Join the GOOGLE +Rubber Room Community

Monday, February 16, 2015

Carmen Farina and Her Favored - Oops, - Partnership Support Organizations (PSOs)

The High School of Telecommunication Arts and Technology in Bay Ridge, Brooklyn, is part of a school-support network run by New Visions for Public Schools. While Chancellor Carmen Fariña eliminated most of those networks, New Visions may survive.
How a few school-support groups created under Bloomberg survived Fariña’s overhaul

A group of privately run partner organizations will remain,
but some may fare better than others
 
Carmen Farina
 
Chancellor Carmen Fariña unveiled a sweeping redesign of the school system last month, replacing the Bloomberg-era support teams that had helped principals manage their schools with powerful superintendents and borough offices.
She did, however, allow one vestige of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s system to persist: the handful of support teams run by nonprofits and universities, which she said could still work with schools in a limited way.
But, as the dust settles, it appears that some of those groups could fare much better than others. While certain ones will work with far fewer schools and in a much narrower capacity than they did before, others could keep most of their schools and support functions, according to interviews with people at the privately run groups, known as as “partnership support organizations,” or PSOs.
Robert Hughes, the president of New Visions for Public Schools, is in talks with the city about the role
his school-support group will play under the new system.
The group most people point to as the likely winner in the reorganization is New Visions for Public Schools, a large PSO overseeing about 80 schools with a high-powered board of trustees who descended on City Hall before the restructuring was announced. The schools in that group and a few others will be overseen by their own superintendents even though they are spread across the city — a contrast to the rest of the chancellor’s new system, which is built around geographic districts.
While the new arrangements are still being finalized, supporters point out that groups like New Visions have deep experience helping run schools and that many principals are eager to keep their PSOs. But experts say that could complicate Fariña’s new power structure, which was meant to remove a layer separating the chancellor from schools and create consistency across districts. Some suspect that letting a group like New Visions retain such influence was not Fariña’s first choice, but a concession to politics.
“It does seem to be a little bit at odds with the chancellor’s desire to have very clear hierarchal authority lines,” said Aaron Pallas, a Teachers College professor who the department consulted as it planned the reorganization. “It may be a bit of political compromise that everyone had to live with.”

Fearing change, a PSO pushes back

Bloomberg and his long-serving schools chief, Joel Klein, launched the partnership program in 2007 as part of their push to let schools choose the type of support they received. Nonprofit groups such as New Visions and the Urban Assembly — which had also opened new schools — joined the program, as did universities such as CUNY and Fordham.
PSO pull quote 2
Schools paid the groups up to $60,000 or so each year for their services, which include everything from help with hiring and budgeting to teacher training and data analysis. A few years later, the administration created the current school-support networks that provided similar services but were staffed by city employees.
Early last year, Fariña dispatched a team to study Bloomberg’s school-support system and propose ways to improve it. While the team was still working, Fariña retrained and gave new authority to the district superintendents, whose role had been diminished under Bloomberg.
By the fall, superintendents were showing up regularly at schools, weighing in on instructional matters, and hosting training sessions — activities that, until then, had been handled by the networks and PSOs. As Fariña’s restructuring announcement drew near, many of those groups became convinced that she planned to cut them out of the system.
At that point, New Visions sprang into action.
Some of its board members met with First Deputy Mayor Anthony Shorris to argue that the group should continue to support its schools under the new structure, according to sources. (Disclosure: Chalkbeat shares a board member with New Visions.) The group’s founder, corporate lawyer Richard Beattie, emailed the mayor directly.
The New Visions board has strong ties to City Hall. Its co-chairman, Roger Altman, is an investment banker who co-hosted a fundraiser for de Blasio in 2013 and later joined his pre-kindergarten campaign committee. Its president, Robert Hughes, was appointed to a joint City Hall-education department advisory group last year. (Richard Kahan, the head of Urban Assembly, also was on that task force.)
“It would have been a political nightmare for the mayor to pull the plug” on New Visions, said David Bloomfield, an education professor at the CUNY Grad Center and Brooklyn College, who has called for more scrutiny of the PSOs.
Altman’s office did not respond to a request for comment about New Visions’ advocacy efforts, while Beattie referred requests to Hughes. Hughes did not address the board’s efforts, but said he has had conversations with Fariña about New Visions’ “strengths, challenges and potential partnership roles going forward.”
“I have no way of knowing their impact internally on her or anyone else in the administration,” he said in an email. “And while they are continuing, they have been productive and we are moving in a good direction.”

PSOs downsized to “affinity groups”

When Fariña finally made her announcement last month ending the networks, she said that groups like New Visions, Urban Assembly, and CUNY would remain “valued partners.” But now, the former PSOs would be called “affinity groups” and would provide a narrower range of services while receiving closer supervision by the education department.
“They will be brought under a superintendent,” she said, “and they will be held accountable for results – just like everyone else.”

Chancellor Carmen Fariña with her chief strategy officer, Josh Wallack, who led a review of the city’s
school-support structure last year.
Fariña had already met individually with the leaders of each of the half-dozen or so PSOs in the days before the speech, according to people with knowledge of the meetings. She asked them to submit “concept papers” describing how they could offer schools whatever particular support she considered each group’s specialty — mostly training services, like helping teachers work with English learners or foster students’ emotional development, the people said.
“It was not an open-ended invitation,” said Patrick Montesano, director of US education programs for FHI 360, a PSO serving 21 schools.
Some of those groups are still waiting to hear back weeks after submitting papers, but several said it is clear that they will go from helping manage every aspect of their schools to coaching staffers on very specific topics. Some, including Fordham, said they expect to partner with fewer schools than they do now. In fact, the largest PSO — a group known as CEI-PEA, which has a long history working with New York City schools — will go from serving over 200 schools as a PSO to just 25 as an affinity group, according to sources.
PSO pull quote 3Some of the groups, such as Fordham and FHI 360, said they welcomed the new opportunity, adding that it returned the PSOs to their original focus on instruction rather than schools’ operations or compliance with city rules. But others complained about a lack of transparency as the department makes decisions about the role each group will play, which will involve many schools and contracts worth thousands of dollars.
“They have made some decisions based on criteria that we don’t fully understand,” said one PSO leader who asked for anonymity while negotiations continue.
Officials did not share the full set of criteria for those decisions, but said one consideration was the performance of each group’s schools.

Different deals raise questions

As it turns out, not all affinity groups are created equal.
Even as some of the PSOs are being invited to become narrowly defined affinity groups with fewer schools, others are negotiating to keep all of their schools and to play a substantial role supporting them.
New Visions, for one, is trying to keep all 80 of its schools and support them in key areas, including math and literacy instruction, data analysis, preparing students for college, and catching up students who are behind, sources said. (It does not expect to continue helping its schools with back-office operations.) Urban Assembly is also angling to keep most of its 23 schools, a significant role in supporting them, and roughly the same budget, according to sources.
Richard Kahan
“There are going to be changes in our relationship with D.O.E., which I think are positive,” Urban Assembly’s Richard Kahan said in a city press release about the school system restructuring, which also quoted Robert Hughes. “But we stay together as a network, our principals stay together, we stay together as a team with our principals.”
PSO pull quote 1
Those schools have also been promised dedicated superintendents (two for New Visions, and one that Urban Assembly will share with another group), who will oversee all their schools even though they are spread across several districts. That is a boon for the groups, since the superintendents rating their schools and principals will now have a deep understanding of each group’s approach.
While that arrangement benefits the two well-connected groups, it is likely as much a factor of their focus on high schools as it is their political clout. State law dictates that elementary and middle schools be grouped in geographic districts overseen by superintendents, but high schools are not bound by those rules — freeing the city to organize them by affiliation.
In fact, the city is in the process of putting several other coalitions of like-minded high schools spread across the city under single superintendents, people from those coalitions said. They include multiple Outward Bound schools that use a particular learning model, Internationals high schools that serve recent immigrants, and schools in the Performance Standards Consortium, which use alternative assessments instead of traditional tests.
But with the city so far sharing few details about the affinity groups and what role each will play, some groups have questioned the way decisions are being made.
“We’ve learned that there is politics in education,” a PSO leader said, “and politics came into play in this.”
Fariña’s spokeswoman, Devora Kaye, said the chancellor’s redesign was meant to make sure schools get the support they need while giving successful principals more flexibility.
“The chancellor made the decision to streamline and align the school support structure by creating a system with stronger superintendents, Borough Field Support Centers, and affinity groups reporting to superintendents,” Kaye said, “based on her judgment that this was the structure that would be most effective in helping all our schools improve and all our students succeed.”

Friday, February 13, 2015

Charters and Suspensions: Civil Rights Suspended

NYC Charter Schools Are Illegally Pushing Out "Difficult" Kids, Report Alleges



A children’s advocacy group has found that large numbers of NYC charter schools are violating state and federal law in their disciplinary practices, handing out excessive suspensions and expulsions—often without due process—to children as young as five.

Through Freedom of Information Law requests, Advocates for Children of New York (AFC) obtained the discipline policies of 155 out of the 183 total charter schools in NYC during the 2012-2013 school year and part of the 2013-2014 school year. Their report, "Civil Rights Suspended," examines how those policies fail to protect students and details some of the most egregious allegations of excessive discipline.

Of the 164 disciplinary policies from the 155 schools (some schools had multiple policies for different grade levels), the report found:

1) 107 policies allowed suspensions or expulsions for any behavior violation, no matter how minor;
2) 82 allowed suspensions or expulsions for students who were late, absent, or skipped class;
3) 133 did not include the right to written notice before a suspension took place;
4) 36 did not include the right to a hearing prior to a short-term suspension;
5) 25 did not include the right to a hearing prior to a long-term suspension;
6) 59 did not include the right to appeal a suspension or expulsion;
 
7) 36 did not include distinct procedures for suspending or expelling students with disabilities;
8) 52 did not include the right to alternative instruction during the full time of the suspension.

The first finding—that students are being suspended and expelled for behavior violations—is especially significant for students with disabilities, says Paulina Davis, Staff Attorney with the AFC's Charter Schools Initiative. “If you have ADHD and you can get an infraction for getting out of your seat without permission, or calling out in class, then you’re someone who is more likely to incur those types of infractions,” she explains.

City charter schools are not subject to the same disciplinary regulations as public schools under the Department of Education’s Discipline Code; instead, they are governed by the New York State Charter Schools Act and the state constitution. They must also comply with federal law, including IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), and Goss v. Lopez, a decision which regulates due process requirements for suspensions. The AFC report alleges that findings two through seven violate state law, while findings four, five, and seven—those having to do with due process and disability protections—violate federal law.

The report describes a 10-year-old boy with ADHD who was suspended from his charter multiple times for those exact behaviors, missing over twenty days of school. Another boy with ADHD faced expulsion after throwing a bag of food on the floor and sweeping it up with a “bad attitude”—he had already been suspended three times. A five-year-old girl was suspended three times while her mother waited for her disability evaluation, then expelled for accumulating those three suspensions.

AFC has provided legal guidance or representation to over 100 parents in charter suspensions or expulsions in the past year and a half, they write in the report. But James Merriman, CEO of the New York City Charter School Center, says the incidents are isolated. In a statement issued to Gothamist, he writes:

“No one can disagree that those policies that do not fully meet applicable law should be amended. But it is tremendously unfair to suggest, as AFC does, that a handful of one-sided anecdotes compiled over a long time are any evidence that charter schools are wholesale violating civil rights laws. Based on AFC’s own evidence, only one tenth of one percent of students in charters have over the last 18 months lodged a complaint, a figure that strongly suggests that what problems there may be are extremely rare, isolated and the exception.”

In 2013, a report from the Daily News found that popular charter chain Success Academy was suspending students at much higher rates than public schools in the same neighborhoods. One Success Academy school in Harlem suspended 22% of its children during the 2010-11 school year, compared to a 3% suspension average for public elementary schools in the same district.

Donna Lieberman, Executive Director of the NYCLU, says the AFC report is "welcome, and shines a light on the structural problems in the charter schools with regard to accountability for fairness and equity in school discipline. The report confirms what we have been hearing for years now, and what the governor even alluded to in his state of the state message, the problem of schools that are engaged in pushing out difficult kids. He referred to it as 'preening.'"

Lieberman argues that the state education department "has an obligation to ensure that charter schools respect the right of children to go to school, and act in accordance with the common sense principals that, when you agree to educate a child, you can't throw them out just because they behave like a child."

Meanwhile, the city’s public schools await an overhaul to the Department of Education’s Discipline Code, which has been criticized repeatedly for disproportionately suspending black and Latino children. There were 53,000 suspensions in the 2013-2014 school year, 90% of which were given to black or Latino students. Students with disabilities are also suspended at extremely high rates by the DOE—of the 53,000 suspensions from 2013-2014, 36% of them were students with disabilities.

Molly Knefel is a freelance journalist and co-host of the political podcast Radio Dispatch.

 

Decertification of a Union


How To Decertify A Union

Labor Relations Institute
Decertification refers to the process where the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) allows employees to call for a special election to get rid of the union as their “exclusive representative.” It is important to remember that your company cannot help or assist you with decertifying a union. You can reach out to other organizations to help. Feel free to contact us at 800-888-9115 FREE for a referral.
The objective of a decertification election is to terminate the union’s right to represent you and your fellow employees. This procedure provides you with full relief by taking away the union’s authority to act as your bargaining representative.  If you are a part of the employee union that is covered under a collective bargaining agreement (whether you are a union member or not) you can still sign a petition and participate in the vote for decertification.  Once the union is removed as your legal bargaining representative you no longer have to join the union or pay dues or fees to it.
View the video above to learn in detail how to decertify a union. Here is a quick outline of how to do it:
Step 1: Determine the proper filing period.  Under the “contract bar” rule a petition cannot be filed for a decertification election within the first three years of of a labor contract except during a 30-day “window period.”  The window period usually opens 90 days prior to the contract expiration and closes again 60 days before the contract expires. In healthcare settings the window period opens 120 days before the contract expires and closes 90 days before the contract expires. After the initial three years of a contract employees can file a decertification petition at any time.
Step 2: Employees need to draft a decertification petition (example draft below) for employee signatures.  If at least 30% of bargaining unit members sign a decertification petition, the National Labor Relations Board will have a secret ballot election.
Step 3: Employees can only perform decertification efforts during non-work times and in non-work areas.  Also, management cannot be involved in any way in this effort.
Step 4: If at least 50% or more of the employees vote against union representation then the company will be union free and employees will be able to deal directly with the company on issues related to pay, benefits and working conditions.
When your union hears about employees bid to get out of the union, they will not be happy.  However, there’s nothing they can do to prevent you from exercising your rights.  They may try to pressure or coerce you into changing your mind. Threats or coercion by union representatives are illegal and constitute an unfair labor practice.  If the union tries to coerce you or your coworkers in any way, you should immediately report this to the NLRB and, if you want, to the company.  It is the NLRB’s duty to prohibit such action on the part of unions and to insure that your right to seek an election will be protected.
 
The NLRB has ruled, and the courts have upheld, that a union may not discriminate against a member for taking action to have the union decertified.  An election is the legally accepted way to determine the desires of the employees in the unit on the subject of union representation.  The federal government will see that your right to an election will be protected and that the election will be conducted fairly.
In addition, nobody will reveal the names on the petition that is submitted to the NLRB and the decertification election is conducted by secret ballot so neither the union nor the employer will know how any individual voted unless they choose to make their vote known.
Decertification is different from deauthorization because it seeks to get rid of the union as bargaining representative completely, while deauthorization seeks to get rid of “forced unionism” in the contract even though the union remains in place). You can learn more about deauthorization here.
Sample of Decertification Petition:
Employee Petition for Union Decertification
The undersigned employees of [Company Name Here] presently represented by the [Union Name and Local Number Here] no longer wish to be represented by a union. We wish to have the National Labor Relations Board conduct an election since we believe that a majority of employees in our unit no longer wish to be represented by the above union.
Name (printed)         Signature          Department          Date          
1
2
3
4
You can have signatures on more than one piece of paper, but you should have the text at the top of EACH PAGE of the petition so it is clear that every person signed a petition clearly describing its purpose. Remember only to collect signatures during non-work time and in non-work areas and do not ask a member of management to help with your petition.

http://1-888-no-union.com/decertification.html
THERE ARE TWO PRIMARY WAYS THAT YOU AND YOUR CO-WORKERS CAN KICK A UNION OUT OF YOUR WORKPLACE:
The first method is by petitioning the National Labor Relations Board to conduct a secret-ballot decertification election.  The second method is by instructing your employer to withdraw recognition of the union.

The following section will give the highlights of both, as well as step-by-step "how to" instructions so that you and your co-workers can determine which method would work best for you:
  
  • Employees must show 30% support (or interest) in having the NLRB conduct an election
  • Petition must be filed with the National Labor Relations Board
  • Union is notified of employee decertification attempt
  • Union will typically file Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges alleging employer assistance or interference
    • ULP charges generally have the effect of blocking the NLRB election while the NLRB investigates the union's allegations
    • Election may be blocked for months which gives union time to wear down employees
  • If NLRB determines an election is allowed, election is generally set 25-30 days following direction of election
  • NLRB conducts secret-ballot election
  • Outcome is determined by those employees who actually vote
 If union maintains 50% + 1 vote, union is still certified bargaining agent
For step-by-step instructions on how to decertify using the National Labor Relations Board election process, go here.
  • 50% + 1 of you and your co-workers must give your employer "objective evidence" that you are no longer interested in being represented by the union—usually in the form of a petition signed the majority of employees
  • Employer will generally notify the union of your desire for the employer to withdraw recognition
  • Union will typically file Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges alleging employer assistance or interference
  • Presuming the NLRB finds there has been no employer interference, the union will have become decertified
For step-by-step instructions on how to instruct your employer to withdraw recognition, go here.