Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Friday, June 12, 2009

Garth Harries Leaves New York City, and This is a Good Thing



With everything else that is wrong with the current New York City public school system, Garth Harries' (pictured above outside of Tweed, NYC BOE headquarters, in the Stanford Law School alumni newspaper) inappropriate approach to public school education may seem miniscule, but he wielded great power while he was at Tweed. I certainly hope that the New Haven school system can survive his appointment as Assistant Superintendent for Portfolio and Performance Management. Somebody tell the parents to call for an audit of his expense account.

I first met Mr. Harries when he came to one of my daughter's school, NEST+M at 111 Columbia Street (see picture below).



It was 2006, and Joel Klein had announced that the Ross Global Charter Academy would be taking a part of the building for their new charter school in New York City. The NEST PTA started protesting with a website.


We parents of NEST+M said, "No you are not", and we sued the New York City Board of Education and the NY State Department of Education. We won. Of course we were helped immensely by the support of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who was with us throughout this adventure into 'creating politics with public money' that became the lawsuit against Courtney Ross, the founder of the Ross Global Academy, and Joel Klein.



Garth came to visit the school, and I was there that day. He came with a group of people who had come to measure the number of feet in the rooms they wanted in the building. As they walked the halls of NEST, we parents cornered Garth and told him that he had to come to the auditorium and answer all of the parents' questions. He protested, but in vain. He went into the auditorium. He sat on the edge of the stage (see picture above from the Denver Post - notice the map on the floor behind him) and addressed us [parents] as if we were children. He called NEST+M "the plant" and gave us a picture of our children being widgets in a factory. He told us that we were lying about the available space in the building, and the Ross Global Charter Academy would be taking half of the school as we were less than half full. He altered the occupancy of the building more than once, alienating all of the people listening to him. He seemed totally out of touch with who we were, the children, and public school principles in general. All of us were disgusted with him after the hour we grilled him with questions. He left the auditorium in great despair, as we just didnt buy his pre-paid statements about our school.

I was also at the May 24 2006 demonstration against the charter school at Cipriani:

NEST is hardly empty, parents and students protest
By Anindita Dasgupta
LINK

On May 24, Wall St. stood divided. From 5:30 p.m. to 8 p.m., more than 500 parents and children crowded the street facing the Cipriani Club. Parents waved signs and chanted, “Save our NEST!” while making sure their children didn’t run into the street. Children beat pots, blew whistles and shouted at cars passing by to honk in protest. A few ran along the opposite street like mascots at a sports event, eliciting excited screams from their peers. Some still wore their uniforms (collared shirts with the NEST+m logo and crumpled khaki skirts or pants), while others donned brightly colored T-shirts with “Save our NEST” stickers attached all over them. Weary businessmen and -women looked up as two or three excited children at a time raced to hand them fliers regarding their cause.

The protesters hailed from New Explorations Into Science Technologies and Math School, a kindergarten-through-12th-grade school on the Lower East Side. Upset by the Department of Education’s decision to place the new Ross Global Academy Charter School into the NEST+m building on Columbia St. for two years, members of the Parents and Teachers Association, faculty and students rallied outside the Cipriani building where Schools Chancellor Joel Klein was being honored by Graham Windham, a nonprofit organization assisting underserved children.

In an April 10 letter, Garth Harries, D.O.E.’s chief executive officer of the Office of New Schools, explained that NEST’s building is designed to serve almost two times as many students it is currently serving. According to D.O.E., the school should hold 1,407 students, but only 732 students are currently enrolled at the time.

The NEST+m parents believe there are other buildings in which D.O.E. could place the new charter school. In addition, they feel that D.O.E. made an error in calculating the number of students NEST+m would be expecting in the fall. NEST+m is a growth school, where certain grades are added each year. But the NEST+m parents say D.O.E.’s figure doesn’t include the fifth-grade class — another 111 students to be added in the fall, completely filling grades K-12. The number of incoming students from the Ross Global Academy would be 160.

However, D.O.E. spokesperson Kelly Devers explained, “It’s just at a point where they [NEST+m] are the most underutilized school in the district.”

In his letter, Harries also mentions his disappointment in NEST+m parents’ behavior, as his office received letters from angry parents claiming that during a visit from department representatives to assess space, NEST+m administrators and parents wasted class time by moving students from classroom to classroom, making it seem like there were more students than there actually were.

Several NEST+m parents called Harries’s claims “bologna” and said they were there the whole time and didn’t see any such misleading behavior.

With no agreement on the numbers, members of the NEST+m P.T.A. have lawsuits against the New York State Board of Regents, the Department of Education and Ross.

Ross Institute, based in Soho, explained that if the court ruled in favor of the NEST+m parents and overturned the Ross Global Academy charter, the school would cease to exist.

Elias Rodriguez has recently enrolled two of his children in the Ross Global Academy. He’s worried that the court proceedings may delay the opening of the school.

“The fact that we’re going to court is ridiculous!” he said. Rodriguez, who went to school in the Columbia St. building when it was a junior high school, said he believes in “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” J.H.S. 22, a failing school with dwindling enrollment, was closed about five years ago and NEST + M moved in.

The three partners responsible for creating the Ross Global Academy Charter School in New York City are the Board of Regents, D.O.E., New York University and the Ross Institute. In statements, both N.Y.U. and the Ross Institute affirmed that they had no say in site selection of the charter school.

Stuart Fischer, spokesperson for the Ross School, said, “While Ross and N.YU. wanted a location on the Lower East Side, close to their facilities, the decision to site Ross Global Academy, a public charter school, at 111 Columbia St. was made solely by D.O.E. D.O.E only informed us of our location at the end of April.”

D.O.E. spokesperson Devers explained that the number of classrooms to be allocated to the Ross school is still being decided at this point. In his letter, Harries wrote, “The set-aside [of classrooms] will allow NEST+m more than enough space and flexibility to continue delivering the same high-quality education, smaller class size and diverse curriculum that has made it such an attractive and successful option.”

“We are using every inch of the building,” said Gasco. Parents worry about keeping their small class sizes and extra-curricular activities for their children.

Harries dismissed this concern in his letter, stating: “There is no reason why the school can’t continue to operate honors and A.P. classes…. The NEST+m administration is currently working with a school programmer on its schedule and curriculum for next year, and the department has offered several scheduling/programming experts to the school in order to support that design.”

Following their initial concerns over space, members of the P.T.A. contacted individuals from Ross, D.O.E. and N.Y.U. to discuss scheduling logistics. Betsy Combier, a NEST+m parent, tried to contact D.O.E. officials as well as Ross school administrators. After two months of asking questions and getting answers she feels are inadequate, she doesn’t feel D.O.E. and the Ross school are interested in discussing how to deal with the logistical issues that will undoubtedly arise from adding another school to the building.

“I have gotten nobody who wanted to talk; no response at all. Over the last two months, it’s gotten tiring,” Combier said. “We have no other way of looking at it. It looks like a hostile takeover.”

Ross spokesperson Fischer defended their level of communication with NEST+m.

“Ross Global Academy Public Charter School has held numerous public information sessions in the community which have been attended by hundreds of parents, including parents from NEST+m,” the spokesperson said. “These information sessions…were designed to answer every single question that anyone had. We feel we have been very responsive to the community.”

Gasco explained that at each of these information sessions, a member from the NEST+m P.T.A. has approached Ross’s Mark English, who ran the sessions, and offered formal invitations to discuss plans for next year.

“We’ve been inviting them since April to talk,” Gasco said.

Despite these invitations, the Ross Global Academy doesn’t feel like NEST+m is open to discussion.

“Because of the hostility towards Ross and the subsequent litigation, we did not think it would be appropriate or constructive to meet with the leaders and parents at NEST+m and their P.T.A.,” Fischer said. “Once the litigation over the location of Ross Global Academy is resolved, we look forward to meeting with them.”

NEST+m parents want to know how the two schools will split up use of the school’s one gymnasium that is already in use all nine periods of the day by NEST+m students. There is also the question of when and how parents of each school will pick up and drop off their kids without creating traffic jams on Columbia St. Parents are also concerned about how the cafeteria staff will handle two different lunch schedules. NEST+m parents feel that giving up classrooms to Ross will be a large adjustment, but then sharing spaces that are already common to the NEST+m upper, middle and lower schools will be too much of a stretch.

The Ross school will follow the education model developed at the Ross School of East Hampton, a private school founded 15 years ago by Courtney Sale Ross and her late husband, Steven J. Ross, former chairperson and C.E.O. of Time Warner. The model focuses on improving the mind and body throughout the curriculum.

Ross officials explain that there are already 375 applicants vying for 160 seats at the planned new school. About 125 students have been enrolled. However, even though students are admitted through a lottery system, all students accepted to the Ross Academy have gone through the application process. The school will start in the fall with students in grades kindergarten, one, five and six, with plans to eventually grow to include grades K-12.

NEST+m strives to give gifted and talented students a challenging learning environment. The school’s curriculum integrates aspects like Singapore math and single-sex instruction of math and science. School administrators explain that NEST+m trains its students to be strong researchers starting in kindergarten.

Sybil Graziano, a NEST+m parent, said, “Organizing and supervising the logistics to house two schools in one building will certainly take away from the energy needed for teaching…. There are so many possible situations and scenarios that will arise that will detract from learning. Who needs these headaches?”

The issue of space and placing multiple schools in one building is not an unfamiliar concept to the Lower East Side. Last fall, three schools — P.S. 134, P.S. 137 and the Shuang Wen Academy — were involved in a dispute regarding use of two school buildings, a dispute that still has not been fully resolved. Devers explains that since 2003, D.O.E. has created 47 new charter schools, with 22 of them sharing space with other educational programs.

Rodriguez, the Ross parent, believes there may need to be some “mending of fences.”

“It is unfortunate that it had to come to this,” he said. “I think we will have to foster an environment of congeniality.”

Can He Work Education Magic?
by Melissa Bailey | June 9, 2009 7:52 AM
LINK

(Updated) Though he has but one year of classroom experience teaching in a prep school, Garth Harries was welcomed as the man New Haven can count on to turn around public education.

The 36-year-old Wunderkind made his debut performance at Monday night’s full Board of Education meeting. He was roundly welcomed and officially hired as the man who’ll usher in a new era of school reform.

In a two-minute speech, Harries explained why he’s leaving a high-powered post with the NYC school system, where he oversaw an extensive school-building initiative, for New Haven.

“There is a great foundation in this district,” said Harries, “and there is also a leadership that’s setting ambitious goals.”

Harries’ official title will be the assistant superintendent for portfolio and performance management. The job was created last month to oversee plans for far-reaching school reform, including closing the achievement gap in five years. Mayor John DeStefano has made school reform a centerpiece of his reelection campaign; the school system recently revealed the broad outline of a three-tiered “Portfolio School Initiative”, which would shift accountability onto individual schools. All the reforms the school system is talking about, including merit-based pay and closing failing schools, are still proposals, and must be agreed to first by a skeptical teacher’s union.

Schools chief Reggie Mayo said now that the “bare bones,” the “broad overview” of reform have been laid out, Harries will flesh out and implement the details.

The board promptly approved Harries’ appointment with a 5-0 vote with little discussion.

“This is the first piece of meat that we’re putting on the bones,” said board member Michael Nast, continuing Mayo’s metaphor.

In his brief speech, Harries quipped that he wouldn’t take offense to being called “meat” on bones.

Harries said he was drawn to New Haven by what he called the district’s strong foundation, built on the city’s “state of the art buildings” and data-driven learning, and by the school system’s vision for reform. He said he was convinced that the New Haven Public Schools are committed to making changes, and that the broad outline of those changes coincides with the work he’s done in New York.

“The structure of that is so consistent with my first idea of what needs to happen in public schools,” he said. “That is, that the school is the unit that matters, for teachers and kids, that’s the place that people learn. What every parent wants is a good school to send their kids. That doesn’t mean every school needs to be the same; it does mean every school needs to be good.”

Harries will begin work on July 6. He’ll make a $140,000 salary; a significant cut from his last post, where he acted as a cabinet member to the New York City chancellor of schools. In his six years at the NYC education department, Harries focused on an effort to build small schools in poorer neighborhoods. He said he oversaw the creation of over 330 district public schools and over 60 charter schools.

Harries will be returning to New Haven after getting his undergraduate degree from Yale University. He later earned a law degree from Stanford Law School; worked as a consultant with McKinsey & Company; and directed economic development projects in poor neighborhoods in Philadelphia. He also did a stint in politics, coordinating a Democratic field operation in Pennsylvania during the 1996 presidential campaign.

Classroom Time

He has one year of teaching experience, as a high school history and math teacher at the Vail Mountain School in Colorado.

When the New Haven post was created, Mayo elicited some concern by saying he wouldn’t require the new school reform czar to have teaching experience.

“If the reform plan is all about accountability, how can you ask this person to evaluate teachers if he or she hasn’t done any teaching?” asked Dave Cicarella, president of the teacher’s union at that meeting. Board member M. Ann Levett agreed with him that a person would be best qualified if they had walked in a teacher’s “moccasins.”

Harries defended his skill set Monday.

“It’s absolutely right that in doing this work, you have to experience the role of teachers,” he said. He conceded he has little comparable classroom experience — his one-year teaching gig at the elite prep school was a far cry from the New York or New Haven school districts.

“I don’t compare it to the experience that urban teachers have,” he said. However, “what’s important is the degree of empathy and understanding of teachers,” he said. He said his wife is a former schoolteacher, and he’ll be surrounded by top staff on Mayo’s team who have a lot of experience teaching in city schools. The new post, he said, will rely upon an understanding of how school “systems” work, something he’s got six years of experience with.

“Frankly, an external perspective to New Haven and its schools is an opportunity for innovation,” he said.

Harries faced a similar line of questioning when he took over his most recent NYC post, tasked with reforming special education. Special education advocates fought his appointment because he didn’t have experience in special ed.

Reached Tuesday morning, Cicarella still had reservations.

“Basically, he has no teaching experience,” said Cicarella. “This seems to be kind of the trend, that they use more management-type people” in top administrative roles, people who “want to run school systems like a business.” Sometimes those people do a good job; sometimes they don’t, he said.

Cicarella said he understands that Harries won’t directly evaluate the teachers or the principals, but “there’s still some concern” that he’ll oversee those reforms “without having any knowledge of what the teachers do.”

Levett, however, said her concerns were allayed. She said while a candidate with more teaching experience would be “desirable,” “my preference is that he has the kind of experience doing what he will be doing,” which is “moving schools to a new level of accountability.”

“I feel very comfortable with that,” she said.

Harries was also welcomed by the Wilbur Cross PTO and the parent activist group Teach Our Children.

“Mr. Harries has a reputation of building strong partnerships with parents and community organizations,” said Claudia Bosch, a TOC leader, in a statement distributed Monday night. The group asked for input in creating the “map” for reform.

Harries’ first task will be to focus on boosting test scores above state averages, according to schools spokeswoman Michelle Wade. “This will require honest assessment and tough decisions about how to implement a school-based management model, achieve and maintain the highest quality of teachers, and determination how best to address the lowest performing schools, be it closing them and reopening them as local charter schools or implementing other improvements to enhance educational opportunities for its students.”

Harries said he’s up to the task.

“New Haven has a shot at being the first district [in the nation] to close the achievement gap,” he said. He plans to flesh out the details of a school reform plan and have it ready to be implemented in September, 2010.

He said he intends to stick with New Haven for the long haul.

“School reform is a long-term endeavor,” he said. “My intention is to live a career here.”

In 2008, Garth travelled to Denver to tell the good citizens there how to take over a public school for "shared spaces":

denver and the west
Denver plans shared-school campuses
Denver studies NYC model of under-used facilities giving space to new programs
By Jeremy P. Meyer, The Denver Post
Posted: 11/09/2008 12:30:00 AM MST
Updated: 11/09/2008 02:27:01 PM MST
LINK

The highest-rated middle school in New York City is a charter school of 280 students that shares the top floor of a historically struggling public school.

The two institutions of learning could not be more different in substance and style. Yet they peacefully coexist as a shining example of New York's shared-campus concept.

"We're trying to do what's best for our kids and not worry about how the school is doing down the street," said Joseph Negron, principal of KIPP Infinity Charter School in the three-story school building on Harlem's west side.

Shared-school campuses are becoming common across the country as urban districts work to provide varied programs in cities where real estate costs have soared.

It's a plan Denver Public Schools hopes to replicate on a small scale next year.

Proponents say shared campuses can increase the number of academic offerings, develop appropriate school sizes and more effectively use building space.

In New York, KIPP Infinity's students wear uniforms, walk in single file and remain in school until 5 p.m. The walls are adorned with murals of classic book covers and inspirational messages.

A doorway serves as the boundary between KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) and the rest of I.S. 195 Roberto Clemente School — a 630-student middle school.

I.S. 195's hallways have barren walls painted uniformly yellow, and its students are gone from the building by 3 p.m. Seven years ago, I.S. 195 was considered among the worst schools in the city, with some of the lowest scores in New York. Because of its poor performance, the school's programs were changed four years ago. This year, it earned a B grade on the city's progress report.

"I don't see (KIPP) as competition," said Rosarie Jean, principal of I.S. 195. "It's children first. We have the same goal to educate children and prepare them for the 21st century. How we go about it is different."

DPS still in planning stage

Despite the success of New York's shared-campus system, Denver's idea to model the plan concerns community members who worry about the effects on existing programs.

Thursday, DPS officials will recommend placing new school programs — including charter schools — in under-enrolled Denver middle and high schools.

"As with anything new, until people actually see it, it's hard to visualize what it will be like," said DPS Superintendent Michael Bennet. "It's going to be incumbent on us to execute well."

In New York, shared-school campuses have become a way of life. Of the city's 1,500 schools, about 600 are shared campuses.

"When I have buildings that are half-empty and an opportunity to place a school in there that may create different opportunities for kids in that community . . . that's what we do," said New York schools Chancellor Joel Klein.

"Sure, you get some noise," he said. "Overwhelmingly, it's working. People made the adjustments, looked for the opportunities. That's what will happen in Denver as well."

Denver school officials have examined New York's and Chicago's shared schools, hosted school administrators from those cities, and hired a former New York charter school principal to help DPS build its program.

And they've paid particular attention to New York's system of co-location, including the city's process of defining a building's footprint, separating schools and getting principals to work together.

"People in the school don't own the building," Klein said. "The people who own the building are my 1.1 million children, who are entitled to an equitable crack at a great education."

Graduation rates have improved and dropout rates have declined in New York schools. Critics question whether the moves caused improved achievement, but there is no question students are more engaged.

5 floors, 5 successful schools

A good example of a successful shared campus is at the former Morris High School, which was a large, comprehensive high school in the south Bronx with 2,000 students and a graduation rate of between 25 percent and 35 percent.

Now, the Morris Educational Campus has a school program on each of its five floors: violin and dance; English- language learners; and others that concentrate on math, science and art.

"Has it worked?" said Wade Fuller, principal of the School of Excellence on the fourth floor. "Clearly in this building the answer is this has been a resounding success."

Now, the five schools of about 300 students each graduate between 59 percent and 85 percent of their students in four years. Each school received either an A or B grade on the city's latest progress report card.

On a recent day just before 8 a.m., teenagers flocked into the 111-year-old building, passing through metal detectors and converging into the cafeteria for the only time of day when they commingle with students from other schools.

"It's a good school," said sophomore Rahmel Hunter, 15, who attends Bronx Leadership Academy II High School because of its focus on math. "There's not a lot of jerks or fighting. If there were more kids, there would be more chaos."

The five Morris Campus principals have developed a close bond, meeting on Fridays to hash over issues about space.

"It's like we have an arranged marriage, and we all bought a used house and moved in together," said Elyse Doti, principal of Bronx Leadership Academy II on the second floor.

The most fractious issue is when each school can use the cafeteria for lunch. They rotate the schedule every year so one school doesn't get stuck with the least desirable slots of 10:30 and 12:45.

"It's working," said Charles Osewalt, principal of Morris Academy for Collaborative Studies. "The key is to make sure everyone feels it's fair."

The principals also share successful instructional practices and act as counselors for one another.

"If I'm having a hard day, Elyse will be there for me," said Tanya John, principal of the High School for Violin and Dance. "Before I go to the district, I'll call my other principals."

Critiques and compliments

On a recent weekday, boys and girls basketball tryouts were in the fifth-floor gym, where flags representing each school hung from the rafters. One flag for Morris Campus hung over center court.

"For us it works academically, but not so much athletically," said Julio Lopez, who teaches at the High School for Violin and Dance and is the Morris Bulldogs girls basketball coach. "I don't think they have as much pride as if it were one school."

Owusu Gyarkye, a math teacher at the School for Excellence who is originally from Ghana, taught at the former high school and said he has seen how the new configuration is working.

"Students weren't coming to class, only 40 percent passed the math test," he said. "Now every day you see the students and know where they are. Ninety-five percent passed the math test last year. Nobody likes change. The old system wasn't helping our kids."

Sharing kids' experiences

Across the city in east Harlem, P.S. 50 has been sharing a campus for three years with a small charter school for kids severely affected by autism.

The schools have developed a collaborative relationship, with students working inside each other's classrooms.


Natalie Kaiser, 7, left, of the New York Center for Autism Charter School, joins teacher Audra Gibson-Brown's writing class at P.S. 50 in east Harlem. The schools have a collaborative relationship, with students working in one another's classes. (Hyoung Chang | The Denver Post)

Seventh-graders from P.S. 50 take a 10-week peer mentoring course with students at the New York Center for Autism Charter School.

At least two high-functioning charter school students are included in P.S. 50 classes every week.

The result is that typical kids get an understanding of autism, and kids with autism get peer modeling, said P.S. 50 principal Rebekah Marler.

"It's cool learning and being a mentor," said seventh-grader Antonio Peña, 12, who wants to become a neuro surgeon specializing in autism. "My cousin has autism. When she wants to hit something, I'd like to know how to work with that."

Three times a week, 7-year-old Natalie Kaiser and 7-year-old Jake Soper, who both have autism, leave their individualized charter school for 20 minutes of reading in Audra Gibson- Brown's second-grade classroom.

On a recent day, Natalie walked into class and was met with hugs from her classmates.

She sat down on a rug with the rest of the children to listen to Gibson- Brown read. A charter school teacher sat close by, watching Natalie's every move to quickly correct the girl if she began to lose focus.

"Our kids have developed relationships with them," Gibson-Brown said. "It's also good for my kids because they are a little different, and it's good to be exposed to that."

Under Klein, the city has closed or is in the process of phasing out more than 80 schools. Klein said to make a district thrive is to halt failing programs.

"That's a core piece of accountability," Klein said. "Which is more painful, a school with 23 percent graduation rate that is failing the kids or the transformation you have to go through to more than double that rate? It's not even a close question."

In Denver, the district last year set up a performance framework to analyze the yearly progress of schools.

If a school is failing or is perpetually under-enrolled, several steps will be employed to fix it. One of those could be shutting it down, said Superintendent Bennet.

"It becomes one of our tools," he said. "Our preferred path is to improve our schools across the district."

Last week, seven schools throughout Denver that are being eyed for shared campuses held meetings in which parents, teachers and students asked why they would have to share their buildings with other schools.

They worried about whether the new schools would harm or undercut the current program.

New York Chancellor Klein said he's heard the complaints before. The district has faced lawsuits, marches and interventions from politicians.

But those voices typically have quieted after successful programs move in and children improve.

"The way people come on board is they understand what their options are and the framework," Klein said. "They say, 'I can sit here and curse the darkness, or I can light a candle.'

"And people are lighting candles."

Jeremy P. Meyer: 303-954-1367 or jpmeyer@denverpost.com

One of the 9 comments:

This is classic Denver Public Schools. Decisions are made prior to community input, the media coverage is fed by District officials, and existing schools with innovative programs are ignored. The International Baccalaureate programs in their first year, should be given probationary periods with District support outside of the usual lip service, to include marketing, consultation, and appropriate planning, prior to co-locating schools. Shared location may not be a bad thing for DPS, but it needs to be done with adequate planning and attention to existing high performing programs. The taxpayers fund district officials' and board members' salaries. As such, I expect both elected and appointed officials to be well-informed and listen to the concerns of area community members.
Pamela M

Well said, Pamela, and good luck New Haven!
Betsy Combier

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Credit Recovery and Joel Klein's Direct Harm to Students

We now know that Joel Klein was appointed CEO of the public school system to institute a city-wide cleansing of New York City's public schools, and create data that "fit" with the strategic plan of Mayor Mike Bloomberg to have total control over $16 billion+.

Along with the no-bid contracts, revision of IEPs without parental knowledge or consent, changing of city-wide tests to dumbed-down versions, "revised new-new" math to make all the data look good, and fudging of graduation rates, test scores,etc., Joel Klein also mandated that Principals promote students not prepared for a higher grade or current grade completion - students who survived superintendent suspensions, corporal punishment, verbal abuse and failing grades - with something called "credit recovery". Cute.

While members of the Panel For Educational Policy believe that they can pretend that they are doing a public service, the public is on to the sham. Social promotion has taken a new name: credit recovery.

Posted By David Bloomfield, (pictured at right),June 10, 2009 @ 10:17 am
LINK

By failing to set standards or even track the use of credit recovery in New York City schools, Chancellor Joel Klein has provided a convenient back door for students to pass courses and graduate without subject mastery. The State Education Department has now capitulated to this agenda by promulgating a draft policy [1] based on unpublicized negotiations with the city Department of Education. If implemented, the policy would do nothing to stem this tide of empty credits but, rather, encourage credit recovery by officially recognizing and regularizing it but with inadequate controls and monitoring.

What is credit recovery? The term is sometimes used technically to denote a formal program, such as summer school, with specified content, attendance, and assessment requirements. But the term is widely applied to any effort to help students pass courses that they would otherwise fail because of incomplete or below-standard work. These students substitute the extra work for regular assessments by writing a paper, taking a test, or providing some other evidence of proficiency in a narrow course topic.

Under the new state policy, schools would need only create a committee (which would not include the student’s teacher) to approve a student’s customized credit recovery plan for a course. The same committee would then review evidence of student proficiency once the plan was completed. The State does not require minimum class attendance or proof that the plan addresses all subject matter deficiencies. If a teacher says a book report suffices to show proficiency, the committee would not need to inquire beyond the teacher’s word. No record of how many courses a student passed using CR would be maintained. There would be no monitoring of assignments’ rigor or the frequency of CR’s use by teachers, schools, or the system as a whole.

What is the problem, though, with giving students a second chance at passing or completing a course by filling in the gaps? First, without standards, there is no way to determine whether credit recovery assignments actually fill those gaps. Second, a course is more than the sum of its parts. For example, a student might fail a test in one unit of geometry and possibly another but if he or she understands other basic geometric concepts, they will likely pass the course. Course failure demonstrates significant overall deficits in factual and conceptual knowledge that a single assignment or mini-course can not erase. But passing the course will mean a lot to the student’s, the teacher’s, and the school’s appearance of success.

Helping students over the hump through credit recovery is not limited to New York City. Nationally, education publishers including Plato and Pearson sell credit recovery kits. But the DOE’s emphasis on data-based accountability, particularly high school credit accumulation and graduation, seems to have resulted in an explosion of credit recovery in New York. Schools are under tremendous pressure, through school report cards’ A-F rating, to produce progress in these metrics.

Credit recovery is a direct route to helping students and schools achieve the 10 credits each year that serve as the DOE’s benchmark of success. Then, with passing grades and a little luck on the Regents — often obtained through narrow and repeated test preparation — students are on pace to graduate. For hundreds of school principals, looking over their shoulders to stay ahead of the peer group against which they are measured, this is a matter of professional life and death. If one principal looks the other way on credit recovery in their schools, others are penalized for more rigorous standards. This race to the bottom will now be officially sanctioned by the State, urged on by Chancellor Klein.

If we do not reject this new policy proposal, more children will seem to be succeeding in high school and more will seem to be graduating with college- and job-readiness. But this will be a mirage. We will be gaming the system for students and administrators alike. We will be saluting proxies rather than real academic achievement.

The Board of Regents needs to put an end to this charade by rejecting this mockery and re-establishing high academic expectations for our youth.

David C. Bloomfield heads the Educational Leadership Program at Brooklyn College, CUNY and is an elected parent member of the Citywide Council on High Schools. He is the author of American Public Education Law.

Marc Epstein
Not Worth the Paper . . .
New York’s public schools have replaced social promotion with universal promotion.

1 June 2009
LINK

New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein’s vision of education reform is based on his idea of the “business model” of accountability and results—which sounds good in principle. Producing numbers that show bottom-line progress is essential to demonstrating Klein’s success. The city’s much-touted improvement in student test scores, though dubious, has convinced many observers that substantial progress is happening. To keep the momentum going and appease the Department of Education’s number crunchers, school administrators strive constantly to improve graduation rates. One of the easiest ways of doing this, unfortunately, is to water down course-credit standards for graduation.

For years now, schools have been switching to “annualization” of their course offerings. Under this structure, students who fail the first semester of a sequential course (say, English 5 and 6) can get credit for both terms if they pass the second semester. The practical effect of this change is to destroy the work ethic of those students who’ve figured out how to game the system. By their junior and senior years, they know that they can blow off the first term and, with some effort in the second, get credit for the full course. For the schools’ part, annualization obviates the need to create costly, inefficient “off-track” spring sections of sequential courses for students who failed the fall section. This helps cut down drastically on night school and summer school, and also sends graduation rates skyward. Under this flawed model, teachers face inexorable pressure to get their numbers up in the second term, however they can.

The education department has taken other questionable steps to boost graduation rates. Consider the fate of summer school. Even as recently as 13 years ago, when I first taught summer classes, the course standards and rules were strictly enforced. Three absences resulted in a student’s automatic termination from the program, and a disciplinary infraction would have the same result. But Harold Levy, Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s last schools chancellor, instituted a kinder and gentler system of asking, if not begging, kids to show up. Teachers were paid to call home and implore parents to send their kids, while a smiling Levy appeared on the evening news, manning the phones himself. Principals would let kids come late, allow them to disappear for two-week vacations in the middle of summer, and drop the issue of passing them into teachers’ laps, asking them to use “discretion.” Then, under Mayor Bloomberg and Chancellor Klein, the old Summer and Evening Division was eliminated altogether in a cost-saving move. A vastly shrunken summer-school operation, run individually by the schools with no outside oversight, retains very little of the old system’s tough standards.

The schools began implementing a program known as “credit recovery,” driven, again, by the pressure on city high school principals to improve their dismal graduation rates. Through credit recovery, a student can receive credit for a failed course after attending at least nine hours of class and completing a total of 25 hours of work. The credit-recovery classes are held during school vacations or in after-school programs. They’re sometimes referred to as “boot camp,” in order to conjure up images of Camp Lejeune in July. State and city directives always call for “rigorous” standards for these programs, but one doesn’t need to be an education policy expert to judge that nine hours in class is a paltry substitute for 16 weeks of class work, or even the 36 hours of summer school in the old system. What amount to extra-credit assignments cannot substitute for course proficiency. Besides, no statewide mechanism for auditing these programs really exists, so it’s left up to the full faith and credit of each school to ensure that they’re reputable. Stories about schools “stuffing” credit-recovery programs to boost graduation figures are legion.

But it gets worse. Until now, students who’ve failed a course must have spent a certain amount of time in that class (known as “seat time”) to be eligible for credit recovery. Last month, however, the State Education Department issued a draft proposal declaring that “seat time” will no longer be a prerequisite. Instead, a school-based committee made up of certified teachers and the principal will set the standards. “The provisions . . . do not require specific seat time requirements for the make-up opportunity since the opportunity must be tailored to the individual student’s need,” the memo declares. This alternative approach renders Chancellor Klein’s own regulations—which call for 90 percent attendance and “successful completion of standards in subject areas”—meaningless.

New York City’s much-heralded end to social promotion in schools has been replaced by something even worse—totally empty, if not universal, promotion. Partly as a result of new policies like credit recovery, this June’s graduation rates will likely reach record highs. Klein’s supporters will once again sound their optimistic refrain about educational progress. But at some point, ordinary New Yorkers, largely excluded from the education debate, will begin to realize that the progress is not what it seems.

Marc Epstein, a teacher at Jamaica High School, served as its dean of students for six years.

Under pressure to raise graduation rates, some high schools are turning to online courses to help faltering students revive their academic careers and retrieve the credits they need to earn their diplomas.
By Andrew Trotter

As alternatives to remedial lessons, summer school, and other traditional ways of getting struggling high school students back on track, technology-based options for “credit recovery” have been expanding.

“It’s a huge area of growth, especially in the last three years,” says Susan D. Patrick, the president and chief executive officer of the North American Council for Online Learning, a Vienna, Va.-based trade association for online schools.

Most of the new credit-recovery options are online programs offered by virtual schools and commercial curriculum providers. They offer approaches to individualizing instruction that are targeted and packaged for credit recovery, according to the companies and other providers offering the programs.

Credit recovery, or credit retrieval, is usually defined as an in-school opportunity for students to earn academic credits that they have lost, or are about to lose, by failing a regular course.
Michael J. Greene, 18, left, spent the spring in the "Apex lab" run by teacher Kim Feltner, right, at Pine Ridge High School in the Volusia County, Fla., district.
—Gerardo Mora for Education Week

Such options are available from an array of online-curriculum companies, such as Apex Learning Inc. and Plato Learning Inc., as well as nonprofit providers such as the Orlando-based Florida Virtual School and the Atlanta-based Georgia Virtual School.

Providers say they tailor learning to individual students, by using flexible pacing and schedules, extra practice, frequent assessment, and robust monitoring and reporting on participation and progress, while also allowing openings for personal interaction with teachers.

Their learning-management systems tend to have such typical online tools as e-mail, online assessments, and databases. Courses mirror, and are cross-referenced to, states’ academic standards.

Marc Epstein
The Regents, Stuck on Stupid
New York’s statewide exams get a little dumber every year.

City Journal 23 July 2008
LINK

A year ago, I wrote about the dumbing down of New York State’s Regents exams, the five tests in core subjects that students must pass to get a regular high school diploma. Since then, little has changed—unless it’s that the exams have become even dumber. Look no further than this year’s United States History and Government exam for 11th-graders.

The test has three parts and a total of 75 points weighted and calculated to total 100 percent, in a Byzantine formula established in Albany. Fifty multiple-choice questions, along with 15 document-based questions, account for 65 of those points. The student’s raw score is then plotted on a conversion chart provided by the state in combination with the student’s score on two essays, which account for the total score’s remaining ten points. If a student receives as few as 36 points out of 65 in the first two parts of the exam, he can still pass the Regents by earning five out of the ten essay points. According to the point-conversion chart, if he scores 50 points in the first two parts, he doesn’t even have to answer an essay question to pass—because his overall grade is already a 65, the minimum passing grade. If you’re confused by this elaborate scoring system, you’re not alone. But the key point is that students who get fewer than half of the questions correct can pass. And this leniency applies to other Regents tests as well. Students taking the algebra exam, for instance, need only earn a “raw score” of 30—out of a possible 87 points—to pass.

Some might argue that the rigor of the examinations justifies this system of weighting scores. That’s laughable. Consider some of the questions on the history exam. The multiple-choice section features a political cartoon in which a Supreme Court justice points to a chart showing pictures of the three branches of government. The cartoon reads “U.S. Constitution” at the top and “checks and balances” at the bottom. The test question asks: “Which constitutional principle is the focus of the cartoon?” This is all too typical of the half-dozen graphs, maps, and cartoon questions in this section of the test.

The document-based questions account for another 15 points; information garnered from them is then incorporated into one of the essay questions. Students need no prior knowledge of American history to answer the questions successfully. For example, a picture of students outside Little Rock Central High School, where troops guard the schoolhouse doors, bears the caption: “A white student passes through an Arkansas National Guard line as Elizabeth Eckford is turned away on September 4, 1957.” A second photo of Elizabeth Eckford, a black student, reads, “a mob surrounds Elizabeth Eckford outside Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas.” The question asks the student to describe what happened to Eckford when she tried to attend Central High School! Another photo depicts the eventual resolution of the Little Rock standoff, when the military enforced desegregation rulings at President Eisenhower’s command. The caption reads: “On September 25, 1957 federal troops escort the Little Rock Nine to their classes at Central High School.” The student is asked, “Based on this photograph, what was the job of the United States Army troops in Little Rock, Arkansas?”

The thematic essay requires students to discuss two people, other than presidents, who played significant roles that led to changes in the nation’s economy, government, or society. In case the students can’t come up with any names, a list is provided: Margaret Sanger, Bill Gates, Henry Ford, César Chávez, Martin Luther King, Jr., Frederick Douglass, Andrew Carnegie, Jacob Riis, and Upton Sinclair. If that’s not enough, the test even provides the nine people’s fields of endeavor.

An examination that neither requires a mastery of a body of knowledge nor demands the proper competence in reading and writing for its grade level measures nothing. However, it does perform a useful, albeit cynical, function: deceiving those who wish to be deceived. While some government officials pursue the content of our foods with a vengeance—restaurants in New York City may no longer use trans fats, and many are also required to display the number of calories in their food—others seem to be busy manipulating the content of our kids’ exams in order to yield pleasing results. All the rhetoric calling for higher standards and improved teacher and student performance turns out to be nothing more than bluster. In the end, there is only one difficult question that the Regents exam poses: What does a student have to do to fail?

Marc Epstein was a contributor to A Consumer’s Guide to High School History Textbooks, edited by Diane Ravitch. He teaches history at Jamaica High School in New York City.

Regents math test was quite a challenge
‘Raw score’ of 30 was enough to pass


National Standards, Charter Schools and Teacher Recruitment/Dismissal: The Confluence of Policy and Politics

Credit Recovery

Patronizing the Poor

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Glenn Storman Prosecuted Again, Sues Josephine Marsella and Dennis Boyles

After reading the New York Times article on Glenn Storman (see my previous posting, "Teacher Glenn Storman Wins in Court After Fighting the NYC BOE on False Corporal Punishment Charges"), I realized that this could be a bigger story than what was printed there. It most certainly is. The remand back to the NYC BOE for another hearing was followed by new charges and another federal lawsuit, this time filed not only against the New York City BOE, but PS 212 Principal Josephine Marsella and OSI investigator Dennis Boyles.

The Storman case could change everything in terms of the "Gotcha Squad" and the "rubberization" process, defined as the process in which "The Chancellor's Committee" works with Principals and pretend investigators to destroy people who say anything about them, their school(s), or the harm going on perpetrated by administrators gone wild.

Former Deputy Chancellors Andres Alonso (pictured at right) and Marcia Lyles (pictured below) agreed with the "U" as they always do, to support whatever charge is made without witness testimony and/or evidence.

The best way to get an overview of where the case stands right now and the ridiculous antics of the Bloomberg/Klein bunch in the matter of Glenn Storman is to read the Report and Recommendation of District Court Judge Andrew Peck.

Glenn Storman, is a tenured teacher and Guidance Counselor who has worked for the NYC BOE for 28 years. He was accused of corporal punishment and found guilty by the Principal based upon an allegation of student A, who he reprimanded for cursing at his classroom teacher. Student A told classmates that he would "get" Mr. Storman for waving a rolled up piece of paper near his face and telling him to stop [cursing]. A few days later the father met with Principal Marsella and told her that Mr. Storman had "inserted a piece of paper into Student A's mouth for the purpose of obtaining sexual pleasure". When OSI investigator Dennis Boyles came to the school to "investigate", Student A was not at school that day and was not interviewed. Mr. Storman then sued the New York City Board of Education in federal court for giving him a "U" rating and accusing him of corporal punishment without proof.

Related story:

The "Gotcha Squad" and the New York City Rubber Rooms

Saturday, May 30, 2009

Teacher Glenn Storman Wins in Court After Fighting the NYC BOE on False Corporal Punishment Charges

Congratulations Mr. Storman!

We now know how the NYC Board of Education works to get rid of teachers "they" dont want: write TAC memos which'prove' an allegation (see my articles on the Teacher Performance Unit and the TPU, and "Investigating the Investigators")that may or may not be true. What is striking about the case of Mr. Storman is the fact that well-known "Gotcha Squad" OSI-former-police-detective Dennis Boyles is mentioned as changing his mind about what to charge Mr. Storman:
"An investigation by the Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations ultimately substantiated the charges of corporal punishment. But in an apparent change of heart, the investigator who wrote that report, Dennis Boyles, testified during the appeal process that he did not believe Mr. Storman’s actions rose to the level of corporal punishment, according to the May 11 ruling."

See my article about Workplace Defamation Lawsuits and, if you see Mr. Condon or Mr. Boyles, give them the URL or a copy?

Congratulations also to New York State Supreme Court Judge Shirley Werner Kornreich for seeing that the investigators who accused Mr. Storman of corporal punishment after he waved a rolled up piece of paper in the air as "irrational"(read the entire decision below).

May 28, 2009
Teacher Resists a Charge of Corporal Punishment
By JAVIER C. HERNANDEZ, NY TIMES

When Glenn Storman, a guidance counselor at Public School 212 in Gravesend, Brooklyn, came across an unruly student cursing at a substitute teacher in 2004, he ordered the boy to “zip it” and brandished a rolled-up piece of paper, thinking that would be the last he heard of the encounter.

But five years later, Mr. Storman, 57, is embroiled in a legal dispute over allegations that he committed corporal punishment. A 27-year veteran of the school system, Mr. Storman denies hitting the student and is seeking to erase an unsatisfactory rating that a principal gave him. The Department of Education, however, has defended the rating, arguing that Mr. Storman did indeed touch the student, who was in the fifth grade.

The case shows the difficulties teachers can face in disputing the ratings they receive each year from principals. The ratings can determine whether they are eligible for lucrative teaching opportunities outside of the normal school year. The case also sheds light on the fine lines of interpretation surrounding the question of corporal punishment: Did Mr. Storman’s paper brush against the student? If so, was that intentional, and did it rise to the level of corporal punishment?

Teachers who receive unsatisfactory ratings are allowed to appeal to a court, and this month Acting Supreme Court Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich ruled in Mr. Storman’s favor, saying she did not find evidence of corporal punishment. The unsatisfactory rating, wrote the judge, (pictured at right) “shocks the conscience, was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.”

The Department of Education said last week that it was reviewing the decision and declined to comment further.

In October 2004, Mr. Storman entered a special education classroom at P.S. 212 after hearing a student yelling. When he stepped into the room, he saw the student on his knees on a chair cursing at the teacher. Holding the piece of paper in his hand, Mr. Storman recalled in an interview, he told the student to be quiet. The student moved forward as he reprimanded him, but Mr. Storman said he did not remember coming into contact with him.

Mr. Storman said he would not have hit the student because he had experience with special education students and did not believe force was the best way of resolving disputes.

“I don’t need to do anything more than to look at them and say, ‘Listen, you know to stop right now,’ ” he said.

Mr. Storman said he had been carrying the rolled-up paper while walking down the hallway. In previous statements to school officials he said he “may have touched” the student’s mouth with the paper, according to the court ruling. He says now that he does not believe that was so.

The boy’s father complained to the school’s principal, who asked for an inquiry, and in 2005, Mr. Storman, who is still a guidance counselor at P.S. 212, received an unsatisfactory rating in his annual review. He appealed, but the Department of Education stood by its determination that he had committed corporal punishment.

Mr. Storman appealed again in 2006, seeking $100,000 in compensation because, he said, the unsatisfactory rating prevented him from getting work as a summer school teacher and a tutor, work which he estimates had added about $25,000 a year to his income. He has also filed a lawsuit in federal court, which is still pending.

Mr. Storman was given another unsatisfactory rating in 2008 after his principal said he had inappropriately yelled at a student, according to Mr. Storman’s lawyer, John. C. Klotz. Mr. Storman is also appealing that rating.

An investigation by the Department of Education’s Office of Special Investigations ultimately substantiated the charges of corporal punishment. But in an apparent change of heart, the investigator who wrote that report, Dennis Boyles, testified during the appeal process that he did not believe Mr. Storman’s actions rose to the level of corporal punishment, according to the May 11 ruling.

Mr. Boyles testified in 2006 that the encounter constituted “inappropriate physical contact” but not corporal punishment, the court ruling said. Last year, Mr. Boyles reiterated his statement that he did not believe Mr. Storman’s actions amounted to corporal punishment, but added that Mr. Storman inappropriately touched the student with the paper, according to the ruling.

The Department of Education defines corporal punishment as “any act of physical force upon a pupil for the purpose of punishing that pupil.”

Mr. Boyles stated in his report that three students in the classroom at the time of the encounter could not recall seeing the paper hit the student’s face. But the fifth grader whom Mr. Storman had reprimanded told the investigator that Mr. Storman had brushed the paper against his lips and embarrassed him, though he added that he had not been physically injured.

The principal of P.S. 212 said at a hearing last year that she had recommended that Mr. Storman be given the unsatisfactory rating because of Mr. Boyles’s findings, which she believed substantiated the corporal punishment charges, according to the ruling.

Justice Kornreich called the Department of Education’s actions “irrational.”

“Nothing in the record supports the D.O.E.’s conclusion that Mr. Storman committed a substantiated act of corporal punishment,” she wrote, ordering that the unsatisfactory rating be annulled.

Mr. Storman said in an interview that the Department of Education had turned a “pebble” into a “mountain worth of wrongdoing.”

“This was a long hard, road,” he said, “and a costly one to me.”

Judge: Brush With Paper Roll Wasn't Corporal Punishment
LINK

Back in 2005, Glenn Storman, a guidance counselor at P.S. 212 in Gravesend, entered a special education classroom in which a fifth-grader was kneeling on his chair cursing at the teacher. What happened next is a matter of debate: Storman says he happened to be holding a rolled up piece of paper when he told the boy to "zip it." But according to the Times, the student says Storman "brushed the paper against his lips and embarrassed him." After an investigation, Storman got an unsatisfactory rating in his annual review, which is a big deal because it prohibits him from getting extra work as a summer school teacher and a tutor. But after a long legal battle, it looks like the alleged paper punisher will be vindicated: A judge ruled earlier this month that Storman's actions did not constitute corporal punishment, and said the unsatisfactory rating "shocks the conscience, was arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion." The Department of Education is reviewing the decision while defending another lawsuit brought by Storman in federal court. And it's unclear if the student has yet to recover from his brush with rolled up paper.

By John Del Signore in News on May 28, 2009 11:40 AM

Friday, May 29, 2009

Supreme Court and Ledbetter Fair Pay Act

Supreme Court Decides in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen in Favor of Employer and Addresses Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for First Time
Contributor: Littler Mendelson



SUMMARY: On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Souter (with Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer dissenting), the Court held that an employer does not necessarily violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) when it pays pension benefits calculated in part based on an accrual rule – in use prior to the PDA's enactment – that gives less retirement credit for pregnancy than for short-term disability leave. The Court held that the employer's method of calculating benefits was insulated from a Title VII challenge because it was part of a bona fide seniority system. The decision is also the first Supreme Court ruling to address the recently enacted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (Ledbetter Act), and it limits to a degree the Ledbetter Act's reach in the narrow circumstance where disparities in benefits are based on past, completed actions which were legal when taken.

See Open Congress

Washington D.C. Employment Law Update
Posted at 3:11 PM on May 18, 2009 by Jay Sumner
Supreme Court Issues Decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen
LINK

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that an employer does not necessarily violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) when it pays pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule – applied prior to the PDA’s enactment – that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy than for medical leave generally. The Court in AT&T v. Hulteen (pdf) further held that the benefit calculation rule used by the employer in this case was part of a bona fide seniority system that insulated it from a Title VII challenge.

AT&T Corporation and its affiliates, the petitioner in this case, had calculated an employee’s pension and other benefits based on a seniority system that subtracted uncredited leave time from the employee’s length of service. Employees on disability leave were given full service credit for time off, while those on “personal” leave did not. Prior to 1977, pregnancy leave was considered personal, not disability leave. In 1977, AT&T changed this policy to provide employees who took time off for pregnancy with six weeks of disability benefits and service credit. Any time off taken beyond the allotted six weeks was deemed personal, and no service credit was provided. Following the enactment of the PDA in 1978, which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and made it unlawful to treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other medical conditions, AT&T changed its policy to put pregnancy leave on equal footing with other disability leave for service credit purposes, but did not make service credit calculations retroactive. Therefore, the original plaintiffs in this matter were women who had taken pregnancy leave prior to the policy change, and whose retirement benefits have or would be affected. The plaintiffs’ case was eventually heard by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which – adhering to precedent – found that applying pre-PDA accrual rules that differentiated on the basis of pregnancy to post-PDA retirement eligibility violated Title VII.

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit – which conflicted with holdings by the Sixth and Seventh Circuits – noting that there was no doubt that the payment of the pension benefits in this case was the function of a bona fide seniority system, and that such systems are given a certain degree of immunity from Title VII claims. Specifically, section 703(h) stipulates that “it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation, or different terms, conditions, or privileges of employment pursuant to a bona fide seniority . . system . . provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.. . .” Thus, the Court reasoned, benefit differentials produced by a bona fide seniority-based pension plan are permitted unless they are the results of an intent to discriminate. The Court explained that “[b]ona fide seniority systems allow, among other things, for predictable financial consequences, both for the employer who pays the bill and for the employee who gets the benefit. . . .[a]s § 703(h) demonstrates, Congress recognized the salience of these reliance interests and, where not based upon or resulting from an intention to discriminate, gave them protection.” The Court noted that the company’s seniority system was neither adopted with the intent to discriminate on the basis of sex, nor was it unlawful when adopted.

The respondents, however, argued that the recently-enacted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act – which states, in relevant part, that “an unlawful employment practice occurs, with respect to discrimination in compensation . . . when an individual is affected by application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time wages, benefits, or other compensation is paid, resulting in whole or in part from such a decision or other practice” – supports their position that the benefits calculation is discriminatory. The Court disagreed, finding that since the company’s pre-PDA decision not to award the employee service credit for pregnancy leave was not discriminatory, the respondents were not therefore “affected by the application of a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice.”

Justice Souter delivered this opinion, which was decided by a vote of 7-2, with Justices Ginsburg and Breyer dissenting.

Supreme Court Decides in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen in Favor of Employer and Addresses Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for First Time
By:Sue M. Douglas, May 2009

On May 18, 2009, the Supreme Court announced its decision in AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen. In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Souter (with Justice Ginsberg and Justice Breyer dissenting), the Court held that an employer does not necessarily violate the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) when it pays pension benefits calculated in part based on an accrual rule - in use prior to the PDA's enactment - that gives less retirement credit for pregnancy than for short-term disability leave. The Court held that the employer's method of calculating benefits was insulated from a Title VII challenge because it was part of a bona fide seniority system. The decision is also the first Supreme Court ruling to address the recently enacted Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (Ledbetter Act), and it limits to a degree the Ledbetter Act's reach in
the narrow circumstance where disparities in benefits are based on past, completed actions which were legal when taken.

For additional information regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, see Littler's
Paycheck Rule Revived for Pay Discrimination Claims with Signing of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. (See the full report).

Ledbetter v. Goodyear and the Ledbetter Act

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Ledbetter Act, which expressly overturned the U.S. Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court expressly rejected the "paycheck rule" advanced by the plaintiff - i.e., that each time a paycheck evidencing disparate compensation was issued, a separate act of discrimination arose. The effect of the Court's decision was to limit the timeframe in which employees could bring pay discrimination claims. To maintain a timely claim of pay discrimination under Title VII, the Ledbetter Court held, an employee was required to file his or her claim with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 180 days of the original discriminatory pay-setting decision, even if the violation continued to affect the employee's compensation long after the 180-day period expired.
In overturning the Supreme Court's decision, the Ledbetter Act has broadened the occurrences that are considered unlawful actions for purposes of triggering a pay discrimination claim.

Under the Ledbetter Act, an unlawful employment practice occurs when: (1) a discriminatory compensation or other practice is adopted; (2) an individual becomes subject to the discriminatory decision or practice; or (3) an individual is affected by application of the discriminatory decision or practice, including each time
discriminatory compensation is paid. With the "paycheck rule" now in effect, employees may seek to reclaim lost compensation long after the initial discrimination took place, so long as the claim is filed with the EEOC within 180 days (or 300 days in some states) of the receipt of any compensation affected by
the initial pay decision. In addition, while the Ledbetter Act does not require employers to repay employees for decades of discriminatory pay differentials, employees can recover back pay up to two years prior to when the employee filed the discrimination claim.
Although combating gender-based pay discrimination was the impetus for the legislation, the Ledbetter Act prohibits pay discrimination based on all of the protected categories under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the
Rehabilitation Act, i.e., race, color, religion, national origin, age, and disability.

The statutory enactment of the paycheck rule allows employees to challenge pay-related decisions years after they have occurred. As a result, before the decision in AT&T v. Hulteen, it was uncertain whether pay decisions made long ago could be challenged as discriminatory when those decisions were
unquestionably legal under the state of the law at the time they were made.

Hulteen's Claims against AT&T

Prior to 1978, AT&T based its pension calculations on a seniority system that relied on years of service
minus uncredited leave time, giving less retirement credit for pregnancy absences than for medical leave generally. In 1978, Congress passed the PDA which amended Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to make it "clear that it is discriminatory to treat pregnancy-related conditions less favorably than other
medical conditions." The PDA was enacted in response to the Supreme Court's decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125 (1976), which held that differential treatment of pregnancy leave was not sex-based discrimination prohibited by Title VII. With the passage of the PDA, AT&T adopted a new pension plan, which provided the same service credit for pregnancy leave as for other temporary disability leave. AT&T made these changes prospectively, such that no retroactive adjustments were made for the pre-PDA leave calculations.

Because Hulteen took pregnancy leave before AT&T changed its pension plan, she received less service credit for her leave than she would have received had she taken general disability leave. This resulted in a reduction in her total employment term and, consequently, a smaller AT&T pension. Hulteen, along with other affected coworkers and their union, filed EEOC charges alleging discrimination based on sex
and pregnancy in violation of Title VII. The EEOC issued a determination finding reasonable cause to believe AT&T had discriminated and provided Hulteen with a notice of right-to-sue. Hulteen filed suit in federal district court, which, based on Ninth Circuit precedent that was in conflict with Sixth and Seventh Circuit precedent, ruled in favor of Hulteen. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.

In response to AT&T's appeal to the Supreme Court, Hulteen argued that, even though AT&T's pre-PDA decision to give less retirement credit for pregnancy absences was legal at the time it was made, AT&T's post-PDA decision at the time of her retirement to calculate her pension on the basis of the credit she had accrued partly under the pre-PDA rules violated the PDA when that decision was made. After oral argument but before the Court issued its opinion, President Obama signed the Ledbetter Act into law. In supplemental briefing, Hulteen argued that the Ledbetter Act further supported her position.

According to Hulteen, whether AT&T's pre-PDA decision was legal when made was irrelevant under the Ledbetter Act. Instead, she argued that the calculation of her pension by AT&T post-PDA was made using a measure of company service that it knew afforded unequal credit for equal service to women who took pregnancy leave prior to 1978. Therefore, Hulteen argued, AT&T's calculation was an "unlawful employment
decision or practice" under the Ledbetter Act, one which affected her each time she received her pension payment.

The Supreme Court's Decision in AT&T v. Hulteen

In its decision in Hulteen, the Supreme Court overruled the Ninth Circuit, holding that an employer does not necessarily violate the PDA when it pays pension benefits calculated in part under an accrual rule that gave less retirement credit for pregnancy than for medical leave generally when that rule was applied only before the enactment of the PDA. In reaching its ruling, the Court noted that seniority
systems are afforded special treatment under Section 703(h) of Title VII, which provides: "[I]t shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to apply different standards of compensation ... pursuant to a bona fide seniority ... system ... provided that such differences are not the result of an intention to discriminate because of ... sex." Citing Section 703(h), the Court explained that benefit differentials produced by a bona fide seniority-based pension plan are permitted unless they are the result of an intention to discriminate. The Court reasoned that, because AT&T's system must be viewed as bona fide, i.e., as a system having no discriminatory terms, Section 703(h) governed, and the key
determination was whether AT&T had intended to discriminate when it implemented its pre-PDA accrual rules.

As the Court noted, under Gilbert, the exclusion of disabilities related to pregnancy was not sex-based discrimination within the meaning of Title VII prior to 1978. Thus, AT&T's intent when it adopted the prePDA pregnancy leave rule at issue was to give differential treatment that, as a matter of law under Gilbert, was not gender-based discrimination. In other words, because AT&T's decision to utilize an
accrual rule limiting seniority credit for time taken for pregnancy leave was not discriminatory under Gilbert, it could not be the case that it was intentionally discriminatory. In addition, AT&T had adopted a new pension plan, which provided service credit for pregnancy leave on the same basis as leave taken for other temporary disabilities on the day the PDA took effect.

The Court next held that, even though AT&T could have chosen to give Hulteen post-PDA credit for her pre-PDA pregnancy leave when she retired, its failure to do so was not a discriminatory act. As the Court explained, if a choice to rely on a favorable statute turned every past legal differentiation into contemporary illegal discrimination, Section 703(h) would never apply. Finally, the Court rejected Hulteen's argument that AT&T's calculations were made unlawful under the Ledbetter Act because the payment of her pension benefits were in effect "the application of a
discriminatory compensation decision or other practice, including each time ... benefits [are] paid, resulting ... from such a decision." Following its reasoning above, the Court held that AT&T's pre-PDA decision not to award Hulteen service credit for pregnancy leave was not discriminatory at the time it was made, and, therefore, Hulteen had not been "affected by application of a discriminatory
compensation decision or other practice."

What Hulteen Means for Employers

Employers should understand that the holding in Hulteen is limited. In Brazemore v. Friday, 478 U.S.385 (1986), the Supreme Court held that a pattern or practice that was not illegal prior to Title VII but that would constitute a violation of Title VII did in fact became a violation upon Title VII's effective date. Thus, to the extent an employer continued to engage in that act or practice after the Act's effective date, the employer would be liable under Title VII. In Hulteen, the Court distinguished the facts before it from Brazemore on two grounds. First, the Court noted that Brazemore did not involve a seniority system, indicating that the holding in Hulteen may not extend beyond the context of bona fide seniority systems.
Indeed, at the end of its opinion, the Court emphasized the importance of the predictable financial consequences provided by bona fide seniority systems for both employers and employees.

Second, the Court explained that the employer in Brazemore failed to eliminate the discriminatory practice at issue in that case, even though the newly enacted Title VII had turned what was once legally permissible into something unlawful. In contrast, AT&T had adopted a new pension plan on the effective date of the PDA that complied with the PDA, and therefore AT&T's calculation of Hulteen's pension
payments was based on past, completed events that were not illegally discriminatory when they occurred. Thus, Hulteen appears to limit the reach of the Ledbetter Act only in those circumstances where the allegedly discriminatory compensation at issue is based on past, completed decisions that were lawful when they were made.
Keeping in mind these limitations, the Hulteen decision clearly strengthens the protection afforded under Section 703(h) to bona fide seniority systems, even in light of the enactment of the Ledbetter Act. The Ledbetter Act does not define "discriminatory compensation decision or other practice," leaving this
important phrase subject to varying interpretations. Had the Court agreed with Hulteen's interpretation, employers could have been liable for decisions made years ago relating to their seniority-based compensation systems, even though the decision itself was not illegally discriminatory when made and even though the seniority system was brought into compliance, each time a discrimination law was enacted or amended.

Under Hulteen, however, if a decision regarding the bona fide seniority system at
issue was not illegally discriminatory at the time it was made and the seniority system itself complies with the law going forward, then Section 703(h) applies to protect the seniority system at issue. Thus, although employers must regularly evaluate their seniority systems to determine whether those systems comply with current laws (including newly enacted and amended laws), Hulteen serves to protect bona fide seniority systems that were not adopted for a purpose that was illegally discriminatory.

Conclusion

The Hulteen decision curtails liability in those circumstances where employers are faced with claims alleging pay discrimination arising out of compensation decisions involving bona fide seniority systems that were legal when made. The decision is also the first to provide some guidance on the limits of the Ledbetter Act. The holding, however, is very narrow, and how the Supreme Court continues to interpret the Ledbetter Act remains to be seen.

Sue M. Douglas is a Shareholder in Littler Mendelson's Cleveland office. Blake Andrews is an Associate in Littler Mendelson's Atlanta office. If you would like further information, please contact your Littler attorney at 1.888.Littler, info@littler.com, Ms. Douglas at sdouglas@littler.com, or Mr. Andrews at
bandrews@littler.com.




The Impact of Ledbetter v. Goodyear on the Effective Enforcement of Civil Rights Laws
Testimony of Wade Henderson, President and CEO
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

June 28, 2007
LINK

House Judiciary Committee

Categories: Women's Rights

Good Morning. My name is Wade Henderson and I am the President of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The Leadership Conference is the nation’s premier civil and human rights coalition, and has coordinated the national legislative campaigns on behalf of every major civil rights law since 1957. The Leadership Conference’s nearly 200 member organizations represent persons of color, women, children, organized labor, individuals with disabilities, older Americans, major religious groups, gays and lesbians and civil liberties and human rights groups. It’s a privilege to represent the civil rights community in addressing the Committee today.

Distinguished members of the Committee, I am here this afternoon to call on Congress to act. To restore the ability of victims of pay discrimination to obtain effective remedies, and to end the inequality of remedies across classes of victims.

Lilly Ledbetter, a supervisor at Goodyear Tire & Rubber in Gadsden, Alabama, sued her employer for paying her less than its male supervisors and a jury found that Goodyear intentionally paid Ms. Ledbetter less than her male counterparts for more than 15 years, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Week after week, year after year, she was paid less. Significantly less. And this disparity was because of her sex. The jury also found Goodyear’s conduct to be bad enough to warrant an award of compensatory and punitive damages totaling $3 million.

On its face, it looked like Ms. Ledbetter had won. That she had finally received compensation for the years of discrimination, including the impact on her pension and retirement benefits. But that was before the Title VII damages cap and the Supreme Court intervened.

After the jury awarded Ms. Ledbetter her $3 million, the court was required by law to reduce her award to $300,000. Why? In 1991, Congress set damages caps in Title VII, which apply to gender, age and disability claims only, at $300,000. That amounts to ten percent of what the jury believed Ms. Ledbetter should receive, and a drop in the bucket to a corporation like Goodyear.

Two weeks ago, the second shoe dropped. The Supreme Court issued an opinion in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber1 which prevented Ms. Ledbetter from recovering anything to remedy the discrimination that she endured. According to the Court’s new rule, Ms. Ledbetter filed her discrimination complaint too late. A 5-4 Court held that Title VII’s requirement that employees file their complaints within 180 days of “the alleged unlawful employment practice,”2 means that the complaint must be filed within 180 days from the day Goodyear first started to pay Ms. Ledbetter differently, rather than – as many courts had previously held -- from the day she received her last discriminatory paycheck.

The Court’s ruling on the statute of limitations in Ledbetter is fundamentally unfair to victims of pay discrimination. First, by immunizing employers from accountability for their discrimination once 180 days have passed from the initial pay decision, the Supreme Court has taken away victims’ recourse against continuing discrimination.

Moreover, the Court’s decision in Ledbetter ignores the realities of the workplace. Employees typically don’t know much about what their co-workers earn, or how pay decisions are made, making it difficult to satisfy the Court’s new rule.

As Justice Ginsberg pointedly emphasized in her dissent, pay discrimination is a hidden discrimination that is particularly dangerous due to the silence surrounding salary information in the United States. It is common practice for many employers to withhold comparative pay information from employees. One-third of private sector employers have adopted specific rules prohibiting employees from discussing their wages with co-workers, and a significant number of other employers have more informal expectations that employees do not discuss their salaries. Only one in ten employers has adopted a pay openness policy.3

Workers know immediately when they are fired, refused employment, or denied a promotion or transfer, but norms of secrecy and confidentiality prevent employees from obtaining compensation information. As Justice Ginsberg’s dissent points out, it is not unusual for businesses to decline to publish employee pay levels, or for employees to keep private their own salaries.

The reality is that every time an employee receives a paycheck that is lessened by discrimination, it is an act of discrimination by the employer. The harm is ongoing; the remedy should be too.

In addition, the impact of the Title VII caps on Ms. Ledbetter clearly illustrates the need to eliminate this arbitrary provision from the law.

Under current law, individuals who prove that they have been the victims of intentional discrimination based on sex, disability or religion are only able to recover compensatory and punitive damages up to a cap of $300,000. This is true no matter how egregious the conduct of the discriminator, nor how long the discrimination continued. The caps create an artificial ceiling on damages awards that does not exist for individuals whose discrimination was based on race or national origin. If a person who was discriminated against on the basis of sex suffers the same adverse employment consequences as a person discriminated against on the basis of race or national origin, why should one be eligible to receive more damages than another?

Moreover, often it is the most severe cases of discrimination that are affected by the damages caps. Damages caps, effectively, protect the worst offenders while denying relief to those who were harmed the most.

Caps also minimize the deterrent effect of Title VII. If the potential liability for sex discrimination is capped, it is manageable for corporations. More like a cost of doing business. However, uncapped damages, at a minimum, create more of an incentive for employers to ensure that their workplaces are free from discrimination. Compensatory damages are designed to make the victim whole. If the economic harms suffered by the victim of discrimination are greater than the statutory cap, it should not be the discrimination victim who is left with less.

Finally, in employment discrimination cases based on race or national origin – where there are no damages caps -- we have not seen runaway verdicts. This is, in part, due to the numerous existing limitations in the current law that guard against improperly high verdicts. Courts can use their remitter power to reduce or vacate excessive damage awards, and there are constitutional limitations on punitive damages.4

The impact of the Court’s decision in Ledbetter will be widespread, affecting pay discrimination cases under Title VII affecting women and racial and ethnic minorities, as well as cases under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act5 involving discrimination based on age and under the Americans with Disabilities Act6 involving discrimination against individuals with disabilities.

Here is an example. Imagine you have worked for a company for 30 years. You are a good worker. You do a good job. Unknown to you, the company puts workers who are 50 or older on a different salary track; lower than the younger workers who do the same work. At 60, you learn that for the last 10 years, you have been earning less – tens of thousands of dollars less than colleagues doing comparable work.

How do you feel?

Imagine you are this worker. How do you feel?

Even more, how do you feel when you learn that 180 days after you turned 50 – six months after you started getting paid less – you also lost your right to redress for the hundreds of discriminatory paychecks.

The decision in Ledbetter will have a broad real world impact. The following are just two examples of recent pay discrimination cases that would have come out very differently if the Court’s new rule had been in effect.

In Reese v. Ice Cream Specialties, Inc.7 the plaintiff, an African-American man, never received the raise he was promised after six months of work. He did not realize his raise had never been awarded until three and a half years later, when he requested a copy of his payroll records for an unrelated investigation.8 The employee filed a charge of race discrimination with the EEOC, and the court initially granted summary judgment to the employer. On appeal, the employee argued that his claim was timely under the continuing violation theory, and the court concluded that the relevant precedents compelled the conclusion that each paycheck constituted a fresh act of discrimination, and thus his suit was timely.9 If the rule in Ledbetter had been in effect, the plaintiff would not have been able to seek relief.

In Goodwin v. General Motors Corp.10, an African-American woman was promoted to a labor representative position, with a salary that was between $300 and $500 less than other similarly-situated white employees.11 Over time, Goodwin’s salary disparity grew larger until she was being paid $547 less per month than the next lowest paid representative, while at the same time pay disparities among the other three labor representatives shrank from over $200 per month to only $82.12 Due to GM’s confidentiality policy, Goodwin did not discover the disparity until a printout of the 1997 salaries “somehow appeared on Goodwin’s desk.”13 She then brought a race discrimination action against her employer under Title VII. The district court dismissed the action, but the Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that discriminatory salary payments constituted fresh violations of Title VII, and each action of pay-based discrimination was independent for purposes of statutory time limitations. Again, if the rule in Ledbetter had been in effect, the plaintiff would not have been able to obtain relief.

Pay discrimination is a type of hidden discrimination that continues to be an important issue in the United States. In the fiscal year 2006, individuals filed over 800 charges of unlawful, sex-based pay discrimination with the EEOC. Unfortunately, under the Ledbetter rationale, many meritorious claims will never be adjudicated.

While today we are focused on the immediate problem of the Ledbetter decision, it is also important to understand that this decision is part of the Court’s recent pattern of limiting both access to the courts and remedies available to victims of discrimination. The Court’s decisions have weakened the basic protections in ways that Congress never intended by Congress.

Under the Supreme Court’s recent rulings, older workers can no longer recover money damages for employment discrimination based on age if they are employed by the state14, state workers can no longer recover money damages if their employers violate minimum wage and overtime laws15; there is no private right of action to enforce the disparate impact regulations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 196416; and workers can now be required to give up their right to sue in court for discrimination as a condition of employment.17 In many of these cases, as in Ledbetter, the Court is acting as a legislature, making its own policy while acting directly contrary to Congress’s intent.

For opponents of civil rights, there is no need to repeal Title VII. Instead you can substantially weaken its protections by chipping away at bedrock interpretations. Or, you can instead make it difficult or impossible for plaintiffs to bring and win employment discrimination cases. Or if you make the remedies meaningless.

As Justice Ginsburg pointed out in her dissent, Congress has stepped in on other occasions to correct the Court’s “cramped” interpretation of Title VII. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 overturned several Supreme Court decisions that eroded the power of Title VII, including Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio18, which made it more difficult for employees to prove that an employer's personnel practices, neutral on their face, had an unlawful disparate impact on them, and Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins19, which held that once an employee had proved that an unlawful consideration had played a part in the employer's personnel decision, the burden shifted to the employer to prove that it would have made the same decision if it had not been motivated by that unlawful factor, but that such proof by the employer would constitute a complete defense. As Justice Ginsburg sees it, “[o]nce again, the ball is in Congress’ court.”

We agree.

We also reiterate the need to end the disparity in employment discrimination law by removing the damages caps that apply to women, individuals with disabilities and older Americans under current law. The caps undercut enforcement, are unnecessary, and reward the most egregious discriminators with a substantial limitation on liability for their intentional discriminatory acts.

The issues in this case are not academic. The fallout will have a real impact on the lives of people across America.

People like Lily Ledbetter.

Members of the Committee, today you begin the process of responding to Justice Ginsburg’s call. A process that will reaffirm that civil rights have legally enforceable remedies.

Thank you.

1 Slip op. No. 05-1074 (U.S. Supreme Court)

2 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.

3 Bierman & Gely, “Love, Sex and Politics? Sure. Salary? No Way”: Workplace Social Norms and the Law, 25 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 167, 168, 171 (2004).

4 BMW of Northern America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)

5 29 U.S.C. 621 et seq.

6 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.

7 347 F.3d 1007 (7th Cir. 2003)

8 Id. at 1007

9 Id. at 1013

10 275 F.3d 1005 (10th Cir. 2002)

11 Id. at 1008

12 Id.

13 Id. at 1008

14 Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000)

15 Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999)

16 Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001)

17 Circuit City Stores v. Adams, 532 U.S. 105 (2001)

18 490 U.S. 642 (1989)19 490 U.S. 228 (1989)

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Mayor Mike Bloomberg Says That New York Observer Reporter Azi Paybarah is "a disgrace."



YouTube: Mayor Mike Bloomberg says that New York Observer reporter Azi Paybarah is "a disgrace".

Mayor Bloomberg calls reporter 'a disgrace' for questioning rationale for third term run
By Celeste Katz, DAILY NEWS CITY HALL BUREAU, Thursday, May 28th 2009, 5:58 PM
LINK

Ask Mayor Bloomberg about job creation statistics and you're fine.

Ask him about that pesky term limits thing and apparently, "you're a disgrace."

Bloomberg - who controversially got the City Council to lift the two-term limit so he could try for a third this year - went off on a reporter Thursday who questioned his rationale for running again.

At a Queens news conference to announce $31.7 million in job training funds, Bloomberg said there has been a change in the economic "psychology" of the city.

He mentioned improvements in the real estate market and a renewed willingness on the part of citygoers to spend at stores and restaurants.

At one point he said although the city still faces grave problems, "I'm reasonably optimistic that we've turned the corner."

But the mayor seemed downright provoked when a reporter asked if such improvements eliminated the need for a third Bloomberg term.

He had justified his desire for a third term, in part, by saying the city needed his management expertise in rough economic times.

"Why don't you just get serious questions here?" he interrupted New York Observer reporter Azi Paybarah.

"The rationale for extending term limits is the City Council voted it and the public's going to have a chance on Nov. 3 to say what they want," the mayor said, interrupting again.

"I don't think we have to keep coming back to that... If you have a serious question about the economy, I will be happy to answer it."

After asking if there were any further questions - there were none - Bloomberg thanked the attendees, closed the news conference, glared at Paybarah and said, quietly, "You're a disgrace."

Paybarah referred questions about the mayor's putdown to Observer Political Editor Josh Benson.

"It was a reasonable question," Benson said.

"We're comfortable leaving it to everyone else to judge the quality of the response."

ckatz@nydailynews.com

You're A Disgrace' (Updated)
May 28, 2009
LINK

To the annals of Mayor Bloomberg's mistreatment of the press add his testy exchange today with The Observer's Azi Paybarah, who dared to ask Hizzoner a question about term limits.

The mayor, having just finished explaining to the DN's Celeste Katz that he happens to be "very optimistic" about the city's economy and giving anecdotal examples of how things are turning around, did not take kindly to Azi's inquiry about how this might undercut Bloomberg's own rationale for extending term limits - not to mention running for re-election.

Here's the transcript:

Azi: "If the economy is turning around as you said, does that mean that the rationale for extending term limits, which is the fiscal challenge...

Bloomberg: "I don't know. Why don't you just get to serious questions here and we'll just..."

Azi: No, but the question is...

Bloomberg: "The rationale for extending term limits is the City Council voted it, and the public's going to have a chance on Nov. 3 to say what they want, and I don't think we have to keep coming back to that. When you have a serious question about the economy i'd be happy to answer it."

"Anything else? Thank you very much. Nothing else? Great. Thank you."

(Applause).

And then, as the mayor walks away from the podium, he looks at Azi and says, almost under his breath: "You're a disgrace." (Read his lips).

Ironically, Bloomberg once used that very word to describe...the City Council's effort to change term limits.

Actually, he said that was an "absolute disgrace." But why quibble?

Bloomberg, who happens to be a media mogul, has a long history of tense interactions with reporters. His most recent dust-up was with blogger Michael Harris, who uses a wheelchair, during Gov. David Paterson's gay marriage press conference.

There was also his rather infamous exchange with Newsday's Michael Frazier over the word "maintain," which took place almost exactly a year ago.

UPDATE: Azi referred questions to his boss, Political Editor Josh Benson, who said (via e-mail): "It was a reasonable question. We're comfortable leaving it to everyone else to judge the quality of the response."

UPDATE2: Bloomberg spokesman Stu Loeser e-mailed Katz to say: "The Mayor asked me to pass along his apologies to Azi for the comment after the press conference, which I did."

Meanwhile, Comptroller Bill Thompson's campaign manager, Anne Fenton, commented:

"What’s disgraceful is the Mayor’s refusal to answer the tough questions. Calling people names, having staff block cameras and bullying the press aren’t going to stop people from asking the mayor to explain his term limits bait and switch.”

8 Comments

Field Marshal Tania

May 28, 2009
5:37 PM

Why does nobody seem to recognize what a hideous troll Bloomberg is?

NYRBLUE74

May 28, 2009
6:05 PM

Wow! Liz, you and celeste, don't miss much.Nice work.The Mayor, looked, like, he was ready to turn over a table.The leader of the greatest city in the world needs to be cool and steady.But, that moment! Scary!..


" Not cool" there.

Buckadelic

May 28, 2009
6:12 PM

[Why does nobody seem to recognize what a hideous troll Bloomberg is?]

Maybe you have to be a hideous troll to be mayor of New York City?

Learning the Political Game

May 28, 2009
7:11 PM

Azi is my new hero......Great question. His last comment before walking off........priceless!!!!

topo gigio

May 28, 2009
7:42 PM

Emperor Bloomberg doesn't like to have his motives questioned.

Keep up the good work, Azi.

We know who the real disgrace is here. It's the dude who is buying himself a third term and all the pols who were so easily bought off.

ROSALIE907

May 28, 2009
10:05 PM

Good job Azi and keep it up. By the way, why couldn't Bloomberg call Azi himself to apologize or is it beneath him to tell a reporter that he, Mike Bloomberg, is a jerk.

REMEMBER TERM LIMITS ON NOV 3, 2009.

Don'tHateMeLoveMe

May 28, 2009
11:07 PM

Lizzie, looking out for Azi, yeah. If Bloomberg spoke that way to Lizzie then I would have punch him in his mouth.

jpyanks

May 28, 2009
11:12 PM

It seems that most of us posting notes dislike Napoleon Bloomberg. Besides voting for Bill Thompson, please talk to your friends and family in NYC to vote against him. This is the only way we're going to get rid of this egomaniac and save our city. Thompson is the City Comptroller and obviously knows how to handle a billion dollar budget and talk to the citizens of the city he grew up in politely and with dignity. VOTE BLOOMBERG OUT!!!

Read more: "The Daily Politics - NY Daily News" - http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2009/05/youre-a-disgrace.html#ixzz0GrhcfX0V&A