Gifted and Talented Elementary Grade Kids in Districts 26 and 30 in Queens Will Automatically Get G&T Middle School Placement

Are we seeing a "new" Carmen (Farina)? Is she trying to have those parents, teachers and children who were harmed back when she was Principal of PS 6, at Region 8, Superintendent of District 15 and Deputy Chancellor under Mayor Bloomberg "forget" what happened and start over? Or is her current agreement with the G&T parents in Queens to have their kids skip any testing for the Middle School simply a part of her honeymoon with NYC?

When Carmen was Principal of PS 6, she destroyed the G&T program because she thought that G&T led to favoritism. She wanted all kids to learn in the classroom, so the kids that scored 1 or 2 on tests should be brought to a high 2 or even a three, and kids that scored a 3, or 4 could be brought to a low 3 or high 2, and then the young teachers without tenure who were hired to replace the tenured teachers with high salaries could succeed in teaching the Whole Language and TERC math curricula.....often cited in articles and websites as part of the "dumbing down of America".

I guess we will have to see what happens next.

Betsy Combier

Queens

City agrees to grandfather District 26 gifted and talented students into middle school 

Parents of the G&T students in northeast Queens had raised an outcry after the city attempted to base middle school admissions on ELA and math test scores

Comments (1)

BY CLARE TRAPASSO / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2014, 6:00 AM

0

0

0

Print

SHARE THIS URL:

ANTHONY DELMUNDO/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

 

Parents of students in the gifted and talented program at Public School 203, in Oakland Gardens, Queens, are pleased that their children will be automatically accepted into the middle school G&T program.

Don’t mess with the parents of the brightest students in northeast Queens.

The city backed off a hotly contested plan on Tuesday to force elementary students in the gifted and talented program in District 26 to reapply for the coveted middle school seats. The stunning reversal came after parents raised the war cry.

The Department of Education — under new Chancellor Carmen Fariña, agreed to grandfather current gifted students into the middle school program. Incoming kids will have to reapply based on their fourth grade ELA and math scores.

District 26 — and 30, in northwest Queens — are the only two in the city that guarantee students the highly-sought seats. Once admitted to the elementary school program — based on performance on a pair of aptitude tests administered before kindergarten — students may stay through middle school.

RELATED: NYC HOME TO 22 SCHOOLS AMONG TOP 25 COMMON CORE EXAM PERFORMERS

Students in all other city districts have to re-apply.

The Department of Education did not provide answers to questions about changes to the program, but parents took it as victory and said they were pleased.

“I’m very happy about this,” said one parent, Susan Oh, who has two sons in the gifted and talented program in Public School 203, in Oakland Gardens. “We were considering moving to Long Island, because our kids weren’t guaranteed a spot.”

She helped collect almost 800 signatures protesting the city’s decision to base middle school admissions to the gifted and talented program on test scores.

RELATED: GIFTED, TALENTED & LEFT OUT

Parents — who typically jump through hoops to get their children a seat in the program — only learned of the policy change late last year, after their kids had already taken the state exams.

“Initially, we were all blind-sided,” said Christiana Moy, 46, of Fresh Meadows, who has two kids in the program at PS 203. “There are so many students who test very well in our district.”

Students classified as gifted and talented learn at a faster pace and can typically do work at least a grade level ahead of their peers.

“My child started reading when he was 2,” said Moy, adding that she fears the brainy students could become bored and potentially disruptive if they were ousted from the program. “In pre-K, he started to read to his class.”

RELATED: QUEEN PAROCHIAL SCHOOL FOCUSES ON G&T

City education officials pledged to add more middle school classes for students not already enrolled in the gifted and talented program.

Parents praised the move.

“We just want to have the opportunities for students,” said Jeannette Segal, president of Community Education Council in District 26.

She was optimistic that the city’s abrupt about-face was a departure from the Bloomberg administration’s our-way-or-the-highway style of decision-making.

“It gives me hope that parents are going to have a say, finally, in their children’s education,” Segal said of the new administration.

City Councilman Mark Weprin (D-Oakland Gardens) also said he is cautiously encouraged.

“I’m glad we reached a solution that keeps these parents happy,” Weprin said. “One of the biggest flaws of the Bloomberg administration [was] it had complete disdain for parental input.”

ctrapasso@nydailynews.com

Whistleblower Blames LAUSD for $60 Million Miramonte Sex 'Fiasco'

There is retaliation everywhere. Expect it. Protect yourself.

Betsy Combier

LINK

 LOS ANGELES (CN) - The chief risk manager Los Angeles Unified School District hired to help settle the Miramonte sexual abuse litigation claims he was fired after blowing the whistle on "corruption and cronyism" in the district's public law office.
     Seeking $10 million in damages in Superior Court, former LAUSD chief risk manager Gregg Breed claims the district's Office of General Counsel hired attorneys with scant experience in sexual molestation cases, ignored his advice on how to structure mediation payments and cut him out of crucial mediation sessions with Miramonte plaintiffs.
     Breed claims that "disastrous decision" could cost taxpayers as much as $60 million, as insurers refused to indemnify the district after they too were left out of the loop during mediation.
     Mark Berndt, a former Miramonte Elementary school teacher, was charged with 23 counts of lewd acts on 23 children age 7 to 10. He pleaded no-contest to the charges in November 2013.
     Miramonte teacher Martin Springer also was charged with lewd acts on a child. He is awaiting trial.
     Breed, hired in April 2012 at $14,438 a month plus benefits, claims in the lawsuit that LAUSD General Counsel David Holmquist farmed out the work to attorneys "based on his personal relationships" rather than on their expertise.
     Attorneys specializing in sexual assault and molestation cases typically charge about $175 per hour, Breed says in the complaint.
     But the attorneys that LAUSD hired, Thomas Delaney of the Sedgwick law firm, and Sean Andrade with Baute, Crochetiere and Maloney, charged $455 and $390 an hour, respectively, according to Breed.
     Breed said he recommended that the school district take a piecemeal approach to settling Miramonte cases, based on the "level of exposure and injury" of each claimant.
     He claims that the Office of General Counsel decided to offer a flat rate of $470,000 to each claimant instead.
     The law office arrived at that rate on Feb. 14, 2013, when the district's Chief Business and Compliance Counsel Gregory McNair, "under direction of LAUSD General Counsel David Holmquist," made the "highly suspect and ultimately disastrous decision" to exclude Breed and third-party insurers from a mediation session with Miramonte plaintiffs' counsel, Breed says in the complaint.
     Breed believes he was frozen out of the meeting because he would have mentioned his concerns about the blanket settlements.
     Worse, Breed claims, attorney McNair reviewed Miramonte fact sheets for the first time weeks after the district had gone public with the settlement.
     "McNair's actions violated the LAUSD's board-approved process to vet each litigant and ensure both that taxpayer dollars were spent properly and victims were adequately compensated, but not over compensated," the complaint states.
     According to Breed, claimant-submitted fact sheets were riddled with errors and missing key information.
     The Office of General Counsel's one-size-fits-all approach had unintended consequences, Breed says.
     He claims some students received settlements though they were never in a class with the accused teachers, while one student who was allocated an award was "touched just once on the shoulder."
     "Three claimants who received $470,000 each had made allegations against an accused teacher about whom LAUSD had no prior notice of sexual abuse," the complaint states, while two other students who were never abused received awards "on factors such as 'being angry' and 'not wanting to go on amusement park rides.'"
     Breed claims that when he complained to LAUSD about the way McNair was dealing with the Miramonte cases, he was told without explanation that his contract would not be renewed.
     When news of the $470,000 settlements reached the public, Holmquist, "to save face," said the district's insurers would foot the bill, Breed claims.
     He adds: "Holmquist's statement was designed to diminish the shock, should it ever be discovered that students who never even encountered the abuser were handed $470,000, a settlement strategy developed by one of Holmquist's subordinates. Holmquist also stated that LAUSD spent $1 million on defense costs, when the actual amount was over twice this amount."
     Because the district's insurers were not involved in the mediation process, as required by the district's insurance agreements, the insurers refused to indemnify the district or pay the settlement, Breed says.
     "As a result of rejecting plaintiff's advice to the contrary, it is likely that LAUSD will be solely liable for the $30 million committed in mediation and an additional $30 million allocated for the remaining Miramonte cases," according to the complaint.
     And, Breed says, insurers are refusing to cover the district for the 2013-2014 school year.
     "Despite the outside law firms' dereliction that has caused the LAUSD to lose insurance coverage for both the Miramonte cases and for all claims in the future, McNair, in another example of egregious cronyism, selected the same attorney (Andrade) to represent LAUSD in litigation filed by one of the insurance companies, Everest Insurance, where his own actions and decisions will be the central legal issue adjudicated." (Parentheses in complaint.)
     Breed claims that the district sought an injunction against him after the media tried to contact him last year. He says that "gag order" was created to "punish" him for blowing the whistle and prevent him from going public with information about the "Miramonte settlement fiasco."
     He claims the district refused several of his records requests under the Public Records Act.
     He seeks at least $10 million in damages for violation of free speech, failure to pay wages, retaliation, wrongful firing, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and other charges.
     LASUD is the only defendant.
     Breed is represented by Arnold Peter of Beverly Hills.

Union Dues Violate First Amendment Rights: The Case of Harris v Quinn

LINK
NYPOST Editorial Board

The other day, these pages called for New York to stand up for teachers by letting them decide for themselves whether they are going to pay their union dues.

We were referring to the automatic deduction on teacher paychecks, which the city pays for and manages — and which guarantees the union money for all its political efforts whether or not its members approve.

The day The Post editorial appeared, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in a case that takes this issue far beyond teachers.

In Harris v. Quinn, plaintiff Pam Harris is an Illinois mother who cares for her developmentally disabled son, Josh, at home. Josh receives Medicaid money. Though his mom never joined the Service Employees International Union — with whose politics she disagrees — thanks to decrees by Govs. Rod Blagojevich and Pat Quinn, she was declared a public employee.

Rod Blagojevich

Translation: She has to pay union dues. Which means that some of Josh’s payments from Medicaid are siphoned off and sent to the SEIU.

Harris says this is unfair, and violates her rights to both free speech and free association. She is absolutely right.

In a decision back in 1977, the high court said workers could be forced to pay dues that go to collective bargaining, but that they didn’t have to pay for money used for political activities.

But as we see in New York, when the union is a public-workers union, this line between political and non-political becomes harder to draw.

For example, when the SEIU calls on Mayor de Blasio — its choice in the last election — to raise taxes on the wealthy to fund universal pre-K, how is that not political speech?

In many ways, the Supreme Court case echoes Mayor Bloom­berg’s parting warning about the labor-electoral complex that cannot function without forced dues.

Bloomberg was right. And as more and more workers like Pam Harris are effectively forced into public-sector unions they must financially support, it’s time for the Court to restore the balance in favor of their First Amendment rights to decide what organizations they want to join and which they will financially support.

U.S. justices wary of free-speech argument in union dues challenge

By Amanda Becker

WASHINGTON Tue Jan 21, 2014 5:54pm EST
LINK
 

Jan 21 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court seemed unlikely on Tuesday to embrace a sweeping argument advanced by a group of Illinois state employees that paying mandatory union dues violates their free-speech rights.

Backed by the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, the employees, who care for the disabled, have asked the court to upend a decades-old practice that lets public-sector unions collect money from workers who do not want union representation, so long as the money is not spent on political activities.

Justices on the high court expressed reluctance to reconsider its 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education. That ruling said unions could collect such compulsory dues under collective bargaining agreements.

A handful of home-based personal care workers, represented by National Right to Work attorney William Messenger, is arguing that the Abood standard should be overturned. Payment of mandatory dues, they argue, is the type of forced association and speech prohibited by the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

But during an hour of oral arguments, Justice Elena Kagan said the court has given the government a "very wide degree of latitude" to manage its workforce. Public-sector employees can be fired for making statements in the workplace that would, on their own time, be legally protected, Kagan said.

"So you're saying, well, the government can punish somebody for saying something, but the government in the exact same position cannot compel somebody to say something they disagree with. And I want to know what's the basis for the distinction," said Kagan, one of four liberals on the nine-member court.

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "I want to hear the answer, too, because contrary to what Justice Kagan suggests, I didn't say your First Amendment argument was valid."

Several members of the court appeared more open to narrower questions raised by the Illinois case, such as when specific union activities may be political in nature.

STATE EMPLOYS MOTHER

The case - Harris v. Quinn - was brought by Pamela Harris, of Illinois, who cares for her 25-year-old son Josh Harris, who has a rare genetic syndrome and needs round-the-clock care.

In Illinois, as in many states, home-based personal care workers who assist the disabled are paid with Medicaid funds as state employees. The practice is meant to lower overall care costs by keeping disabled individuals at home and out of institutions.

For more than a decade now, home-based workers in Illinois have been represented by SEIU Healthcare Illinois-Indiana. The collective bargaining agreement between SEIU and the state provides that all such workers pay compulsory union fees.

Harris, along with other home-based workers, sued Illinois and Governor Pat Quinn, a Democrat, claiming that the compelled payment of union dues was a form of forced speech prohibited by the First Amendment.

A district court dismissed the case, citing long-standing Supreme Court precedent that mandatory union dues can be collected to support non-political activities. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago affirmed that ruling after concluding the workers bringing the case were state employees.

The workers asked the Supreme Court to take the case. That prompted the filing of friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the workers from several conservative groups, including the Cato Institute, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Illinois Policy Institute.

Labor unions, the American Association of People With Disabilities and the state of California were among interests that filed briefs supporting Illinois in the case.

IDENTICAL QUESTIONS

The legal question presented by Harris v. Quinn is nearly identical to the one decided by the court in the 1977 Abood case. Observers wondered whether the court's decision to hear Harris's appeal signaled a willingness to revisit the issue.

The case also came on the heels of the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in Knox v. SEIU, a narrower case in which the justices were skeptical of the SEIU's opt-out procedures for dues payment by public employees in California.

Some of the justices on Tuesday questioned when unions representing public-sector workers may cross the line from non-political to political activity, and if and where that line could be drawn in specific cases.

Harvard University law professor Benjamin Sachs said that it is impossible to predict how the justices will decide a case. But Kagan, Scalia and other members of the court noted on Tuesday that the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed that states can dictate the terms of employment relationships, including that the First Amendment rights of employees can be circumscribed in the workplace, Sachs said.

"If you can glean anything from the oral argument today, it's that possibly a majority of the court is being careful to adhere to that long-standing precedent," Sachs said.

The case is Pamela Harris, et al v. Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-681.

Harris v. Quinn

         

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-681	7th Cir.	Jan 21, 2014 Tr.Aud.	TBD	TBD	TBD	OT 2013

Issue: (1) Whether a state may, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, compel personal care providers to accept and financially support a private organization as their exclusive representative to petition the state for greater reimbursements from its Medicaid programs; and (2) whether the lower court erred in holding that the claims of providers in the Home Based Support Services Program are not ripe for judicial review.

SCOTUS blog Coverage

• Argument recap: Public employee unionism under fire
• Argument preview: Is Abood in trouble?

Date	Proceedings and Orders
Nov 29 2011	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 4, 2012)
Dec 22 2011	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including February 3, 2012, for all respondents.
Dec 30 2011	Waiver of right of respondent Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois to respond filed.
Jan 4 2012	Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, et al..
Jan 4 2012	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Feb 3 2012	Brief of respondent SEIU Healthcare Illinois and Indiana, et al. in opposition filed.
Feb 15 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 2, 2012.
Feb 16 2012	Reply of petitioners Pamela Harris, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Feb 29 2012	Response Requested . (Due March 30, 2012)
Mar 19 2012	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 30, 2012.
Apr 30 2012	Brief of respondent Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois in opposition filed.
May 10 2012	Reply of petitioners Pamela Harris, et al. filed.
May 15 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 31, 2012.
Jun 25 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 28, 2012.
Jun 29 2012	The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.
May 10 2013	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed.
May 21 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 6, 2013.
May 22 2013	Supplemental brief of petitioners in response to brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed).
Jun 10 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 13, 2013.
Jun 17 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 20, 2013.
Jun 25 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 26, 2013.
Sep 23 2013	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 30, 2013.
Oct 1 2013	Motion for leave to file amici brief filed by Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, et al. GRANTED.
Oct 1 2013	Petition GRANTED.
Oct 22 2013	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including November 22, 2013.
Oct 30 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Quinn.
Oct 31 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners.
Nov 1 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents S.E.I.U. Healthcare Illinois & Indiana, et al.
Nov 4 2013	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 21, 2014.
Nov 13 2013	Record received from U.S.C.A. for 7th Circuit is electronic.
Nov 22 2013	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)
Nov 22 2013	Brief of petitioners Pamela Harris, et al. filed.
Nov 27 2013	Brief amici curiae of California Public School Teachers, et al. filed.
Nov 27 2013	Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed.
Nov 27 2013	Brief amici curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, et al. filed.
Nov 27 2013	Brief amici curiae of Family Child Care Inc., et al. filed.
Nov 27 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Illinois Policy Institute filed. (Distributed)
Nov 27 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus cuirae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent AFSME Council 31.
Nov 29 2013	Brief amici curiae of Albert Contreras, et al. filed.
Nov 29 2013	Brief amicus curiae of Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed. (Distributed)
Dec 2 2013	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Local 73, S.E.I.U.
Dec 4 2013	CIRCULATED.
Dec 23 2013	Brief of respondent SEIU Healthcare Illinois & Indiana filed. (Distributed)
Dec 23 2013	Brief of respondents AFSCME Council 31, and SEIU Local 73 filed. (Distributed)
Dec 23 2013	Brief of respondent Pat Quinn, Governor of Illinois filed. (Distributed)
Dec 27 2013	Brief amici curiae of American Association of People With Disabilities, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amici curiae of 21 Past Presidents of the D.C. Bar filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amici curiae of State of New York, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amici curiae of Public Safety Employees filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amici curiae of Labor Law Professors filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amicus curiae of The Paraprofessional Healthcare Institute (PHI) filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Dec 30 2013	Brief amicus curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amici curiae of National Education Association, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amici curiae of California, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 30 2013	Brief amici curiae of Homecare Historians filed. (Distributed)
Jan 10 2014	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Jan 14 2014	Reply of petitioners Pamela Harris, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 21 2014	Argued. For petitioners: William L. Messenger, Springfield, Va. For respondents: Paul M. Smith, Washington, D. C.; and Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)