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in writing, the school should document that the request was made but the parent would not put the refusal in writing.”
Through Public Disclosure, PEN requested documents from the Seattle School District containing policies regarding parental refusal of testing and requirements for teacher, parents, and administrators. On March 2, 2009, PEN received an email from Joy A. Stevens, Sr. Legal Assistant/Public Records Officer for the District, stating, “…I have begun the process of locating and gathering the documents you have requested. I anticipate being able to give you a response on or before March 30, 2009.”
Parents involved are extremely upset that Ms. Griffith and Ms. Stahl are being punished for decisions made by parents and that the teachers who know the needs of their children will not be in the special education classroom for the next two weeks. “This will be a total waste of time for my son. He will learn nothing during these two weeks,” said parent Rachel McKean.
Special requirements for the appropriate care and teaching of the students in question will make it highly unlikely that the District will be able to provide appropriate substitute teachers, particularly under constraints of a two day notice.
Teachers and parents plan to file separate complaints with the Office of Civil Rights. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination or retaliation against individuals who advocate on behalf of persons with disabilities (see addendum 2, below). “In the next two weeks, PEN will assist parents and teachers in taking appropriate legal action against the Seattle School District and, possibly, the OSPI,” stated Juanita Doyon.
Parent Empowerment Network is a statewide, nonprofit organization. The mission of PEN is to provide education and peer training to parents, teachers, and community members at-large, in developing strategies to promote sound policy for quality public schools.
Addendum 1
Parent Empowerment Network
PO Box 494
Spanaway, WA 98387
February 20, 2009
Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson
Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165
Dear Dr. Goodloe-Johnson:
Parent Empowerment Network (PEN) has been informed by parents and teachers that the Seattle School District is failing to honor the right of parents to refuse to allow their children to take part in the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) and/or Washington Alternative Assessment System (WAAS).
The right of parents to opt their children out of the state assessment system has been well-established. State policy is affirmed in the official WASL Coordinator’s Manual, 2009, which states:
Federal and state laws require public schools to administer assessments to students enrolled in the specified grades and subjects, the assumption apparently being that participation on the part of the student or approval on the part of the parent would not be an issue. Because it is not specifically addressed in the legislation, agency policy adopted has been that students may refuse to participate or their parents may refuse to have their children tested. The policy further requires the school to request that the refusal on the part of either the student or parent be put into writing by the parent and kept on file at the school or district office. It is also recommended that the parent be requested to include the reason for not wanting the child tested. If any parent is unwilling to put the refusal in writing, the school should document that the request was made but the parent would not put the refusal in writing.
PEN’s understanding of the situation in question is as follows:
· Parents of six students in special education classes at Green Lake Elementary School informed their children’s teachers that their children were not to take part in the WAAS Portfolio Assessment during the 2008-2009 school year.
· Teachers honored the decision and the rights of the parents and did not begin the WAAS data collection process.
· School and District administrators questioned teachers regarding their failure to begin collection of WAAS-required data for opted out students.
· School and District administrators were informed by teachers that the teachers were acting on the verbal requests of parents that their children not be assessed using the WAAS.
· School and District administrators instructed teachers to incorporate current curriculum into WAAS assessment for students, thus disregarding verbal parental refusals.
· Teachers continued to honor parental refusals of WAAS.
· School and District administrators informed teachers that written requests were needed from parents in order for students to be excused from WAAS.
· School and/or District administrators did not contact parents, but instead placed responsibility for obtaining written refusal from parents solely upon teachers.
· Parents provided written refusal of assessments to school administrator.
· Seattle School District has formally informed teachers that a hearing is scheduled to determine whether or not teachers should be suspended for two weeks without pay for failing to administer the WAAS to students whose parents had verbally notified teachers that their children were not to take part in the WAAS Portfolio.
· Seattle School District alleges that teachers refused to follow written directives of their building principal to administer the WAAS.
· Teachers maintain they acted in good faith and simply honored the verbal requests made to them by parents and, upon instruction from the District, requested written refusals from parents.
· At no time did teachers act on principle based on merits/demerits of the WAAS and its appropriateness for severely disabled, medically fragile students; teachers acted on their principles in following the legal requests of parents.
The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction document, “How Students in Special Education Participate in State Testing,” provides the following policy for determining “how a student participates in the state assessment system.”
“The IEP team, which includes a student’s parents or guardians, decides which testing tool to use based on the students’ needs in each content area.”
Parents involved in the current opt out situation were acting not only in their role as guardians of their children but also as members of the students’ Individual Education Plan teams. They decided to remove their students from the assessment process because they believe that no part of the current Washington assessment system is appropriate for their children with special needs/disabilities.
As with parents of students in regular education classes who make decisions regarding their students and the WASL, parents of children with special needs/disabilities do not always agree with state and federal assessment suggestions or requirements for their students. All parents/guardians of students in Washington State Public Schools have the same right to opt their children out of the state assessment system.
Clearly, parents and their children with disabilities have rights that often go beyond those freely offered in the public school setting. In fact, the U.S. Department of Education letter to Washington State, approving the Washington Assessment System, as required by the No Child Left Behind Act, states that “approval of Washington's standards and assessment system under the ESEA is not a determination that the system complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.”
As an organization, PEN recommends that parents opt out their children from state testing, whether children are to be subjected to WASL or WAAS. We do so because we believe that Washington’s current assessment system fails to uphold the civil rights of students and fails to uphold the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Despite their right to reject the Washington assessment system for their children, parents are often coerced or even harassed by school officials until parents ultimately give in and allow the school to assess their students. In the current case, teachers simply accepted and honored the parents’ decision.
In May 2008, a Seattle School District teacher refused to administer the WASL to his 6th grade class. The action taken by Seattle School District in the case of this teacher’s refusal was to suspend the teacher for eight days without pay. The Seattle School District seems to be equating the case of Green Lake Elementary teachers complying with state policy by honoring parental refusals to the 2008 case of a teacher refusing to administer the WASL. In doing so, the Seattle School District is drawing a parallel where none exists.
In 2008, teacher Carl Chew refused to administer WASL as a matter of principle.. In 2009, teachers at Green Lake Elementary are following state policy and honoring parental refusals.
State policy requires only verbal refusal on the part of the parent or student, leaving it to “the school” to request written documentation from the parent or otherwise document refusal in writing, if the parent chooses not to comply with a request for a written refusal. Unless the Seattle School District has developed and provided a policy requiring that teachers request a written refusal from parents, PEN contends that the school building administrator or assessment coordinator holds responsibility for requesting and obtaining, or otherwise generating, written documentation of parental/student refusal of state assessments.
Regardless of school district policy, simple failure by school personnel to obtain written refusal from the parents does not warrant suspension without pay or any other penalty or record of wrongdoing in the personnel file. In the very suggestion that a two week suspension is warranted, the Seattle School District threatens the rights of the severely disabled and medically fragile students who are in the care of these teachers by potentially removing any hope of provision for a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for a period of two weeks, without due cause.
Further, PEN contends that the Seattle School District has breached parental rights and assessment protocol by directing teachers to assess students against the will and direction of parents. Because of the serious nature of this situation and the possible breach of state and federal regulations and protocols by the Seattle School District, PEN suggests that an investigation by the Puget Sound Education Service District may be in order.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. A hard copy of this letter will follow through US Mail service. Please see attached Public Disclosure Request.
Sincerely,
Juanita Doyon, Director
Parent Empowerment Network
cc Randy Dorn, Rob McKenna, Mary Lindquist, Doug Gill, Jeannette Bliss, Gloria Mitchell, Cheryl Grinager, Joan Bell, Alan Sutliff, Mary Bass, Sherry Carr, Cheryl Chow, Michael DeBell, Peter Maier, Harium Martin-Morris, Steve Sundquist, Jeffry Finer
February 20, 2009
Superintendent Maria L. Goodloe-Johnson
Seattle Public Schools
PO Box 34165
Seattle, WA 98124-1165
Under Public Disclosure, Parent Empowerment Network requests that the Seattle School District provide:
1. Copies of all District policies regarding parental refusal of state assessments, including all policies relating to parents, teachers, building administrators, and district administrators.
2. Copies of all documents, memos, and emails regarding the dissemination of refusal policies and requirements to administrators, schools, teachers, and parents.
Thank you.
Juanita Doyon, Director
Parent Empowerment Network
253-973-1593
Addendum 2
From the Americans with Disabilities Act
Sec.36.206 Retaliation or coercion.
(a) No private or public entity shall discriminate against any individual because that individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by this part, or because that individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under the Act or this part.
(b) No private or public entity shall coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by the Act or this part.
(c) Illustrations of conduct prohibited by this section include, but are not limited to:
(1) Coercing an individual to deny or limit the benefits, services, or advantages to which he or she is entitled under the Act or this part;
(2) Threatening, intimidating, or interfering with an individual with a disability who is seeking to obtain or use the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a public accommodation;
(3) Intimidating or threatening any person because that person is assisting or encouraging an individual or group entitled to claim the rights granted or protected by the Act or this part to exercise those rights; or
(4) Retaliating against any person because that person has participated in any investigation or action to enforce the Act or this part.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Department of Education paid private tutor firm $21M in 2 years, most of it in overhead
Juan Gonzalez, Daily News
Wednesday, March 4th 2009
In its drive to improve school reading and math test scores, the city's Department of Education paid a private company more than $21 million in two years to tutor thousands of public school pupils at home.
But most of that money - more than twice the amount the DOE originally budgeted - went for overhead, management and profit for the company, Champion Learning Center.
Champion got $79 an hour to tutor each pupil for up to four hours per week, according to a copy of the contract obtained by the Daily News.
That adds up to almost $320 a week in tutoring costs per child.
Champion paid its part-time tutors, mostly college students with no teaching experience, an average of $17 an hour.
That's right. The company received an astounding $62 in overhead for every hour its employees spent tutoring a child.
Champion is one of dozens of private companies with state approval to provide tutoring services under the No Child Left Behind Act.
"We received very little training in our orientation," said one college student hired by Champion. "They just told us to follow the instructions in the test prep workbooks they gave us."
Champion hired the student and one of her friends at the same time. Both say they were offered only $15 per hour for their work. In addition, they were told they would have to pay transportation costs to each child's home and they were required to pay a $150 fee each for the cost of fingerprinting and a security check before they could start work.
The DOE's contract with Champion clearly states: "The Contractor shall be solely obligated to bear the costs of all security clearance procedures that involve fees or other costs for any and all persons and/or entities required to undergo such procedures."
Champion's idea of bearing those costs seems to be to pass them on to its employees.
When asked about the fee Tuesday, the company's chief executive, Abraham Sultan, said he did not charge employees, but then added, "It also depends on the situation."
Sultan declined to discuss exactly what his company receives from DOE or what he pays his employees.
"We work that out internally," Sultan said.
The firm, Sultan said, uses "a good group of certified teachers, people with master's degrees and doctorates looking for part-time work, and some college students."
Sultan said word of his company's "excellent performance" has "spread by word of mouth among parents" clamoring to get into his tutoring program.
David Cantor, spokesman for DOE, said Tuesday the department will be reviewing Champion's reports "to determine whether the costs have been properly represented."
"We are also looking at the alleged discrepancy involving payment to tutors," Cantor said.
"If we find that the contractor falsely represented its costs, we would take serious action."
The DOE's original contract with Champion was for $9.6 million over two years, but the company has received $21 million and that amount is expected to go higher by the end of the school year.
Cantor said each company recruits its students, and "actual student attendance [for Champion's program] has exceeded expectations."
This year alone, Champion claims to have tutored 8,600 pupils at home.
But until now, there has been little auditing of these tutorial programs under No Child Left Behind - including those run by Champion.
Wednesday, March 4th 2009
In its drive to improve school reading and math test scores, the city's Department of Education paid a private company more than $21 million in two years to tutor thousands of public school pupils at home.
But most of that money - more than twice the amount the DOE originally budgeted - went for overhead, management and profit for the company, Champion Learning Center.
Champion got $79 an hour to tutor each pupil for up to four hours per week, according to a copy of the contract obtained by the Daily News.
That adds up to almost $320 a week in tutoring costs per child.
Champion paid its part-time tutors, mostly college students with no teaching experience, an average of $17 an hour.
That's right. The company received an astounding $62 in overhead for every hour its employees spent tutoring a child.
Champion is one of dozens of private companies with state approval to provide tutoring services under the No Child Left Behind Act.
"We received very little training in our orientation," said one college student hired by Champion. "They just told us to follow the instructions in the test prep workbooks they gave us."
Champion hired the student and one of her friends at the same time. Both say they were offered only $15 per hour for their work. In addition, they were told they would have to pay transportation costs to each child's home and they were required to pay a $150 fee each for the cost of fingerprinting and a security check before they could start work.
The DOE's contract with Champion clearly states: "The Contractor shall be solely obligated to bear the costs of all security clearance procedures that involve fees or other costs for any and all persons and/or entities required to undergo such procedures."
Champion's idea of bearing those costs seems to be to pass them on to its employees.
When asked about the fee Tuesday, the company's chief executive, Abraham Sultan, said he did not charge employees, but then added, "It also depends on the situation."
Sultan declined to discuss exactly what his company receives from DOE or what he pays his employees.
"We work that out internally," Sultan said.
The firm, Sultan said, uses "a good group of certified teachers, people with master's degrees and doctorates looking for part-time work, and some college students."
Sultan said word of his company's "excellent performance" has "spread by word of mouth among parents" clamoring to get into his tutoring program.
David Cantor, spokesman for DOE, said Tuesday the department will be reviewing Champion's reports "to determine whether the costs have been properly represented."
"We are also looking at the alleged discrepancy involving payment to tutors," Cantor said.
"If we find that the contractor falsely represented its costs, we would take serious action."
The DOE's original contract with Champion was for $9.6 million over two years, but the company has received $21 million and that amount is expected to go higher by the end of the school year.
Cantor said each company recruits its students, and "actual student attendance [for Champion's program] has exceeded expectations."
This year alone, Champion claims to have tutored 8,600 pupils at home.
But until now, there has been little auditing of these tutorial programs under No Child Left Behind - including those run by Champion.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Puerto Rican Teachers: "The Long Way is the Short Way"
Puerto Rican Teachers: "The Long Way is the Short Way"
Labor Notes Staff, February 26, 2009
Teachers in Puerto Rico defied a strike ban and embarked on an all-out fight for the life of their union in late February one year ago. The 10-day walk-out set in motion months of turmoil for the 40,000-member Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico. The government decertified the FMPR as punishment for the strike, and the Service Employees attempted a raid. How has their union survived? . . . ..
Story Body:
FMPR.270
Last February, nearly 25,000 teachers closed Puerto Rico's schools with a 10-day strike. The strike and ensuing fights peaked decades of slowly building momentum for a reform caucus.
One year ago, in late February, teachers in Puerto Rico defied a strike ban and embarked on an all-out fight for the life of their union.
The 10-day walk-out, which capped 27 months of fruitless negotiations, set in motion months of turmoil for the 40,000-member Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico. The government decertified the FMPR as punishment for the strike, and the Service Employees attempted a raid. In late October teachers were asked to vote between SEIU and “no union,” as the government barred FMPR from the ballot.
Responding to a campaign from what they saw as their legitimate union, teachers rejected SEIU’s bid by a 10-point margin, with 55 percent voting for “no union.”
Today FMPR continues to operate as a non-majority union—just as it did before 1998, when public sector collective bargaining was legalized on the island.
The teachers union has been led since 2003 by a reform caucus called CODEMI (Commitment, Democracy, Militancy). For decades the caucus built credibility by slowly nurturing leaders and encouraging action on the local level. Labor Notes spoke with FMPR President Rafael Feliciano Hernandez and Vice President Maria Melendez in New York to see how they did it.
Labor Notes: SEIU poured tremendous resources into this election, millions of dollars, even putting ads on TV. How were you able to win?
FMPR: SEIU spent between $22 and $24 million. We spent $65,000. You can have a lot of money for propaganda, but if you don’t have links with the local leadership, with teachers in the schools, you don’t really have the strength to destroy our union.
I think that the 2008 strike is very important to understanding the “no” vote. For over a year the union developed this strike, largely through volunteers. Our union is based in voluntary work.
We don’t have money but we have leaders at the grassroots of the union, and we have relationships with the community. SEIU and the government thought that our union was a traditional bureaucratic union, but they ran full-speed into a brick wall. That wall was the people, and their commitment to education and to the union.
Something else that helped us is the fact that when you got to the balloting center SEIU had lots of staff there. But they were not teachers. They didn’t know our reality. They could not respond to the questions of the teachers.
LN: Since the 1960s public sector workers have been able to organize non-majority unions. How did you build a local structure?
FMPR: We’ve had a caucus inside the union since 1971. In the ‘80s our caucus targeted the development of local unions, each about 400 to 500 teachers. This is big, but it still permits direct contact between the local leadership and teachers in the schools.
Even when the union was controlled by a bureaucratic leadership, we still had space in the local union, an autonomous space to develop a rank-and-file leadership.
In our union the locals have lots of autonomy. They can call strikes, develop their own educational workshops, have their own newspapers. They meet with their bosses and Department of Education officials. Sometimes they negotiate local agreements. And the local unions are very democratic. The teachers directly elect the leaders every two years.
It’s difficult. Some local unions are strong, some of them are weak. But when we developed the strike, in every place that we have a strong local union, we had a strong strike.
At the top, people don’t have direct contact. You need local leadership to push, to maintain accountability, to create checks and balances.
Sometimes the national leadership loses their way. The local structure permits the rank-and-file leadership to continue. We can be in the newspaper everyday, but if the local union doesn’t have a real presence, then the union is weak.
LN: The community’s been very important in your struggles. How are they involved?
FMPR: In our strike, half of the teachers were on strike, but something like 95 percent of the schools were closed. That’s because in many schools, the parents and students struck. They become part of the process.
We’ve been building this relationship with the community since 2003, using many little strikes and struggles to support parents’ issues, like smaller classes, asbestos removal in schools, and water fountains and supplies in schools.
Through all this we’ve developed an internal debate, and had many discussions. Some of the teachers don’t want to support parents. They think they are an elite. Some of the teachers don’t want to fight back. They think the union should be a service union. But that is part of the struggle, and in the process of the strike we changed the mentality. That is one of the most important things about the strike.
A second thing to stress is that this was a women’s strike. Most of the strikers, something like 75 percent, were women who have to fight with their husbands before fighting against their bosses. That is also an important part of changing Puerto Rican society.
LN: How did you keep people committed to changing the union?
FMPR: It started when all the militant, pro-democratic members formed the CODEMI caucus (Commitment, Democracy, and Militancy). We developed a program, which was important because when somebody got elected they had to work to achieve our program. In the 1980s the caucus started by pushing amendments to the union’s by-laws to develop local unions. We concentrated our work in the local level.
Our caucus worked with a long-term view. For 10 years nobody was elected onto the national leadership of the union. We lost two national elections before our victory in 2003. But the group stayed alive, working every day. It didn’t disappear when the election was finished.
Then, just before the election of 2003 our health insurance fund went bankrupt. The leadership lost something like $43 million. It was a real crisis, and in that moment people decided now is the time to support CODEMI.
Early on, we passed an important amendment that our organizers must be elected teachers. Before that, organizers were selected by the leadership. When we made this change, that staff and organizers must be teachers on leave of absence working for the union—but elected locally, that was very important: The national executive committee had direct contact with the base.
The organizer has to be accountable to the locals, and at the same time the president doesn’t have the power to dismiss the organizers.
Sometimes an organizer doesn’t do his work. That is very difficult for us, because we cannot throw out organizers. We have to wait until his local and his people understand that he is not doing the work and they make a move.
If we don’t have a real democratic process, then everything can be torn down. That has happened many times. Democracy is difficult, but we don’t have another option.
LN: How do you keep yourself honest?
FMPR: We don’t ask our members to do anything that we don’t do. We go to picket lines and sometimes the police arrest us. People have to see us working, too, not just showing up right before a march begins or the cameras start rolling. That is how people develop confidence in you, and in themselves.
We are also respectful of our opposition. When we run a meeting, people get up and say what they want. They have the right to do that. That way people learn how to work with differences and to understand that a different point of view is good, because that is the core of the living organization. The opposition makes us more productive.
Source URL:
http://labornotes.org/node/2125
Labor Notes Staff, February 26, 2009
Teachers in Puerto Rico defied a strike ban and embarked on an all-out fight for the life of their union in late February one year ago. The 10-day walk-out set in motion months of turmoil for the 40,000-member Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico. The government decertified the FMPR as punishment for the strike, and the Service Employees attempted a raid. How has their union survived? . . . ..
Story Body:
FMPR.270
Last February, nearly 25,000 teachers closed Puerto Rico's schools with a 10-day strike. The strike and ensuing fights peaked decades of slowly building momentum for a reform caucus.
One year ago, in late February, teachers in Puerto Rico defied a strike ban and embarked on an all-out fight for the life of their union.
The 10-day walk-out, which capped 27 months of fruitless negotiations, set in motion months of turmoil for the 40,000-member Federacion de Maestros de Puerto Rico. The government decertified the FMPR as punishment for the strike, and the Service Employees attempted a raid. In late October teachers were asked to vote between SEIU and “no union,” as the government barred FMPR from the ballot.
Responding to a campaign from what they saw as their legitimate union, teachers rejected SEIU’s bid by a 10-point margin, with 55 percent voting for “no union.”
Today FMPR continues to operate as a non-majority union—just as it did before 1998, when public sector collective bargaining was legalized on the island.
The teachers union has been led since 2003 by a reform caucus called CODEMI (Commitment, Democracy, Militancy). For decades the caucus built credibility by slowly nurturing leaders and encouraging action on the local level. Labor Notes spoke with FMPR President Rafael Feliciano Hernandez and Vice President Maria Melendez in New York to see how they did it.
Labor Notes: SEIU poured tremendous resources into this election, millions of dollars, even putting ads on TV. How were you able to win?
FMPR: SEIU spent between $22 and $24 million. We spent $65,000. You can have a lot of money for propaganda, but if you don’t have links with the local leadership, with teachers in the schools, you don’t really have the strength to destroy our union.
I think that the 2008 strike is very important to understanding the “no” vote. For over a year the union developed this strike, largely through volunteers. Our union is based in voluntary work.
We don’t have money but we have leaders at the grassroots of the union, and we have relationships with the community. SEIU and the government thought that our union was a traditional bureaucratic union, but they ran full-speed into a brick wall. That wall was the people, and their commitment to education and to the union.
Something else that helped us is the fact that when you got to the balloting center SEIU had lots of staff there. But they were not teachers. They didn’t know our reality. They could not respond to the questions of the teachers.
LN: Since the 1960s public sector workers have been able to organize non-majority unions. How did you build a local structure?
FMPR: We’ve had a caucus inside the union since 1971. In the ‘80s our caucus targeted the development of local unions, each about 400 to 500 teachers. This is big, but it still permits direct contact between the local leadership and teachers in the schools.
Even when the union was controlled by a bureaucratic leadership, we still had space in the local union, an autonomous space to develop a rank-and-file leadership.
In our union the locals have lots of autonomy. They can call strikes, develop their own educational workshops, have their own newspapers. They meet with their bosses and Department of Education officials. Sometimes they negotiate local agreements. And the local unions are very democratic. The teachers directly elect the leaders every two years.
It’s difficult. Some local unions are strong, some of them are weak. But when we developed the strike, in every place that we have a strong local union, we had a strong strike.
At the top, people don’t have direct contact. You need local leadership to push, to maintain accountability, to create checks and balances.
Sometimes the national leadership loses their way. The local structure permits the rank-and-file leadership to continue. We can be in the newspaper everyday, but if the local union doesn’t have a real presence, then the union is weak.
LN: The community’s been very important in your struggles. How are they involved?
FMPR: In our strike, half of the teachers were on strike, but something like 95 percent of the schools were closed. That’s because in many schools, the parents and students struck. They become part of the process.
We’ve been building this relationship with the community since 2003, using many little strikes and struggles to support parents’ issues, like smaller classes, asbestos removal in schools, and water fountains and supplies in schools.
Through all this we’ve developed an internal debate, and had many discussions. Some of the teachers don’t want to support parents. They think they are an elite. Some of the teachers don’t want to fight back. They think the union should be a service union. But that is part of the struggle, and in the process of the strike we changed the mentality. That is one of the most important things about the strike.
A second thing to stress is that this was a women’s strike. Most of the strikers, something like 75 percent, were women who have to fight with their husbands before fighting against their bosses. That is also an important part of changing Puerto Rican society.
LN: How did you keep people committed to changing the union?
FMPR: It started when all the militant, pro-democratic members formed the CODEMI caucus (Commitment, Democracy, and Militancy). We developed a program, which was important because when somebody got elected they had to work to achieve our program. In the 1980s the caucus started by pushing amendments to the union’s by-laws to develop local unions. We concentrated our work in the local level.
Our caucus worked with a long-term view. For 10 years nobody was elected onto the national leadership of the union. We lost two national elections before our victory in 2003. But the group stayed alive, working every day. It didn’t disappear when the election was finished.
Then, just before the election of 2003 our health insurance fund went bankrupt. The leadership lost something like $43 million. It was a real crisis, and in that moment people decided now is the time to support CODEMI.
Early on, we passed an important amendment that our organizers must be elected teachers. Before that, organizers were selected by the leadership. When we made this change, that staff and organizers must be teachers on leave of absence working for the union—but elected locally, that was very important: The national executive committee had direct contact with the base.
The organizer has to be accountable to the locals, and at the same time the president doesn’t have the power to dismiss the organizers.
Sometimes an organizer doesn’t do his work. That is very difficult for us, because we cannot throw out organizers. We have to wait until his local and his people understand that he is not doing the work and they make a move.
If we don’t have a real democratic process, then everything can be torn down. That has happened many times. Democracy is difficult, but we don’t have another option.
LN: How do you keep yourself honest?
FMPR: We don’t ask our members to do anything that we don’t do. We go to picket lines and sometimes the police arrest us. People have to see us working, too, not just showing up right before a march begins or the cameras start rolling. That is how people develop confidence in you, and in themselves.
We are also respectful of our opposition. When we run a meeting, people get up and say what they want. They have the right to do that. That way people learn how to work with differences and to understand that a different point of view is good, because that is the core of the living organization. The opposition makes us more productive.
Source URL:
http://labornotes.org/node/2125
Saturday, February 28, 2009
CORE Chronicles: Chicago Teacher Protest Proposed School Closures
http://coreteachers.com/
http://www.coreteachers.com/
February 19th, 2009
Protect Public Education this Wednesday, February 25th
http://coreteachers.com/2009/02/19/protect-public-education-this-wednesday-february-25th/cpsprotest-2/
Take the day off on February 25th or come after work to 125 S. Clark to protest the proposed school closings, consolidations, turn-arounds and phase-outs.
If your school wants a bus, CORE made sure you will get reimbursed by the union. Hold the CTU accountable and call Sandy Shultz at 312.329.6226 for information on the buses.
Also, CORE pushed to ensure that there will be a phone banking session from 4pm to 8pm at CTU headquarters (4th floor of the Merchandise Mart) this upcoming Monday and Tuesday, the 23rd and 24th of February. Come out and let’s use our union’s resources to actually support and mobilize members.
Twenty Two schools are targeted and your school could be next. The probation list and underutilized school list are a mile long, we cannot let the Board unilateraly close our schools and replace them with unproven and unaccountable charter, turnaround and contract schools.
Help restore democracy and fairness to the educational system in Chicago.
Contact coreteachers@gmail.com for more information.
NEXT CORE CITY-WIDE MEETING
Come to the next city-wide CORE meeting
WHEN: Wednesday March 4th, 4:15pm
WHERE: The United Electrical Workers Hall, 37 S. Ashland
PROTEST REN2010
Stop Renaissance 2010http://coreteachers.com/2009/02/09/http2009cpshearingsblogspotcom/stop-ren2010/
Check out CORE member Al Ramirez’s new video on the protests against Ren 2010 this past Wednesday, January 28th.
Also view Labor Beat’s coverage of the January 28th protest. CORE and the Grassroots Education Movement helped organize the event, we are calling for a moratorium on Renaissance 2010.
Labor Beat’s coverage of January 28th protest
December 21st, 2008
Teachers demand turnaround moratorium (via Chi-Town Daily News)
Groups representing teachers and parents of Chicago Public Schools students appeared yesterday at a Board of Education meeting to protest the district's approach to turning around troubled schools.
December 21st, 2008
Charter schools Obama praised ripped at board meeting (via Chicago Sun-Times
Posted in News | No Comments »
A parade of teachers, parents and students complained Wednesday about the new breed of Chicago schools President-elect Barack Obama touted the day before when he tapped Chicago’s school chief to be his U.S. secretary of education.
Read more: Charter schools Obama praised ripped at board meeting.
December 18th, 2008
Obama’s Betrayal of Public Education? Arne Duncan and the Corporate Model of Schooling (via truthout.org)
Since the 1980s, but particularly under the Bush administration, certain elements of the religious right, corporate culture and Republican right wing have argued that free public education represents either a massive fraud or a contemptuous failure. Far from a genuine call for reform, these attacks largely stem from an attempt to transform schools from a public investment to a private good, answerable not to the demands and values of a democratic society but to the imperatives of the marketplace.
October 23rd, 2008
Next Meeting Wednesday, October 29th
Check out Core’s next meeting on Wednesday October 29th
Where: 1805 S. Loomis at the Rudy Lozano Library in the auditorium
When: 4:00pm
We always meet the Wednesday before the monthly union meetings at the same time and the same place.
October 8th, 2008
Renaissance 2010 Strikes Again
Renaissance 2010 Strikes Again from jackson potter on Vimeo.
http://www.coreteachers.com/
February 19th, 2009
Protect Public Education this Wednesday, February 25th
http://coreteachers.com/2009/02/19/protect-public-education-this-wednesday-february-25th/cpsprotest-2/
Take the day off on February 25th or come after work to 125 S. Clark to protest the proposed school closings, consolidations, turn-arounds and phase-outs.
If your school wants a bus, CORE made sure you will get reimbursed by the union. Hold the CTU accountable and call Sandy Shultz at 312.329.6226 for information on the buses.
Also, CORE pushed to ensure that there will be a phone banking session from 4pm to 8pm at CTU headquarters (4th floor of the Merchandise Mart) this upcoming Monday and Tuesday, the 23rd and 24th of February. Come out and let’s use our union’s resources to actually support and mobilize members.
Twenty Two schools are targeted and your school could be next. The probation list and underutilized school list are a mile long, we cannot let the Board unilateraly close our schools and replace them with unproven and unaccountable charter, turnaround and contract schools.
Help restore democracy and fairness to the educational system in Chicago.
Contact coreteachers@gmail.com for more information.
NEXT CORE CITY-WIDE MEETING
Come to the next city-wide CORE meeting
WHEN: Wednesday March 4th, 4:15pm
WHERE: The United Electrical Workers Hall, 37 S. Ashland
PROTEST REN2010
Stop Renaissance 2010http://coreteachers.com/2009/02/09/http2009cpshearingsblogspotcom/stop-ren2010/
Check out CORE member Al Ramirez’s new video on the protests against Ren 2010 this past Wednesday, January 28th.
Also view Labor Beat’s coverage of the January 28th protest. CORE and the Grassroots Education Movement helped organize the event, we are calling for a moratorium on Renaissance 2010.
Labor Beat’s coverage of January 28th protest
December 21st, 2008
Teachers demand turnaround moratorium (via Chi-Town Daily News)
Groups representing teachers and parents of Chicago Public Schools students appeared yesterday at a Board of Education meeting to protest the district's approach to turning around troubled schools.
December 21st, 2008
Charter schools Obama praised ripped at board meeting (via Chicago Sun-Times
Posted in News | No Comments »
A parade of teachers, parents and students complained Wednesday about the new breed of Chicago schools President-elect Barack Obama touted the day before when he tapped Chicago’s school chief to be his U.S. secretary of education.
Read more: Charter schools Obama praised ripped at board meeting.
December 18th, 2008
Obama’s Betrayal of Public Education? Arne Duncan and the Corporate Model of Schooling (via truthout.org)
Since the 1980s, but particularly under the Bush administration, certain elements of the religious right, corporate culture and Republican right wing have argued that free public education represents either a massive fraud or a contemptuous failure. Far from a genuine call for reform, these attacks largely stem from an attempt to transform schools from a public investment to a private good, answerable not to the demands and values of a democratic society but to the imperatives of the marketplace.
October 23rd, 2008
Next Meeting Wednesday, October 29th
Check out Core’s next meeting on Wednesday October 29th
Where: 1805 S. Loomis at the Rudy Lozano Library in the auditorium
When: 4:00pm
We always meet the Wednesday before the monthly union meetings at the same time and the same place.
October 8th, 2008
Renaissance 2010 Strikes Again
Renaissance 2010 Strikes Again from jackson potter on Vimeo.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Teachers put to an unfair test
A teacher in the New York City Public Schools explains how standardized testing distorts kids' learning and undermines teachers unions.
February 27, 2009
ACROSS THE country, the neoliberal educational model continues to be pushed. Privately managed and publicly funded charter schools are multiplying. In public schools, teachers are being forced to teach narrowly to standardized tests, and there's a push to deny union rights like seniority and tenure in favor of standardized test-driven evaluation and merit pay.
Examples of such moves abound. Following Hurricane Katrina, all union teachers were fired in New Orleans, and more than half the schools in that city became charter schools. In Washington, D.C., hundreds of teachers have been fired and at least 21 schools have been closed. In addition, Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of D.C. schools is proposing to "dilute tenure protection and link individual teacher pay and job security to improved student achievement," according to the Washington Post.
New York City is no exception. Advertisements for charter schools are being sent out en masse to residents of Harlem and placed in subway cars. Each year, there seems to be more of an explicit push to tailor instruction to fit standardized tests--complete with breakdowns and analyses of previous years' tests--so as to "help" teachers better teach to the test. The number of periodic assessments that eat into instructional time and cause immense amount of stress on students continues to rise.
Shockingly, some of the most dramatic moves toward a neoliberal educational model have been agreed to by the leadership of my union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT)--and even proclaimed as victories!
The oft-stated justification by union leadership for these concessions is that accepting neoliberal-lite proposals will allow for the union to have a say in what happens and head off more draconian attacks.
For starters, the UFT opened its own charter school in the fall of 2005, and has since added another. Our union's leadership proudly proclaims the school as the "first union-operated charter school in the country."
Then, in the fall of 2007, the UFT agreed to a "pilot," "voluntary" school-wide merit pay scheme. Rather than rewarding individual teachers, the plan gives a bloc of money to each school on the basis of the school's performance as a whole. This money is to be distributed by a committee of four, which must come to a consensus--and it includes two representatives of the school administration.
Thus, the potential exists for the principal to insist on an unequal division of the approximately $3,000 allotted per teacher.
Each school that is selected has to vote on whether to accept the program. But given the state of the economy, this is a lot of money to turn down, even for teachers who are opposed to merit pay and the move towards privatization. My school has been chosen for this program for the two years of the program's existence, and each year, it has passed (although this year by a very narrow margin).
The justification from our union leadership is that if we are going to have charter schools anyway, let them be union-run. If merit pay is coming anyway, let it be group merit pay instead of individual merit pay.
But this gets it backwards. The privatizers see such examples as victories. Charter schools are a step away from public control, and for that reason, most are nonunion. We should be fighting to keep public schools public, not jumping on the charter school bandwagon--while, of course, fighting to unionize charter schools that do exist.
If the neoliberals get their way, more of our educational funding will go towards merit pay and charter schools, which will undermine public education and union rights. For example, while the stimulus bill includes a welcome $54 billion for education, the New York Times reported that, "Programs that tie teacher pay to performance will most likely receive money."
In fact, a February 19 New York City Department of Education announcement stated, "New York City can also apply for grants to expand its Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program, which rewards educators for improving student achievement, from the $200 million Teacher Incentive Funds." This money could be better used to prevent budget cuts, lower existing class sizes or to increase teacher salaries across the board.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MEANWHILE, THIS fall, the UFT agreed to "Teacher Data Reports" that apply to Grade 4-8 English Language Arts (ELA) and math teachers. The reports break down the performance of the students of each teacher on New York State tests.
Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and UFT President Randi Weingarten jointly announced these reports as "a "new tool to help teachers learn about their own strengths and opportunities for development." The letter announcing the reports extolled the supposed virtues of the report--and even had the audacity to claim that the idea came from teachers themselves! "[M]any of you have told us how useful it would be to better understand how your efforts are influencing student progress," the letter stated.
I have heard of teachers complain of lack of mentoring, support and materials (including basics like books and copies), but never of not knowing or having a breakdown of our students' scores on standardized tests. In fact, we have been subjected to countless breakdowns of such "data."
At the same time, the letter spelled out clearly that "the Teacher Data Reports are not to be used for evaluation purposes" or in determining tenure. It is also specified that reports are to be a private document to be shared with each teacher and their principal. Again, our union leadership proclaimed a victory in keeping the data private and fending off attempts to use such data for evaluation.
But if the reports are not useful in teacher training and development, what are they useful for? Especially given the context of this push towards performance-based evaluation and merit pay, it is impossible to see these reports as anything but a foot in the door toward teacher evaluation on the basis of test scores, and ultimately publicly releasing this data.
The experience at my school has helped to shed light on the true nature of these reports. I'm a teacher at a middle school in New York City, one that is being "phased out" (read: closed down) over the next two years. In fact, the first discussion of Teacher Data Reports came at the meeting where the announcement of our school closing was made.
Several representatives from the DOE came in to close our school. One of them pointed out that the Teacher Data Reports "would be out there" when we apply for new jobs--an apparent effort to scare us into teaching to the test. And as our school closes, "excess" teachers become part of the teacher reserve and will have to apply for new jobs. The implicit threat here is that this data will determine whether we will be hired at a new school.
Our principal "rolled out" the Teacher Data Initiative at a recent faculty meeting. She started by explaining that we are all "accountable" for education: teachers, students, administrators, and parents (she forgot to mention Chancellor Klein and the politicians who perpetuate the testing craze, school segregation and overcrowded classes).
Whether we like it or not, we were told, education is becoming a business, and these data reports will hold us accountable according to a business model. The principal also mentioned that we could look at these reports to evaluate our own teaching practices. But that was clearly secondary to the overwhelming message that these were primarily for the sake of accountability.
It was pointed out by staff members that according to the UFT/DOE agreement: (1) the reports are supposed to be kept between teachers and their principal and (2) they cannot be used for the sake of evaluation. The principal did not contest these points, but also claimed that this data can be shared with other principals. So when we apply for new jobs principals will look at our Teacher Data Reports while deciding whether to hire us or not.
This was bad enough, but despite verbally agreeing that these reports were supposed to be private, she handed out all ELA and math teachers' data reports to every faculty member, compiled and stapled, apparently for the sake of comparison.
As I was steamed from the discussion, I didn't even realize what the principal was handing out, and didn't even look at the reports--and still haven't. But a colleague called me and explained what the principal had done. This is in clear violation of the UFT/DOE agreement that the reports were to be private.
Many people on the staff were outraged, and several of us called the district representative from our union. The next day, a union meeting was held. Everyone at the meeting (which was about two-thirds of the chapter) signed a letter expressing our outrage, which was forwarded to the leaders of the UFT and the DOE.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AFTER A couple of weeks of e-mails and phone calls to the union and to higher-ups in the DOE, a superintendent from the Department of Education came in to apologize, along with a vice president from the UFT. Notably, our principal was absent--and has yet to directly apologize to the staff. The superintendent said that all principals were given professional development outlining the use of data reports, and that it was very clear that reports were to be handed out only in individual meetings.
The superintendent also said that she is considering disciplinary against my principal. But she refused to guarantee this, or state exactly what that the action would be. On the issue of administrators sharing reports with other administrators, the superintendent stated that this was not allowed. However, this same superintendent was present when it was said that the data would be "out there."
The superintendents' new position on the confidentiality of the data is definitely a welcome development, as statements from the UFT and DOE have been unclear on this issue. Nonetheless, what is to stop principals from discretely sharing the data and this data informing hiring decisions?
A couple of conclusions can be drawn from this experience. The idea expressed in the joint letter from Weingarten/Klein that the Teacher Data Initiative would be a "new tool to help teachers learn about their own strengths and opportunities for development" is absurd. The incident at my school--along with my principal's and a DOE representative's initial framing of the issue--should prove beyond a doubt that Teacher Data Reports are ultimately meant to be a tool for the evaluation of teachers.
If this data is used for evaluation, teachers will face additional pressure to spend weeks of teaching students how to take the test, poring through old exams and dumbing down instruction to only cover the types of problems found on previous tests. In any case, we can expect principals to threaten to use these reports as evaluative tools either explicitly or otherwise.
Moreover, I refuse to believe that my principal didn't get the idea that these reports are a "tool for accountability" from somewhere up the chain. It's only because we came together as a united staff that the DOE felt the need to change the tone of the conversation with our staff.
Finally, we need to argue that the Teacher Data Initiative should be abolished immediately. It serves no useful purpose for professional development. There can be no effective mechanism to prevent the data's misuse among administrators, either sharing it with staff or administrators or using it, in practice, as a tool for evaluation.
We must demand that swift and dramatic action be taken, lest other principals feel that they can get away with sharing the reports publicly or among themselves.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
What you can do
A New York City teacher group, Justice Not Just Tests! [1] has launched a petition campaign to demand that the UFT: (1) Retract its support for the teacher data reports and merit pay programs; (2) Oppose all initiatives that promote a focus on standardized tests; (3) Oppose categorically the use of standardized tests in a high-stakes manner; and (4) Support alternative assessments like portfolios and other performance based assessments.
For more information, write to jnjt@nycore.org [2].
Source:
http://socialistworker.org/2009/02/27/teachers-put-to-an-unfair-test
February 27, 2009
ACROSS THE country, the neoliberal educational model continues to be pushed. Privately managed and publicly funded charter schools are multiplying. In public schools, teachers are being forced to teach narrowly to standardized tests, and there's a push to deny union rights like seniority and tenure in favor of standardized test-driven evaluation and merit pay.
Examples of such moves abound. Following Hurricane Katrina, all union teachers were fired in New Orleans, and more than half the schools in that city became charter schools. In Washington, D.C., hundreds of teachers have been fired and at least 21 schools have been closed. In addition, Michelle Rhee, the chancellor of D.C. schools is proposing to "dilute tenure protection and link individual teacher pay and job security to improved student achievement," according to the Washington Post.
New York City is no exception. Advertisements for charter schools are being sent out en masse to residents of Harlem and placed in subway cars. Each year, there seems to be more of an explicit push to tailor instruction to fit standardized tests--complete with breakdowns and analyses of previous years' tests--so as to "help" teachers better teach to the test. The number of periodic assessments that eat into instructional time and cause immense amount of stress on students continues to rise.
Shockingly, some of the most dramatic moves toward a neoliberal educational model have been agreed to by the leadership of my union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT)--and even proclaimed as victories!
The oft-stated justification by union leadership for these concessions is that accepting neoliberal-lite proposals will allow for the union to have a say in what happens and head off more draconian attacks.
For starters, the UFT opened its own charter school in the fall of 2005, and has since added another. Our union's leadership proudly proclaims the school as the "first union-operated charter school in the country."
Then, in the fall of 2007, the UFT agreed to a "pilot," "voluntary" school-wide merit pay scheme. Rather than rewarding individual teachers, the plan gives a bloc of money to each school on the basis of the school's performance as a whole. This money is to be distributed by a committee of four, which must come to a consensus--and it includes two representatives of the school administration.
Thus, the potential exists for the principal to insist on an unequal division of the approximately $3,000 allotted per teacher.
Each school that is selected has to vote on whether to accept the program. But given the state of the economy, this is a lot of money to turn down, even for teachers who are opposed to merit pay and the move towards privatization. My school has been chosen for this program for the two years of the program's existence, and each year, it has passed (although this year by a very narrow margin).
The justification from our union leadership is that if we are going to have charter schools anyway, let them be union-run. If merit pay is coming anyway, let it be group merit pay instead of individual merit pay.
But this gets it backwards. The privatizers see such examples as victories. Charter schools are a step away from public control, and for that reason, most are nonunion. We should be fighting to keep public schools public, not jumping on the charter school bandwagon--while, of course, fighting to unionize charter schools that do exist.
If the neoliberals get their way, more of our educational funding will go towards merit pay and charter schools, which will undermine public education and union rights. For example, while the stimulus bill includes a welcome $54 billion for education, the New York Times reported that, "Programs that tie teacher pay to performance will most likely receive money."
In fact, a February 19 New York City Department of Education announcement stated, "New York City can also apply for grants to expand its Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program, which rewards educators for improving student achievement, from the $200 million Teacher Incentive Funds." This money could be better used to prevent budget cuts, lower existing class sizes or to increase teacher salaries across the board.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
MEANWHILE, THIS fall, the UFT agreed to "Teacher Data Reports" that apply to Grade 4-8 English Language Arts (ELA) and math teachers. The reports break down the performance of the students of each teacher on New York State tests.
Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and UFT President Randi Weingarten jointly announced these reports as "a "new tool to help teachers learn about their own strengths and opportunities for development." The letter announcing the reports extolled the supposed virtues of the report--and even had the audacity to claim that the idea came from teachers themselves! "[M]any of you have told us how useful it would be to better understand how your efforts are influencing student progress," the letter stated.
I have heard of teachers complain of lack of mentoring, support and materials (including basics like books and copies), but never of not knowing or having a breakdown of our students' scores on standardized tests. In fact, we have been subjected to countless breakdowns of such "data."
At the same time, the letter spelled out clearly that "the Teacher Data Reports are not to be used for evaluation purposes" or in determining tenure. It is also specified that reports are to be a private document to be shared with each teacher and their principal. Again, our union leadership proclaimed a victory in keeping the data private and fending off attempts to use such data for evaluation.
But if the reports are not useful in teacher training and development, what are they useful for? Especially given the context of this push towards performance-based evaluation and merit pay, it is impossible to see these reports as anything but a foot in the door toward teacher evaluation on the basis of test scores, and ultimately publicly releasing this data.
The experience at my school has helped to shed light on the true nature of these reports. I'm a teacher at a middle school in New York City, one that is being "phased out" (read: closed down) over the next two years. In fact, the first discussion of Teacher Data Reports came at the meeting where the announcement of our school closing was made.
Several representatives from the DOE came in to close our school. One of them pointed out that the Teacher Data Reports "would be out there" when we apply for new jobs--an apparent effort to scare us into teaching to the test. And as our school closes, "excess" teachers become part of the teacher reserve and will have to apply for new jobs. The implicit threat here is that this data will determine whether we will be hired at a new school.
Our principal "rolled out" the Teacher Data Initiative at a recent faculty meeting. She started by explaining that we are all "accountable" for education: teachers, students, administrators, and parents (she forgot to mention Chancellor Klein and the politicians who perpetuate the testing craze, school segregation and overcrowded classes).
Whether we like it or not, we were told, education is becoming a business, and these data reports will hold us accountable according to a business model. The principal also mentioned that we could look at these reports to evaluate our own teaching practices. But that was clearly secondary to the overwhelming message that these were primarily for the sake of accountability.
It was pointed out by staff members that according to the UFT/DOE agreement: (1) the reports are supposed to be kept between teachers and their principal and (2) they cannot be used for the sake of evaluation. The principal did not contest these points, but also claimed that this data can be shared with other principals. So when we apply for new jobs principals will look at our Teacher Data Reports while deciding whether to hire us or not.
This was bad enough, but despite verbally agreeing that these reports were supposed to be private, she handed out all ELA and math teachers' data reports to every faculty member, compiled and stapled, apparently for the sake of comparison.
As I was steamed from the discussion, I didn't even realize what the principal was handing out, and didn't even look at the reports--and still haven't. But a colleague called me and explained what the principal had done. This is in clear violation of the UFT/DOE agreement that the reports were to be private.
Many people on the staff were outraged, and several of us called the district representative from our union. The next day, a union meeting was held. Everyone at the meeting (which was about two-thirds of the chapter) signed a letter expressing our outrage, which was forwarded to the leaders of the UFT and the DOE.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
AFTER A couple of weeks of e-mails and phone calls to the union and to higher-ups in the DOE, a superintendent from the Department of Education came in to apologize, along with a vice president from the UFT. Notably, our principal was absent--and has yet to directly apologize to the staff. The superintendent said that all principals were given professional development outlining the use of data reports, and that it was very clear that reports were to be handed out only in individual meetings.
The superintendent also said that she is considering disciplinary against my principal. But she refused to guarantee this, or state exactly what that the action would be. On the issue of administrators sharing reports with other administrators, the superintendent stated that this was not allowed. However, this same superintendent was present when it was said that the data would be "out there."
The superintendents' new position on the confidentiality of the data is definitely a welcome development, as statements from the UFT and DOE have been unclear on this issue. Nonetheless, what is to stop principals from discretely sharing the data and this data informing hiring decisions?
A couple of conclusions can be drawn from this experience. The idea expressed in the joint letter from Weingarten/Klein that the Teacher Data Initiative would be a "new tool to help teachers learn about their own strengths and opportunities for development" is absurd. The incident at my school--along with my principal's and a DOE representative's initial framing of the issue--should prove beyond a doubt that Teacher Data Reports are ultimately meant to be a tool for the evaluation of teachers.
If this data is used for evaluation, teachers will face additional pressure to spend weeks of teaching students how to take the test, poring through old exams and dumbing down instruction to only cover the types of problems found on previous tests. In any case, we can expect principals to threaten to use these reports as evaluative tools either explicitly or otherwise.
Moreover, I refuse to believe that my principal didn't get the idea that these reports are a "tool for accountability" from somewhere up the chain. It's only because we came together as a united staff that the DOE felt the need to change the tone of the conversation with our staff.
Finally, we need to argue that the Teacher Data Initiative should be abolished immediately. It serves no useful purpose for professional development. There can be no effective mechanism to prevent the data's misuse among administrators, either sharing it with staff or administrators or using it, in practice, as a tool for evaluation.
We must demand that swift and dramatic action be taken, lest other principals feel that they can get away with sharing the reports publicly or among themselves.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
What you can do
A New York City teacher group, Justice Not Just Tests! [1] has launched a petition campaign to demand that the UFT: (1) Retract its support for the teacher data reports and merit pay programs; (2) Oppose all initiatives that promote a focus on standardized tests; (3) Oppose categorically the use of standardized tests in a high-stakes manner; and (4) Support alternative assessments like portfolios and other performance based assessments.
For more information, write to jnjt@nycore.org [2].
Source:
http://socialistworker.org/2009/02/27/teachers-put-to-an-unfair-test
Paul Moore on Michelle Rhee
This Washington Post article...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403740_Comments.html
.....inspired this comment.
As her corporate masters have been forced to stand down by the
collapse of their global economy, of course Michelle Rhee's tune has
begun to change. It's out with the arrogant bluster of the bully and
in with the false humility of the abandoned and panic-stricken bureaucrat.
Rhee looked around the other day and her financial backers were gone.
Gates, and Broad, and Dell, and Robertson went to see about their own
survival. Rhee still longs to be a superstar in the dismantling of
public education. She will miss the Time magazine covers and the
mention of her name in presidential debates. And she still dreams of
smashing teachers seniority rights and thus their unions but that
whole project is being shutdown before you can say the Icelandic
banking system or credit default swaps.
When the history of Michelle Rhee's brief tenure in Washington, D.C.
is written it will go something like this. Lacking any discernible
qualifications, her shocking appointment as Chancellor of D.C. public
schools, can be understood only when you realize that Rhee was brought
in to inflict maximum damage on the district's public schools and its
children. And as a cultist (Teach For America, New Teacher Project)
and true believer she came at a bargain basement salary. Really
qualified superintendents were courted (Fenty visited Miami with
several members of the D.C. commission to interview Dr. Rudolph Crew)
but those candidates would have asked questions. They could not be
counted on to mindlessly take a club to D.C.'s public schools. The
havoc and chaos that Rhee caused was no accident. It was the plan!
But Michelle Rhee appeared on the scene because and when the "global
economy" was riding herd on this planet. Globalization is at the very
foundation of business model for schools, charters, vouchers, data
driven instruction, merit pay, standardized testing, and most
perversely of all, paying students to consume their version of
education. It was the reason the Business Roundtable and Bill Gates
were interested in public education at all. The CEO's wanted a profit
making private school system and Gates wanted visas for Indians and
Taiwanese who work for less.
Michelle Rhee got humble and then disappeared as the global economy
crashed and burned.
Paul A. Moore
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/24/AR2009022403740_Comments.html
.....inspired this comment.
As her corporate masters have been forced to stand down by the
collapse of their global economy, of course Michelle Rhee's tune has
begun to change. It's out with the arrogant bluster of the bully and
in with the false humility of the abandoned and panic-stricken bureaucrat.
Rhee looked around the other day and her financial backers were gone.
Gates, and Broad, and Dell, and Robertson went to see about their own
survival. Rhee still longs to be a superstar in the dismantling of
public education. She will miss the Time magazine covers and the
mention of her name in presidential debates. And she still dreams of
smashing teachers seniority rights and thus their unions but that
whole project is being shutdown before you can say the Icelandic
banking system or credit default swaps.
When the history of Michelle Rhee's brief tenure in Washington, D.C.
is written it will go something like this. Lacking any discernible
qualifications, her shocking appointment as Chancellor of D.C. public
schools, can be understood only when you realize that Rhee was brought
in to inflict maximum damage on the district's public schools and its
children. And as a cultist (Teach For America, New Teacher Project)
and true believer she came at a bargain basement salary. Really
qualified superintendents were courted (Fenty visited Miami with
several members of the D.C. commission to interview Dr. Rudolph Crew)
but those candidates would have asked questions. They could not be
counted on to mindlessly take a club to D.C.'s public schools. The
havoc and chaos that Rhee caused was no accident. It was the plan!
But Michelle Rhee appeared on the scene because and when the "global
economy" was riding herd on this planet. Globalization is at the very
foundation of business model for schools, charters, vouchers, data
driven instruction, merit pay, standardized testing, and most
perversely of all, paying students to consume their version of
education. It was the reason the Business Roundtable and Bill Gates
were interested in public education at all. The CEO's wanted a profit
making private school system and Gates wanted visas for Indians and
Taiwanese who work for less.
Michelle Rhee got humble and then disappeared as the global economy
crashed and burned.
Paul A. Moore
Thursday, February 26, 2009
District 3 (Upper West Side) Meeting and Comments
See Leonie Haimson below this
From Bijou Miller, Co-President of District 3 President Council
For those of you who did not make the joint Pres. Council/CEC meeting
at PS 241, I wanted to post this because, in my opinion, what
happened tonight was the DOE at its worst- In point of fact, I
thought I had seen its worst, until tonight.
There was a joint Presidents' Council/CEC meeting tonight. Our Pres.
Council meeting began at 6 P.M. Upon arriving, I noticed that there
was a huge crowd already in the auditorium. I assumed that it was
people getting there early for the 6:30 CEC meeting, which had a very
long agenda. Instead, to my surprise, I discovered a rally being
held for the Harlem Success Academy- I later found out that
this "hearing" was being held under the auspices of the Charter
School Institute of the State University of New York. I also found
out that someone had bused in a busload of children who were given
caps blazoned with the Harlem Success Academy logo. If this was a
hearing to get community feedback, it certainly had a very biased
atmosphere.
I was told that PS 241 parents had not been told about this hearing
and apparently, if you wanted to speak, you had to somehow contact
the "Hearing Registration Officer" on the day of the hearing BEFORE
it started (the window of opportunity was from 5 to 5:30p.m.)
I did not attend this "hearing" as I had to conduct our own meeting
but from what I gleaned, I do not think the State University got the
response they had expected.
In fact, many parents were angry and outraged and that anger and
outrage carried over into the CEC meeting (which was delayed for
forty five minutes because of this hearing).
At the CEC meeting, parents from 241 and other schools were
understandably upset. The upshot is this: There was no consultation
with the CEC about putting a new school into PS 241. For some
reason, the DOE decided that the District Leadership Team was the
group to take input from the community and help decide what new
schools would be chosen. The process, if you can call it that, was
rushed. DLT meetings are usually in the late afternoon, which is
inconvenient for many parents- 241 parents were still reeling from
finding out that their school was being phased out so I do not think
they even had the DLT on their radar- And why should they? No one,
including myself, a DLT member, ever thought that the DLT would be
involved. Heck, most parents don't even know what a DLT is.
At any rate, when parents did come to the meetings (there were really
only three and we also had to get feedback about MS 44), the response
was very anti-charter. John White, the Office of Portfolio
Development, who is running this show,(and who was at this hearing
tonight), stated that the feeling was that 241 families would not put
their kids into another public school-that the DOE felt a charter
would attract more families. Let me also say that the DLT was told
there were at least two viable options for 241, one a charter and one
a public. The DLT was never ever given any information on the public
option. We asked for info but he put it off or changed the subject
at least twice. It was quite obvious that a charter was the DOE's
choice and that Harlem Success was the specific choice. At the second
meeting, White had even invited Harlem Success parents to come
and "testify" about how great their school was. So the deck was
definitely stacked. Nonetheless, at the third meeting, there was
still parent and DLT input asking that we be given public school
options to consider.
One other point- At the last meeting, White said that whatever the
charter school might be, they would be required to hold their initial
lottery for only 241 zoned families. In addition, he stated that the
241 parents would have first priority at other area public schools-
five in all. They are PS 149 Sojourner Truth
P.S. 76 Phillip Randolph
P.S. 165 Robert E. Simon
P.S. 180 Hugo Newman
P.S. 185 John M. Langston
So, the zoned families of 241 would have first choice at six schools-
So there are zoning issues that need to be addressed and it is quite
possible that a lawsuit is in the making- The CEC should have been
consulted about the fact that, when PS 241 is phased out, there will
no longer be a zoned public school in that building (yes, charter
schools are public schools but they are not zoned because they will
take from throughout the district...) . Additionally, the DOE is for
all intents and purposes, dissolving the zone lines for PS 241
families- they now have a zone that includes five other public
schools- That is a zoning issue that should have been presented to
the CEC.
But there is one more thing- It was implied that the charter school
would be a new charter or a new branch of an existing charter.
Tonight, we found out from those who attended the rally, that in
fact, the branch of Harlem Success that is moving into 241 is already
established and so they are moving in their own already settled
population- How are they going to absorb the PS 241 kids that are in
first and second grade?
I think that every District 3 parent should be outraged about this.
It is a classic bait and switch with parents being told one (or two
or three) different scenarios and then being presented with the one
they feared the most. PS 241 parents are a small body and there are
many working parents who do not have the time or means to organize
and protest this situation. The Charter School Institute is asking
for any testimony that was not heard tonight be emailed or faxed to
them BY MARCH 10th (It must be received no later than noon.)SEnd your
written testimony to charters@suny. edu or fax it to 518 427-6510. In
your written testimony, please identify in a brief fashion, the
subject of your testimony (that is their words, not mine).
In addition, please contact your elected officials, especially Danny
O'Donnell and Bill Perkins. And of course, any connections to the
press is great.
Bijou Miller, Co-President of District 3 President Council
Leonie comments
I agree with Bijou that this is one of the most outrageous things that the DOE has ever tried to do -- and they have done alot.
To close a zoned school w/out the CEC's approval -- essentially eliminating the zone -- and putting a charter school in its place is blatantly illegal: state law and chancellor's regs require that all changes in zoning must be approved by the CEC.
People should be aware that in state law, to convert a regular public school to a charter takes a vote of the parent body. This simply skips that entire step.
If this is goes forward it is an extremely dangerous precedent. It would essentially allow the DOE to unilaterally close any zoned school in the entire city and put a charter school in its place -- to privatize our entire public school system. Don't think they won't try.
Eva Moskowitz is extremely wired and already has a chain of charter schools that she is intent on expanding. She uses the parents at her schools as her own political tools. She had them all call Juan Gonzalez today to protest his column and tied up his phone lines from 3-5 PM.
Privatizing the system and turning the best schools into charters, which then excluded the neediest students, is what they did in New Orleans but it took a nearly unprecedented national disaster to do it. here we only have Hurricane Bloomberg/Klein .
It is also not extremely unlikely that they can give the parents at PS 141 priority over the parents who are zoned for the particular schools below. This is a line they are offering to shut up 141 parents but I doubt its legal. This would also be in a sense redrawing zoning lines, to give preference to 141 parents to the parents who already live within the attendance zones.
This should not be allowed to stand.
--
Leonie Haimson
From Bijou Miller, Co-President of District 3 President Council
For those of you who did not make the joint Pres. Council/CEC meeting
at PS 241, I wanted to post this because, in my opinion, what
happened tonight was the DOE at its worst- In point of fact, I
thought I had seen its worst, until tonight.
There was a joint Presidents' Council/CEC meeting tonight. Our Pres.
Council meeting began at 6 P.M. Upon arriving, I noticed that there
was a huge crowd already in the auditorium. I assumed that it was
people getting there early for the 6:30 CEC meeting, which had a very
long agenda. Instead, to my surprise, I discovered a rally being
held for the Harlem Success Academy- I later found out that
this "hearing" was being held under the auspices of the Charter
School Institute of the State University of New York. I also found
out that someone had bused in a busload of children who were given
caps blazoned with the Harlem Success Academy logo. If this was a
hearing to get community feedback, it certainly had a very biased
atmosphere.
I was told that PS 241 parents had not been told about this hearing
and apparently, if you wanted to speak, you had to somehow contact
the "Hearing Registration Officer" on the day of the hearing BEFORE
it started (the window of opportunity was from 5 to 5:30p.m.)
I did not attend this "hearing" as I had to conduct our own meeting
but from what I gleaned, I do not think the State University got the
response they had expected.
In fact, many parents were angry and outraged and that anger and
outrage carried over into the CEC meeting (which was delayed for
forty five minutes because of this hearing).
At the CEC meeting, parents from 241 and other schools were
understandably upset. The upshot is this: There was no consultation
with the CEC about putting a new school into PS 241. For some
reason, the DOE decided that the District Leadership Team was the
group to take input from the community and help decide what new
schools would be chosen. The process, if you can call it that, was
rushed. DLT meetings are usually in the late afternoon, which is
inconvenient for many parents- 241 parents were still reeling from
finding out that their school was being phased out so I do not think
they even had the DLT on their radar- And why should they? No one,
including myself, a DLT member, ever thought that the DLT would be
involved. Heck, most parents don't even know what a DLT is.
At any rate, when parents did come to the meetings (there were really
only three and we also had to get feedback about MS 44), the response
was very anti-charter. John White, the Office of Portfolio
Development, who is running this show,(and who was at this hearing
tonight), stated that the feeling was that 241 families would not put
their kids into another public school-that the DOE felt a charter
would attract more families. Let me also say that the DLT was told
there were at least two viable options for 241, one a charter and one
a public. The DLT was never ever given any information on the public
option. We asked for info but he put it off or changed the subject
at least twice. It was quite obvious that a charter was the DOE's
choice and that Harlem Success was the specific choice. At the second
meeting, White had even invited Harlem Success parents to come
and "testify" about how great their school was. So the deck was
definitely stacked. Nonetheless, at the third meeting, there was
still parent and DLT input asking that we be given public school
options to consider.
One other point- At the last meeting, White said that whatever the
charter school might be, they would be required to hold their initial
lottery for only 241 zoned families. In addition, he stated that the
241 parents would have first priority at other area public schools-
five in all. They are PS 149 Sojourner Truth
P.S. 76 Phillip Randolph
P.S. 165 Robert E. Simon
P.S. 180 Hugo Newman
P.S. 185 John M. Langston
So, the zoned families of 241 would have first choice at six schools-
So there are zoning issues that need to be addressed and it is quite
possible that a lawsuit is in the making- The CEC should have been
consulted about the fact that, when PS 241 is phased out, there will
no longer be a zoned public school in that building (yes, charter
schools are public schools but they are not zoned because they will
take from throughout the district...) . Additionally, the DOE is for
all intents and purposes, dissolving the zone lines for PS 241
families- they now have a zone that includes five other public
schools- That is a zoning issue that should have been presented to
the CEC.
But there is one more thing- It was implied that the charter school
would be a new charter or a new branch of an existing charter.
Tonight, we found out from those who attended the rally, that in
fact, the branch of Harlem Success that is moving into 241 is already
established and so they are moving in their own already settled
population- How are they going to absorb the PS 241 kids that are in
first and second grade?
I think that every District 3 parent should be outraged about this.
It is a classic bait and switch with parents being told one (or two
or three) different scenarios and then being presented with the one
they feared the most. PS 241 parents are a small body and there are
many working parents who do not have the time or means to organize
and protest this situation. The Charter School Institute is asking
for any testimony that was not heard tonight be emailed or faxed to
them BY MARCH 10th (It must be received no later than noon.)SEnd your
written testimony to charters@suny. edu or fax it to 518 427-6510. In
your written testimony, please identify in a brief fashion, the
subject of your testimony (that is their words, not mine).
In addition, please contact your elected officials, especially Danny
O'Donnell and Bill Perkins. And of course, any connections to the
press is great.
Bijou Miller, Co-President of District 3 President Council
Leonie comments
I agree with Bijou that this is one of the most outrageous things that the DOE has ever tried to do -- and they have done alot.
To close a zoned school w/out the CEC's approval -- essentially eliminating the zone -- and putting a charter school in its place is blatantly illegal: state law and chancellor's regs require that all changes in zoning must be approved by the CEC.
People should be aware that in state law, to convert a regular public school to a charter takes a vote of the parent body. This simply skips that entire step.
If this is goes forward it is an extremely dangerous precedent. It would essentially allow the DOE to unilaterally close any zoned school in the entire city and put a charter school in its place -- to privatize our entire public school system. Don't think they won't try.
Eva Moskowitz is extremely wired and already has a chain of charter schools that she is intent on expanding. She uses the parents at her schools as her own political tools. She had them all call Juan Gonzalez today to protest his column and tied up his phone lines from 3-5 PM.
Privatizing the system and turning the best schools into charters, which then excluded the neediest students, is what they did in New Orleans but it took a nearly unprecedented national disaster to do it. here we only have Hurricane Bloomberg/Klein .
It is also not extremely unlikely that they can give the parents at PS 141 priority over the parents who are zoned for the particular schools below. This is a line they are offering to shut up 141 parents but I doubt its legal. This would also be in a sense redrawing zoning lines, to give preference to 141 parents to the parents who already live within the attendance zones.
This should not be allowed to stand.
--
Leonie Haimson
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
MAYOR BLOOMBERG, U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION DUNCAN, AND SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR KLEIN DETAIL HOW THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT WILL HELP NYC
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 19, 2009
No. 84
www.nyc.gov
MAYOR BLOOMBERG, U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION DUNCAN, AND SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR KLEIN DETAIL HOW THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT WILL HELP NYC SCHOOLS
Stimulus Money Could Help City Avoid Severe Staffing Reductions in Public Schools
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg joined with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein today to announce how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will help New York City public schools in the coming years. Based on preliminary analysis, the City estimates it will receive $535 million in State Fiscal Stabilization Grants in each of the next two years, if the funds are allocated to local school aid through the traditional formulas. In addition to the stabilization grants, the City’s preliminary analysis estimates that its schools are eligible to receive in each of the next two years approximately $300 million from an expansion of Title I funds for high-needs students, approximately $100 million from the expansion of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding, and more than $25 million in educational technology funds. At today’s announcement, the Mayor, Secretary, and Chancellor were joined by State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith, Assemblywoman Rhoda S. Jacobs, the American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, Council of School Supervisors and Administrators President Ernest Logan, and Explore Charter School Founder and Director Morty Ballen in Brooklyn.
“Support from Washington will help us to weather this economic crisis. Working with the State, we hope we’ll be able to keep more of our teachers in our public school classrooms,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “We all want to ensure that our schools keep innovating and that our students keep learning – while shielding our schools and classrooms from potential harm. I am confident our colleagues in Albany will join me in making our difficult budget situation as tolerable as possible for all of our schools.”
“We’re not just facing an economic crisis in America. We’re facing an education crisis. A University of Washington report says up to 600,000 education jobs are at risk,” said Secretary Duncan. “But we’re also facing a historic opportunity to remake public education – a once-in-a-lifetime chance to lift the quality of education for every child in America.”
“Stimulus dollars will go a long way in helping us to prevent our country’s financial crisis from turning into a crisis in our classrooms,” said Chancellor Klein. “We look forward to working with our partners at the State level to ensure this money is directed equitably and where it’s needed the most – our classrooms.”
“The passage of the federal stimulus bill will allow New York school children, their parents and their teachers, to rest easier in the coming budget year,” said State Senate Majority Leader Smith. “With the influx of desperately needed funding, I am confident that we will continue to make a meaningful investment in our most critical resource – our children. Our schools, from Binghamton to Brentwood, and every town in between, will benefit from the investments in the bill, particularly for our high needs districts throughout the state. I am hopeful that between the direct school grants, expanded state aid and opportunities for additional funding, we can continue to improve student performance while ensuring a wise and productive use of public funds.”
“Parents and teachers here in New York City and all across America are applauding President Obama for his strong and steadfast commitment to our nation’s children and public schools, and rightly so. In addition to providing a much needed boost for the economy, the stimulus package also represents an investment in education that will help prevent severe cuts to public services – a huge step to averting layoffs in schools and providing teachers and students with the tools and supports they need to succeed,” said American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten. “While this aid is exactly what our schools need, parents must understand that we are not out of the woods yet. The State has to make sure that the stimulus money is spent wisely and actually gets into classrooms. Even so, the package is truly a bold first step, and we are grateful to President Obama and Secretary Duncan for their recognition and support of public education.”
“We applaud President Obama and Congress for making education an important priority of the stimulus package and paying close attention to the needs of economically disadvantaged youngsters and special education students,” said Council of School Supervisors and Administrators President Ernest Logan. During this time of severe economic crisis, we look forward to working with the city and state to ensure that this funding goes as far as possible to protect our children's education.”
In addition to the stabilization funds, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also allows states and school districts to apply for $5 billion in grants to support new approaches to closing the achievement gap and boosting student achievement . Working in cooperation with the -New York State Education Department, New York City would be able to use these funds to -continue building on the momentum of the reform efforts and enormous progress in improving graduation rates. These grants, which will be allocated by the U.S. Department of Education, are known as the Race to the Top Fund. This includes $650 million to provide funds to school districts that have made significant gains in closing the achievement gap to expand their work and to document and share their successful practices. These funds could help further implementation of the New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) computer system that allows teachers to share effective instructional strategies between schools. The remaining $4.35 billion in the fund will be awarded to states, working with local districts, that have demonstrated innovative ways to boost student performance and closing the achievement gap. New York City can also apply for grants to expand its Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program, which rewards educators for improving student achievement, from the $200 million Teacher Incentive Funds.
Charter schools such as Brooklyn’s Explore Charter School may also be eligible to apply for funding for renovation and repair of school facilities. Named a National Charter School of the Year by the Center for Education Reform, Explore Charter earned an A on its 2007-2008 Progress Report. The school serves 425 students, and more than 1,700 families are on the school’s waiting list.
-30-
Contact: Stu Loeser / Marc LaVorgna (212) 788-2958
Jo Ann Webb (USDOE) (202) 401-1576
David Cantor (NYCDOE) (212) 374-5141
Austin Shafran (Sen. Smith) (917) 417-3711
Brian Gibbons (UFT) (212) 598-9233
Chiara Coletti (CSA) (718) 852-3000
February 19, 2009
No. 84
www.nyc.gov
MAYOR BLOOMBERG, U.S. SECRETARY OF EDUCATION DUNCAN, AND SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR KLEIN DETAIL HOW THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT WILL HELP NYC SCHOOLS
Stimulus Money Could Help City Avoid Severe Staffing Reductions in Public Schools
Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg joined with U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein today to announce how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will help New York City public schools in the coming years. Based on preliminary analysis, the City estimates it will receive $535 million in State Fiscal Stabilization Grants in each of the next two years, if the funds are allocated to local school aid through the traditional formulas. In addition to the stabilization grants, the City’s preliminary analysis estimates that its schools are eligible to receive in each of the next two years approximately $300 million from an expansion of Title I funds for high-needs students, approximately $100 million from the expansion of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding, and more than $25 million in educational technology funds. At today’s announcement, the Mayor, Secretary, and Chancellor were joined by State Senate Majority Leader Malcolm A. Smith, Assemblywoman Rhoda S. Jacobs, the American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, Council of School Supervisors and Administrators President Ernest Logan, and Explore Charter School Founder and Director Morty Ballen in Brooklyn.
“Support from Washington will help us to weather this economic crisis. Working with the State, we hope we’ll be able to keep more of our teachers in our public school classrooms,” said Mayor Bloomberg. “We all want to ensure that our schools keep innovating and that our students keep learning – while shielding our schools and classrooms from potential harm. I am confident our colleagues in Albany will join me in making our difficult budget situation as tolerable as possible for all of our schools.”
“We’re not just facing an economic crisis in America. We’re facing an education crisis. A University of Washington report says up to 600,000 education jobs are at risk,” said Secretary Duncan. “But we’re also facing a historic opportunity to remake public education – a once-in-a-lifetime chance to lift the quality of education for every child in America.”
“Stimulus dollars will go a long way in helping us to prevent our country’s financial crisis from turning into a crisis in our classrooms,” said Chancellor Klein. “We look forward to working with our partners at the State level to ensure this money is directed equitably and where it’s needed the most – our classrooms.”
“The passage of the federal stimulus bill will allow New York school children, their parents and their teachers, to rest easier in the coming budget year,” said State Senate Majority Leader Smith. “With the influx of desperately needed funding, I am confident that we will continue to make a meaningful investment in our most critical resource – our children. Our schools, from Binghamton to Brentwood, and every town in between, will benefit from the investments in the bill, particularly for our high needs districts throughout the state. I am hopeful that between the direct school grants, expanded state aid and opportunities for additional funding, we can continue to improve student performance while ensuring a wise and productive use of public funds.”
“Parents and teachers here in New York City and all across America are applauding President Obama for his strong and steadfast commitment to our nation’s children and public schools, and rightly so. In addition to providing a much needed boost for the economy, the stimulus package also represents an investment in education that will help prevent severe cuts to public services – a huge step to averting layoffs in schools and providing teachers and students with the tools and supports they need to succeed,” said American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten. “While this aid is exactly what our schools need, parents must understand that we are not out of the woods yet. The State has to make sure that the stimulus money is spent wisely and actually gets into classrooms. Even so, the package is truly a bold first step, and we are grateful to President Obama and Secretary Duncan for their recognition and support of public education.”
“We applaud President Obama and Congress for making education an important priority of the stimulus package and paying close attention to the needs of economically disadvantaged youngsters and special education students,” said Council of School Supervisors and Administrators President Ernest Logan. During this time of severe economic crisis, we look forward to working with the city and state to ensure that this funding goes as far as possible to protect our children's education.”
In addition to the stabilization funds, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act also allows states and school districts to apply for $5 billion in grants to support new approaches to closing the achievement gap and boosting student achievement . Working in cooperation with the -New York State Education Department, New York City would be able to use these funds to -continue building on the momentum of the reform efforts and enormous progress in improving graduation rates. These grants, which will be allocated by the U.S. Department of Education, are known as the Race to the Top Fund. This includes $650 million to provide funds to school districts that have made significant gains in closing the achievement gap to expand their work and to document and share their successful practices. These funds could help further implementation of the New York City Department of Education’s (DOE) computer system that allows teachers to share effective instructional strategies between schools. The remaining $4.35 billion in the fund will be awarded to states, working with local districts, that have demonstrated innovative ways to boost student performance and closing the achievement gap. New York City can also apply for grants to expand its Schoolwide Performance Bonus Program, which rewards educators for improving student achievement, from the $200 million Teacher Incentive Funds.
Charter schools such as Brooklyn’s Explore Charter School may also be eligible to apply for funding for renovation and repair of school facilities. Named a National Charter School of the Year by the Center for Education Reform, Explore Charter earned an A on its 2007-2008 Progress Report. The school serves 425 students, and more than 1,700 families are on the school’s waiting list.
-30-
Contact: Stu Loeser / Marc LaVorgna (212) 788-2958
Jo Ann Webb (USDOE) (202) 401-1576
David Cantor (NYCDOE) (212) 374-5141
Austin Shafran (Sen. Smith) (917) 417-3711
Brian Gibbons (UFT) (212) 598-9233
Chiara Coletti (CSA) (718) 852-3000
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Stop the use of teacher data reports and the abuse of standardized testing!
Email me if you want a pdf to circulate around your schoolJustice Not Just Tests Petition:
Stop the use of teacher data reports and the abuse of standardized testing!
We the undersigned UFT members:
Are opposed to the existence of the teacher data reports which rate teachers based on their student’s progress on standardized tests. These reports:
- Promote competition among teachers, discourage the use of creative or relevant pedagogy, force teachers to ignore diverse learning styles and promote test prep.
Are opposed to the use of merit pay which promotes testing, diverts much needed funds from schools ($20 million this year, with only a fraction of schools participating) and scapegoats teachers for government’s failure to address the socio/economic inequities faced by students and their communities.
Are opposed to any use of standardized tests for students in K-2 classrooms:
-- Standardized tests have a long and notorious history of misrepresenting the intellectual capabilities of young children based on race, class and immigrant status.
Oppose the use of standardized tests to close schools, which mostly occurs in schools with high percentages of low-income students and students of color:
- This is used to bully principals and teachers into narrowing the curriculum to test prep only; there is no evidence that closing schools improves education, but it does demoralize staff and communities; it is used to force the re-organization of schools which pushes more experienced, higher paid teachers out of the system.
We call on our union to:
- retract their support for the teacher data reports and merit pay programs
- to oppose all initiatives that promote a focus on standardized tests
- to oppose categorically the use of standardized tests in a high stakes manner
- support alternative assessments like portfolios and other performance based assessments
We are one hundred thousand working educators strong in the UFT. Join a grassroots movement within our union to promote the best interests of our school communities.
Sponsored by Justice-Not-Just-Tests (A NYCORE Working Group: www.nycore.org)
Name (Print) School Email (Not DOE E-mail) Phone (Optional)
Pleas send completed petitions to: or Email jnjt@nycore.org to arrange pick-up
JNJT or
425 11 street FAX 718-408-9472
brooklyn, ny, 11215
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)