Friedrichs v California Teachers' Association: a 4-4 Tie in the U.S. Supreme Court Gives a Win to Public Unions

Supreme Court hands win to unions, splits 4-4 without Scalia

WASHINGTON | BY LAWRENCE HURLEY

Reuters

Public sector unions triumphed before the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday when the justices preserved a vital source of cash for organized labor, splitting 4-4 on a conservative challenge that had seemed destined for success until Justice Antonin Scalia's death last month.

The case brought by non-union public school teachers in California had targeted fees that many states force such workers to pay unions in lieu of dues to fund collective bargaining and other activities. A loss in this case would have deprived unions representing teachers, police, transit workers, firefighters and other government employees of millions of dollars annually and diminished their political clout.

The outcome illustrated the impact on the court of the Feb. 13 death of Scalia, the long-serving conservative justice who almost certainly would have cast a decisive vote against the unions. But by virtue of splitting 4-4, the justices affirmed a 2014 lower-court ruling that allowed California to compel non-union workers to pay the fees.

"The death of Justice Scalia has proved a disaster for public sector workers who have their paychecks raided by unions," said Iain Murray, vice president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington.

The court, evenly divided with four liberals and four conservatives, left intact a 1977 legal precedent that allowed such fees, which conservatives have long abhorred. Conservatives for years have tried to curb the influence of public sector unions, which typically back the Democratic Party and liberal causes.

"The U.S. Supreme Court today rejected a political ploy to silence public employees like teachers, school bus drivers, cafeteria workers, higher education faculty and other educators to work together to shape their profession," said Lily Eskelsen Garcia, president of the National Education Association teachers union.

The case reached the high court after a Washington-based conservative group, the Center for Individual Rights, sued on behalf of lead plaintiff Rebecca Friedrichs, an elementary school teacher in Anaheim, and nine other teachers. They argued the fees infringed upon the free-speech rights of non-union workers under the U.S. Constitution.

'A DISASTER'

During Jan. 11 oral arguments in the case, Scalia was still on the bench, giving the court a majority of five conservatives. The conservative justices during the arguments voiced support for the non-union teachers.

It is the second case in which the court has split 4-4 since Scalia died, with more likely in the coming months, perhaps including major cases on abortion, voting rights and contraception insurance coverage.

It remains unclear when Scalia will be replaced. Senate Republicans have vowed to block confirmation of President Barack Obama's nominee to replace Scalia, centrist appellate judge Merrick Garland. Republicans fear Garland's confirmation would tilt the court to the left for the first time in decades.

At issue in the case decided on Tuesday were so-called agency fees equivalent to union dues, currently mandatory for non-union workers under laws in about half the states including California. The decision means the status quo remains, with the unions able to collect fees from non-union workers.

California's non-union teachers pay the union, which has 325,000 members, around $600 annually in mandatory fees for collective bargaining.

The non-union teachers' lawyers said they plan to ask the court to rehear case.

"With the death of Justice Scalia, this outcome was not unexpected," said Terry Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights.

The split decision means there is "ongoing doubt about the constitutionality of its forcible collection of millions of dollars in dues," Pell added.

About 5 million public sector employees are subject to union contracts that include mandatory fee provisions, according to the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, which backed the non-union teachers.

Organized labor had expressed worries that a ruling throwing out the fees would give employees less incentive to join public-sector unions because they would get all the benefits of collective bargaining undertaken by unions without having to pay for it.

The teachers who filed the lawsuit in 2013 asked the justices to overturn the 1977 Abood v. Detroit Board of Education Supreme Court ruling that allowed laws that permitted public sector unions to collect fees from workers who were not members as long as the money was not spent on political activities.

Agency fees are already banned in 25 states that have so-called right-to-work laws. In those states, unions still represent workers but membership rates are lower. Federal employee unions also cannot collect such fees.

The ruling comes as a relief to organized labor because unionized civil servants in states without right-to-work laws comprise its main power base.

The court last week also split 4-4 split in a loan discrimination case. Last month, Dow Chemical Co opted to settle a class action case pending before the court for $835 million, citing Scalia's death as a reason. Scalia was seen as a reliable vote for class action defendants.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

Friedrichs v California Teacher's Association 

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-915	9th Cir.	Jan 11, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Mar 29, 2016	4-4	Per Curiam	OT 2015

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief by the American Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Professors in support of the respondents in this case.

Issue: (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.

Judgment: Affirmed by an equally divided Court in a per curiam opinion on March 29, 2016.

SCOTUS blog Coverage

·         Opinion analysis: Result but no guidance on public unions' fees (FINAL UPDATE) (Lyle Denniston)

·         Union fees in jeopardy: In Plain English (Amy Howe)

·         Argument analysis: The question not asked (Lyle Denniston)

·         Justices return to dispute over union fees for non-members: In Plain English(Amy Howe)

·         Argument preview: New threat to public-employee unions (Lyle Denniston)

·         SCOTUS for law students: Who speaks for Illinois? (Stephen Wermiel)

·         Symposium: Another battle in the war over union fees (Charlotte Garden)

·         Symposium: Correcting the “historical accident” of opt-out requirements (David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman)

·         Symposium: The Friedrichs petition should be dismissed (Catherine Fisk)

·         Symposium: Will the Court continue to recognize a distinction between bargaining with government and lobbying the government? (Bill Messenger)

Symposium: Public-sector union

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
14-915	9th Cir.	Jan 11, 2016 Tr.Aud.	Mar 29, 2016	4-4	Per Curiam	OT 2015

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief by the American Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Professors in support of the respondents in this case.

Issue: (1) Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment; and (2) whether it violates the First Amendment to require that public employees affirmatively object to subsidizing nonchargeable speech by public-sector unions, rather than requiring that employees affirmatively consent to subsidizing such speech.

Judgment: Affirmed by an equally divided Court in a per curiam opinion on March 29, 2016.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

·         Opinion analysis: Result but no guidance on public unions' fees (FINAL UPDATE) (Lyle Denniston)

·         Union fees in jeopardy: In Plain English (Amy Howe)

·         Argument analysis: The question not asked (Lyle Denniston)

·         Justices return to dispute over union fees for non-members: In Plain English(Amy Howe)

·         Argument preview: New threat to public-employee unions (Lyle Denniston)

·         SCOTUS for law students: Who speaks for Illinois? (Stephen Wermiel)

·         Symposium: Another battle in the war over union fees (Charlotte Garden)

·         Symposium: Correcting the “historical accident” of opt-out requirements (David Rivkin and Andrew Grossman)

·         Symposium: The Friedrichs petition should be dismissed (Catherine Fisk)

·         Symposium: Will the Court continue to recognize a distinction between bargaining with government and lobbying the government? (Bill Messenger)

·         Symposium: Public-sector unions, labor relations, and free speech (Ann Hodges)

·         Symposium: Overrule Abood to protect individual rights (Deborah La Fetra)

·         New challenge to public employee unions, made simple (Lyle Denniston)

·         A new look at race and politics in redistricting (Lyle Denniston)

·         New threat to public employee unionism (Lyle Denniston)

·         Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders
Jan 26 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 2, 2015)
Feb 19 2015	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 1, 2015, for all respondents.
Feb 24 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amici curiae of Consitutional Law Professors, et al. filed.
Feb 27 2015	Waiver of right of respondent Elliott Duchon to respond filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former California Governor Pete Wilson, et al. filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Kaneland, Illinois Unified School District #302 Administrative Support Staff filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Michigan and Eight Other States filed.
Mar 30 2015	Waiver of right of respondent Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California to respond filed.
Apr 1 2015	Brief of respondents California Teachers Association, et al. in opposition filed.
Apr 14 2015	Reply of petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al. filed.
Apr 15 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.
Apr 27 2015	Response Requested . (Due May 27, 2015)
May 27 2015	Brief of respondent Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California in opposition filed.
May 27 2015	Brief of respondent Elliott Duchon, Superintendent, Jurupa Unified School District in opposition filed.
May 28 2015	Letter dated May 28, 2015, from counsel for petitioners received waiving 14-day waiting period pursuant to Rule 15.5.
Jun 1 2015	Reply of petitioners to brief in opposition of the Attorney General of California. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 2 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2015.
Jun 16 2015	Rescheduled.
Jun 22 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 25, 2015.
Jun 25 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2015.
Jun 30 2015	Petition GRANTED.
Jul 7 2015	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 4, 2015.
Jul 7 2015	The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including October 26, 2015.
Jul 21 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jul 24 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents California Teachers Association, et al.
Jul 27 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California.
Sep 4 2015	Joint appendix (2 volumes) filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Sep 4 2015	Brief of petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al. filed.
Sep 9 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for Elliott Duchon, Superintendent, Jurupa Unified School District.
Sep 10 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.
Sep 10 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico filed.
Sep 10 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Center on National Labor Policy, Inc., et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Bruce Rauner, Governor of Illinois, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Freedom Foundation and Dr. John Balz filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of State Public Policy Research Organizations filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Law Professors, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former California Governor Pete Wilson, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Illinois State Workers filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Daniel DiSalvo filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Public School Teachers Who Favor School Choice filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Michigan and Seventeen Other States filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former California Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Inc. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Glenn J. Schworak and James E. Mitchell filed.
Sep 25 2015	Letter of Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General of Illinois received. (Distributed)
Oct 1 2015	Letter of Jason Barclay, General Counsel to the Governor received. (Distributed)
Oct 9 2015	Letter of Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General of Illinois received. (Distributed)
Oct 19 2015	Application (15A422) for an extension of time within which to file petitioners' reply brief on the merits, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Oct 21 2015	The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is further extended to and including November 6, 2015.
Oct 21 2015	Application (15A422) for an extension of time within which to file petitioners' reply brief on the merits is GRANTED by Justice Kennedy, and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2015.
Nov 6 2015	Brief of respondents Union Respondents filed.
Nov 6 2015	Brief of respondent Attorney General of California filed.
Nov 6 2015	Brief amici curiae of Corporate Law Professors filed.
Nov 12 2015	Brief amicus curiae of California School Employees Association filed. (Distributed)
Nov 12 2015	Brief amici curiae of Peace Officers Research Association of California, et al. filed.
Nov 12 2015	Brief amici curiae of 21 Past Presidents of the D.C. Bar filed.
Nov 12 2015	Brief amici curiae of Public School Teachers Brittany Alexander, et al.
Nov 12 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Fraternal Order of Police filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of New York City Municipal Labor Committee filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of International Association of Fire Fighters filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of School Districts filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Social Scientists filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Republican Current and Former Members of State Legislatures and Congress filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of National Women's Law Center, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for enlargement of time for oral argument, and for divided argument filed.
Nov 13 2015	Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Attorney General of California.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of States of New York, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Professors Cynthia L. Estlund, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Cities, Counties and Elected Officials filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Steve Bullock, Governor of Montana filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Labor Law & Labor Relations Professors filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizatons, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Professors filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of National Council on Teacher Retirement, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles County's Department of Health Services, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The City of New York filed.
Nov 24 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, January 11, 2016
Nov 30 2015	Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.
Nov 30 2015	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 40 minutes for petitioners, 15 minutes for the Union Respondents, 15 minutes for respondent Attorney General of California, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.
Dec 4 2015	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Dec 11 2015	CIRCULATED.
Dec 14 2015	Reply of petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 11 2016	Argued. For petitioners: Michael A. Carvin, Washington, D. C. For respondent Attorney General of California: Edward C. DuMont, Solicitor General of California, San Francisco, Cal. For Union Respondents: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C. For United States as amicus curiae supporting respondents: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

·         s, labor relations, and free speech (Ann Hodges)

·         Symposium: Overrule Abood to protect individual rights (Deborah La Fetra)

New challenge to public employee unions, made simple (Lyle Denniston)

A new look at race and politics in redistricting (Lyle Denniston)

New threat to public employee unionism (Lyle Denniston)

Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders
Jan 26 2015	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 2, 2015)
Feb 19 2015	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 1, 2015, for all respondents.
Feb 24 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Fund filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.
Feb 27 2015	Brief amici curiae of Consitutional Law Professors, et al. filed.
Feb 27 2015	Waiver of right of respondent Elliott Duchon to respond filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former California Governor Pete Wilson, et al. filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Kaneland, Illinois Unified School District #302 Administrative Support Staff filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.
Mar 2 2015	Brief amici curiae of Michigan and Eight Other States filed.
Mar 30 2015	Waiver of right of respondent Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California to respond filed.
Apr 1 2015	Brief of respondents California Teachers Association, et al. in opposition filed.
Apr 14 2015	Reply of petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al. filed.
Apr 15 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 1, 2015.
Apr 27 2015	Response Requested . (Due May 27, 2015)
May 27 2015	Brief of respondent Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California in opposition filed.
May 27 2015	Brief of respondent Elliott Duchon, Superintendent, Jurupa Unified School District in opposition filed.
May 28 2015	Letter dated May 28, 2015, from counsel for petitioners received waiving 14-day waiting period pursuant to Rule 15.5.
Jun 1 2015	Reply of petitioners to brief in opposition of the Attorney General of California. filed. (Distributed)
Jun 2 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 18, 2015.
Jun 16 2015	Rescheduled.
Jun 22 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 25, 2015.
Jun 25 2015	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2015.
Jun 30 2015	Petition GRANTED.
Jul 7 2015	The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 4, 2015.
Jul 7 2015	The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including October 26, 2015.
Jul 21 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioner.
Jul 24 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondents California Teachers Association, et al.
Jul 27 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondent Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General of California.
Sep 4 2015	Joint appendix (2 volumes) filed. (Statement of costs filed)
Sep 4 2015	Brief of petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al. filed.
Sep 9 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for Elliott Duchon, Superintendent, Jurupa Unified School District.
Sep 10 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The Cato Institute filed.
Sep 10 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico filed.
Sep 10 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Mackinac Center for Public Policy filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Rutherford Institute filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, Inc. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Center on National Labor Policy, Inc., et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Bruce Rauner, Governor of Illinois, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Freedom Foundation and Dr. John Balz filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of State Public Policy Research Organizations filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Law Professors, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former California Governor Pete Wilson, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Illinois State Workers filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Daniel DiSalvo filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Public School Teachers Who Favor School Choice filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Michigan and Seventeen Other States filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Goldwater Institute filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former California Senate Majority Leader Gloria Romero, et al. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Mountain States Legal Foundation filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Atlantic Legal Foundation filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Inc. filed.
Sep 11 2015	Brief amici curiae of Glenn J. Schworak and James E. Mitchell filed.
Sep 25 2015	Letter of Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General of Illinois received. (Distributed)
Oct 1 2015	Letter of Jason Barclay, General Counsel to the Governor received. (Distributed)
Oct 9 2015	Letter of Carolyn E. Shapiro, Solicitor General of Illinois received. (Distributed)
Oct 19 2015	Application (15A422) for an extension of time within which to file petitioners' reply brief on the merits, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Oct 21 2015	The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is further extended to and including November 6, 2015.
Oct 21 2015	Application (15A422) for an extension of time within which to file petitioners' reply brief on the merits is GRANTED by Justice Kennedy, and the time is extended to and including December 14, 2015.
Nov 6 2015	Brief of respondents Union Respondents filed.
Nov 6 2015	Brief of respondent Attorney General of California filed.
Nov 6 2015	Brief amici curiae of Corporate Law Professors filed.
Nov 12 2015	Brief amicus curiae of California School Employees Association filed. (Distributed)
Nov 12 2015	Brief amici curiae of Peace Officers Research Association of California, et al. filed.
Nov 12 2015	Brief amici curiae of 21 Past Presidents of the D.C. Bar filed.
Nov 12 2015	Brief amici curiae of Public School Teachers Brittany Alexander, et al.
Nov 12 2015	Brief amicus curiae of National Fraternal Order of Police filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of New York City Municipal Labor Committee filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of International Association of Fire Fighters filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of School Districts filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Social Scientists filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Republican Current and Former Members of State Legislatures and Congress filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Constitutional Law Scholars filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of National Women's Law Center, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for enlargement of time for oral argument, and for divided argument filed.
Nov 13 2015	Motion for divided argument filed by respondent Attorney General of California.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of States of New York, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Professors Cynthia L. Estlund, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Cities, Counties and Elected Officials filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Steve Bullock, Governor of Montana filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Labor Law & Labor Relations Professors filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizatons, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of American Federation of Teachers and American Association of University Professors filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of National Council on Teacher Retirement, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amici curiae of Los Angeles County's Department of Health Services, et al. filed.
Nov 13 2015	Brief amicus curiae of The City of New York filed.
Nov 24 2015	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, January 11, 2016
Nov 30 2015	Motion for divided argument filed by respondent GRANTED.
Nov 30 2015	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED, and the time is divided as follows: 40 minutes for petitioners, 15 minutes for the Union Respondents, 15 minutes for respondent Attorney General of California, and 10 minutes for the Solicitor General.
Dec 4 2015	Record requested from U.S.C.A. 9th Circuit.
Dec 11 2015	CIRCULATED.
Dec 14 2015	Reply of petitioners Rebecca Friedrichs, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 11 2016	Argued. For petitioners: Michael A. Carvin, Washington, D. C. For respondent Attorney General of California: Edward C. DuMont, Solicitor General of California, San Francisco, Cal. For Union Respondents: David C. Frederick, Washington, D. C. For United States as amicus curiae supporting respondents: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington,  D. C.

Victory for Unions as Supreme Court, Scalia Gone, Ties 4-4

LINK

 

Michael Mulgrew, UFT President

Teachers unions dodge a bullet with Supreme Court’s split decision

By Alex Zimmerman

@agzimmerman

azimmerman@chalkbeat.org

PUBLISHED: March 29, 2016

LINK 

The Supreme Court delivered a major victory Tuesday to public unions, like the city teachers union, that will allow them to continue collecting fees even from members who want to opt out.

“The unions have dodged a bullet,” says David Bloomfield a professor of education, law, and public policy at Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center. “It potentially could have seriously damaged the collective bargaining position of unions in school districts across the country.”

The case was brought by 10 California teachers who argued that they shouldn’t be required to pay fees that support union positions to which they object, and which finance collective bargaining. Many observers assumed the court’s conservative wing would significantly limit the collection of union fees, but the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia left the court with a 4-4 split, effectively leaving the lower court’s pro-union ruling intact.

Local education experts and teacher unions called the decision a win, but said it also raises the stakes of the upcoming presidential election — and warned that the unions’ fight is not over.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has protected your voice and your ability to join together to negotiate good wages and benefits and to fight for what our students need,” Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, wrote in a letter to union leaders immediately after the decision.

But he cautioned that the 4-4 decision could still be challenged, and that “well-funded” interests were likely to continue the fight. “Today’s ruling won’t stop them,” Mulgrew said.

New York City teachers, along with guidance counselors, school secretaries, and a host of other school staffers, have some amount taken from their paychecks equivalent to union dues — a requirement of state law. Almost all of those who pay are union members: Carl Korn, spokesman for NYSUT, the state teachers union, said less than 3 percent of teachers statewide pay those fees but remain unaffiliated with a union.

A ruling against the unions would have allowed members to refuse to pay those fees, weakening union finances. Such a decision would have had less of an impact in New York than in other states, Bloomfield noted, because the state’s strong union sentiment and relatively high teacher wages would reduce the incentives for teachers to refuse the fees.

Still, if a conservative judge replaces Scalia, it is possible the court could take a similar case and deliver the blow to organized labor that many pro-union groups fear.

On Tuesday, Mulgrew said that the U.S. Senate should give Merrick Garland, President Barack Obama’s moderate pick to replace Scalia, a fair hearing. Republican Senate leaders have said so far that they will not consider a nominee during Obama’s presidency.

“It’s perhaps a temporary victory,” added Bloomfield, “but given the unknowns regarding the composition of the Court in the coming years, it’s no less important.” 

Independent Budget Office: Black and Hispanic Students, Poor Kids, English-language Learners and Children With Disabilities Denied Academic Resources

NY Daily News: 

EXCLUSIVE: Minority students in middle schools being shut out of important academic resources

BY BEN CHAPMAN  

NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Sunday, March 27, 2016, 4:00 AM

LINK 

Black and Hispanic students, poor kids, English-language learners and children with disabilities have missed out on a wide range of academic resources in city middle schools, a new report shows.

An Independent Budget Office report — based on an analysis of city Education Department data — shows Big Apple junior high schools failed to provide those students with art and music teachers, advanced courses and Regents exams that advocates say would help them succeed in high school and beyond.

The statistics reveal an unfair divide where wealthier students and white and Asian kids have access to greater educational resources, said Alliance for Quality Education Advocacy Director Zakiyah Ansari.

“What this is really about is opportunity and allowing black and Latino children to succeed," Ansari said. "We need to provide these students with the opportunities they need to flourish."

The IBO study, obtained exclusively by The News, compares student demographics and academic outcomes for the academic year of 2012-2013, the most recent year for which the data was available when the study was begun.

That year, just 18% of city middle school students who qualified for free or reduced price lunches took advanced courses such as Honors Social Studies or Honors English Language Arts, compared to 33% of students who did not quality for lunch discounts.

Likewise, just 14% of black and Hispanic kids took those advanced courses in city middle schools, compared to 24% of kids of other ethnicities. Only 9% of English language learners and 8% of students with disabilities took the advanced classes.

Similarly low percentages of kids from those traditionally underserved demographic groups took advanced Regents exams in subjects such as algebra or American history in city middle schools that year. New York students must eventually pass Regents exams to graduate high school.

The report also showed that schools with higher percentages of black and Hispanic students, or kids who qualified for free or reduced price lunches, were less likely to have at least one full-time art or music teacher.

City Education Department spokesman Will Mantell said a number of efforts underway seek to address the issue, including a plan to offer algebra classes to all eighth-grade students and another program that has added full-time arts teachers to 94 middle schools since 2014.

“We will continue to invest in equity and excellence across all our middle schools,” Mantell said.

Black and Hispanic students, poor kids, English-language learners and children with disabilities have missed out on a wide range of academic resources in city middle schools, a new report shows.

An Independent Budget Office report — based on an analysis of city Education Department data — shows Big Apple junior high schools failed to provide those students with art and music teachers, advanced courses and Regents exams that advocates say would help them succeed in high school and beyond.

The statistics reveal an unfair divide where wealthier students and white and Asian kids have access to greater educational resources, said Alliance for Quality Education Advocacy Director Zakiyah Ansari.

“What this is really about is opportunity and allowing black and Latino children to succeed," Ansari said. "We need to provide these students with the opportunities they need to flourish."

The IBO study, obtained exclusively by The News, compares student demographics and academic outcomes for the academic year of 2012-2013, the most recent year for which the data was available when the study was begun.

That year, just 18% of city middle school students who qualified for free or reduced price lunches took advanced courses such as Honors Social Studies or Honors English Language Arts, compared to 33% of students who did not quality for lunch discounts.

Likewise, just 14% of black and Hispanic kids took those advanced courses in city middle schools, compared to 24% of kids of other ethnicities. Only 9% of English language learners and 8% of students with disabilities took the advanced classes.

Similarly low percentages of kids from those traditionally underserved demographic groups took advanced Regents exams in subjects such as algebra or American history in city middle schools that year. New York students must eventually pass Regents exams to graduate high school.

The report also showed that schools with higher percentages of black and Hispanic students, or kids who qualified for free or reduced price lunches, were less likely to have at least one full-time art or music teacher.

City Education Department spokesman Will Mantell said a number of efforts underway seek to address the issue, including a plan to offer algebra classes to all eighth-grade students and another program that has added full-time arts teachers to 94 middle schools since 2014.

“We will continue to invest in equity and excellence across all our middle schools,” Mantell said.

 How Much Do Public School Budgets Vary Across the City’s School Districts and Boroughs?

Peter Bregman on Holding People Accountable For Their Actions

 The New York City Department of Education does not use or believe in "Accountability".

That's a problem.

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
President, The E-Accountability Foundation
Creator, The A For Accountability AwardEditor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice

The Right Way to Hold People Accountable
Peter Bregman

LINK

John* was doing his best to be calm, but his frustration was palpable. Jeanine was explaining that there was little chance her group was going to make the numbers for this quarter. “Honestly?” she said. “The numbers weren’t realistic to begin with. It was really unlikely that we were going to make them.”

That’s when John lost it. “You agreed to the numbers in our budget meeting! You came up with them!”

Jeanine was silent for a while. Then she stammered out a weak defense that John promptly tore apart. Later, when John and I were debriefing the conversation, he asked me a question that I have heard countless times from countless leaders.

“How do I get my people to be more accountable for results?”

Accountability is not simply taking the blame when something goes wrong. It’s not a confession. Accountability is about delivering on a commitment. It’s responsibility to an outcome, not just a set of tasks. It’s taking initiative with thoughtful, strategic follow-through.

And it’s necessary at all levels of the hierarchy. Executives high on the org chart can’t really be accountable unless the people who report to them also follow through on their commitments. This a struggle, of course. I have seen leaders direct, question, and plead. I have seen them yell, act passive-aggressively, and throw up their hands in frustration — all in the service of “holding people accountable.”

None of that works. Getting angry with people when they fall short is not a productive process for holding people accountable. It almost always reduces motivation and performance.

So what can we do to foster accountability in the people around us? We need to aim for clarity in five areas:

1. Clear expectations. The first step is to be crystal clear about what you expect. This means being clear about the outcome you’re looking for, how you’ll measure success, and how people should go about achieving the objective. It doesn’t all have to come from you. In fact, the more skilled your people are, the more ideas and strategies should be coming from them. Have a genuinely two-way conversation, and before it’s over, ask the other person to summarize the important pieces — the outcome they’re going for, how they are going to achieve it, and how they’ll know whether they’re successful — to make sure you’re ending up on the same page. Writing out a summary is a good idea but doesn’t replace saying it out loud.
2. Clear capability. What skills does the person need to meet the expectations? What resources will they need? If the person does not have what’s necessary, can they acquire what’s missing? If so, what’s the plan? If not, you’ll need to delegate to someone else. Otherwise you’re setting them up for failure.
3. Clear measurement. Nothing frustrates leaders more than being surprised by failure. Sometimes this surprise is because the person who should be delivering is afraid to ask for help. Sometimes it comes from premature optimism on both sides. Either way, it’s completely avoidable. During the expectations conversation, you should agree on weekly milestones with clear, measurable, objective targets. If any of these targets slip, jump on it immediately. Brainstorm a solution, identify a fix, redesign the schedule, or respond in some other way that gets the person back on track.
4. Clear feedback. Honest, open, ongoing feedback is critical. People should know where they stand. If you have clear expectations, capability, and measurement, the feedback can be fact-based and easy to deliver. Is the person delivering on her commitments? Is she working well with the other stakeholders? If she needs to increase her capability, is she on track? The feedback can also go both ways — is there something you can be doing to be more helpful? Give feedback weekly, and remember it’s more important to be helpful than nice.
5. Clear consequences. If you’ve been clear in all of the above ways, you can be reasonably sure that you did what’s necessary to support their performance. At this point, you have three choices: repeat, reward, or release. Repeat the steps above if you feel that there is still a lack of clarity in the system. If the person succeeded, you should reward them appropriately (acknowledgement, promotion, etc.). If they have not proven accountable and you are reasonably certain that you followed the steps above, then they are not a good fit for the role, and you should release them from it (change roles, fire them, etc.).
These are the building blocks for a culture of accountability. The magic is in the way they work together as a system. If you miss any one, accountability will fall through that gap.

I’ve found that it’s useful to make this list public and to discuss it with the people you’re asking to be accountable before there’s a specific project on the line.

When I explained all of this to John, it was easy for him to identify the gaps in his communication with Jeanine. His expectations were clear, but her capability was lacking, which they had never addressed. Once they’d spoken about the gap, he could support her development with coaching while also reviewing her milestones more frequently. That gave him the data he needed to give her clear and timely feedback.

Remember the question we started with, the one that plagues so many leaders: “How do I get my people to be more accountable for results?”

Now there’s an answer: It depends. Which of the five areas have you neglected?

*Names have been changed.

Originally published at Harvard Business Review

Peter Bregman

Peter Bregman is CEO of Bregman Partners, a company that strengthens leadership in people and in organizations throughprograms (including the Bregman Leadership Intensive), coaching, and as a consultant to CEOs and their leadership teams. Best-selling author of 18 Minutes, his most recent book is Four Seconds. To receive an email when he posts, click here.

War on the West Side: Anger Against and For PS 193 Principal Tami Flynn Divide a Community

I continue to wonder what would happen if we had trained, respectful mediators handling problems in our New York City school district.

The bitter divide described below at PS 193 will leave people on all sides angry and frustrated no matter what the resolution is, and that is a sad testament to adults not wanting to listen to each other. The Department of Education is unable to handle protests, and will not settle differences before it is too late.

Principal Flynn, left

Betsy Combier
betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice

Parents at PS 193 Gil Hodges Elementary School protest against Principal Tami Flynn. Others support her.

A School Divided: PS 193’s Dangerous War

By James Farrell on March 23, 2016

What happens when members of a school community give in to mistrust?

 

Vinny Nemorin, the Parents’ Association treasurer, was arrested for demanding his 7-year-old son not be denied using the bathroom

The town hall meeting on March 1 at PS 193/Gil Hodges elementary school in Brooklyn was marred by conflict all night. The battle lines were drawn between those who support the school’sprincipal, Tami Flynn, and those who are fighting for her removal. And it showed how quickly conflicts can escalate when a school community can’t resolve its differences.

Early on, a pro-Flynn faculty member yelled at an anti-Flynn parent for filming the meeting, threatening police intervention if the video wasn’t erased. Later, Jennifer Brown, co-president of the PS 193 Parents Association— the group that had called the meeting—took the floor and spoke for longer than the two minutes allotted to each speaker. Flynn’s supporters, a vocal minority consisting of parents and staff that filled the last three rows of the auditorium, started shouting in protest. Brown’s husband stood up. “This is my wife, she can talk as long as she wants,” he shouted. The Flynn supporters shouted back. The meeting was a visible sign of a bitter divide.

Problems at the school had surfaced about a week earlier. The Parent’s Association, in fact, ostensibly organized the meeting to discuss the incident that had set things off. The Association’s treasurer, Vincent Nemorin, says that a faculty member refused his second-grade son access to the bathroom back in February. When Nemorin arrived at the school at the end of the day, he says, he found that his son had soiled himself and had never been cleaned up. Then, on the morning of February 24, he approached the school to confront the faculty member. He ended up in handcuffs, sitting on the sidewalk by a police van in front of the school. With, he says, a slight concussion.

Mulgrew visits PS 193 Gil Hodges School, Feb. 2, 2010

But at the heart of the conflict is a difference of opinion over the performance of PS 193’s principal, Tami Flynn. To her detractors, the Nemorin incident is indicative of Flynn’s hostile leadership, which they say is based on retaliation, personal vendettas, and a closed-door policy that shuts parents out of the school. To her supporters, however, Nemorin’s incident was an unfortunate exception to Flynn’s otherwise friendly and open record as principal. The real bullies, they say, are the members of the Parent’s Association.

The conflict has only grown more divisive as time has passed, providing an example of how disagreements and mistrust in a school community can lead to something more damaging.

Principal Flynn, second from right, with the 70th precinct

Some parents complain that, after Flynn became principal, programming diminished at PS 193. The music program dissolved and there were fewer performances and concerts to bring families into the building. The Gifted and Talented program, a citywide program for advanced students, was hit the hardest. In the 2014-2015 school year, French classes were cut from the program, upsetting many parents. “One of the reasons we chose PS 193 was simply because they had the French curriculum,” Nemorin said.

Nemorin says he led the charge to restore the French program. He organized a group of parents, and together, they voiced their concerns at school leadership meetings. The French program was restored in part, meeting once a week instead of the usual twice a week. But Nemorin believes that his leadership made an enemy out of Flynn. “They were asking valid questions,” Nemorin said of his team. “And for that, I was blamed, and I was seen as an agitator.”

This past school year, Nemorin was elected to be the treasurer of the Parent’s Association. At the same time, Nemorin’s son began having numerous bathroom-related incidents. “The bathroom issue did not begin until this year and that was because I had become the treasurer of the Parents Association,” he said. He said that before his arrest, he had received special accommodations for his child to use the bathroom without restriction from superintendent Julia Bove. A list of parent concerns about Flynn distributed by the Association says that other children have also been denied bathroom usage.

Two videos surfaced after Nemorin’s arrest. One, taken by Nemorin, shows his confrontation with the faculty member. “You make sure you never impede his path again,” Nemorin warns the faculty member. As Nemorin walks away, a woman who he identifies as Flynn tries to stop him. “Let’s have a conversation,” she says. “Go back to New Jersey,” Nemorin responds, continuing to walk away.

Nemorin claims that he then left to go to work. Later, he says he received a phone call. “I was told, ‘there is an emergency concerning your child at the school, please come back to the school,’” Nemorin said. When he returned, he says, police officers were waiting for him. In a second video, taken by a witness, Nemorin stands calmly as the officers handcuff him. As he approaches the police van, he appears to slip, and begins screaming, “my head!”

One officer in the video responds that he didn’t see Nemorin hit his head. Nemorin said the injury wasn’t serious, but that a CAT scan revealed a minor concussion. “The principal, who’s been criticized recently over her conduct, her policies, her attitudes—I think that she might have overresponded, overreacted, to a legitimate claim from a parent,” said Stephen Flanhaft, Nemorin’s attorney.

Brown and other Association members say that at a February 25 meeting Flynn admitted to calling the police to deal with Nemorin. But parents who were at the meeting say that she has contradicted herself, and it remains unclear as to who called the police—or whether doing so was proper protocol. Brown and other Association leaders met with the District 22 superintendent, Julia Bove, on March 8. Brown said their policy questions were not answered. “What are the protocols in place for when a police officer is notified?” she asked. “I must have asked this five times and never got an answer.” Flynn was not available for multiple requests for comment by phone. A receptionist for Julia Bove said that there was no information being released to the press. A spokesperson for the Department of Education did not answer specific questions on policing protocol and referred only to the circumstances involving Nemorin. “We take this allegation seriously, and are investigating the matter,” the spokesperson said.

Police officers have been a common presence in schools since the Giuliani administration, which dissolved school security into the police department, according to Eric Nadelstern, a professor of educational leadership at Columbia University’s Teacher’s College. However, it is unusual for a school to call the police on a parent. “If a school staff member feels that their safety is in jeopardy, generally they notify a supervisor, and the supervisor notifies a school safety agent,” Nadelstern said. This agent decides if police will get involved.

The greater concern for the school, however, is the aftermath. “You would hope that what happens in this circumstance is that the principal in a PA meeting explains the circumstance,” Nadelstern said. “If that doesn’t happen, that’s the principal’s fault.” And according to Brown, this hasn’t happened. “She was told that she could not make a statement or a comment on the matter,” Brown said in a text message.

Brown claims that as many as two other parents have also had police officers called on them. NY City Lens could not confirm these cases. However, Georgina Doody, a grandmother of a PS 193 student, claims she and three other parents were recently escorted out of the building by 15 police officers. Doody and the others tried to attend the February 25 meeting where Flynn allegedly took responsibility for calling the police. They said they had heard that the meeting was open to the public, but upon arriving, were denied entry, and the officers came up to escort them out. “It was kind of intimidating,” Doody recalls.

Stacia Gregorio was outside the school when the police arrived. She took a video, dated on February 25, that shows at least 14 officers entering the building, and provided that video to NY City Lens.

“Parents are afraid to speak up because they know she is going to retaliate,” Brown said.

Flynn’s supporters agree that the climate at PS 193 has become more hostile. However, they blame the Parents Association.

Dorian Rodriguez, a parent at PS 193 and a supporter of Flynn’s, dismisses the notion that Flynn is unwelcoming or retaliatory. Rodriguez says that she has had numerous incidents with her child that have led to heated discussions, but that they never end poorly. Once, she said, her son was being bullied before picture day and ended up with a bump in his head. She says she approached the school angrily but tried to carry herself professionally and ultimately resolved the issue. “I’m upset, plain and simple,” Rodriguez said. “I go to Miss Flynn, her door was open.” Rodriguez believes that Nemorin’s advance was aggressive, and the fact that he chose to record it shows that the confrontation was premeditated.

Rodriguez also thinks the Parents Association is motivated by personal agendas. “I know Vinny pretty well. Him and Miss Flynn have a history,” she said. “I believe he used his son as a pawn to get to Miss Flynn.”

She added that many parents who support Flynn had never heard of any other complaints about the school before Nemorin’s arrest. “When one of their own members becomes arrested, all of a sudden all of these bad things about the school are coming out,” she said.

Other parents say they believe that the principal has a positive influence on the school. Alexis Regnier, a pro-Flynn parent, cites the fact that Flynn stands outside to greet the children every morning. “Rain, sleet, snow, shine, she is out there,” Regnier said. Regnier recalls how her child came late to last year’s annual Halloween parade, where the children are taken down the streets surrounding the school to show off their costumes to the neighborhood. Though the parade had ended, Flynn stayed out to walk Regnier’s child around herself. “This is what leadership is. Leadership is actually joining the line,” Regnier said.

Rodriguez and Regnier believe that the Association’s reaction to Nemorin’s arrest has been misguided and distracting. After Nemorin’s arrest, the Association announced on its Facebook page that it would rally outside the school every day until Nemorin’s first court appearance on March 17, and for the most part, they kept their word. “It’s one thing to voice your opinion and say, ‘I want to get rid of Tami Flynn,’” Rodriguez said. “It’s another thing to tear down the school.” Regnier pointed out that the bulk of the rallies took place during “Literacy Week” at the school, where parents volunteer to go read to the kids. “They were outside protesting instead of being upstairs in the library reading to the kids,” she said. “They say it is for the children, but what is this proof?”

Both sides believe that the hostile environment is hurting the children, but disagree over who is at fault. “They’re terrified at this point,” Brown said of her own children, citing a fear of police presence. “Teachers have contacted me anonymously and are terrified.” Rodriguez says that her son used to walk quickly to school, excited to start his day, but that seeing the Association’s rallies have made him tense. “He walks a little bit slower,” she said. “It just wasn’t like that before, because there’s such a separation between the parents.”

Carolyn Riehl, an associate professor of Sociology and Education Policy at Columbia’s Teacher College, said that situations like this, where potential litigation is involved, hurt trust in a school because superiors often silence school officials. “You’re no longer free to just say anything, including the truth,” she said. “Unfortunately, it’s just these kinds of situations where communication is so important and might help to diffuse the situation.” She added that research shows that trust in schools is important to create productive learning environments. “It’s much easier to break trust than to build trust,” she said.

Councilman Jumaane Williams, who was at the town hall meeting on March 1, must have understood those stakes. After Brown’s husband stood up to defend her, Williams tried to restore the peace, asking the children in attendance to stand up. “We love you,” he told them. The crowd nodded in agreement. But it didn’t last. An anti-Flynn parent made a comment about the pro-Flynn faculty members in attendance, and several stormed out of the room. The meeting ended with nothing resolved.

Carmen Farina Says Special Needs Students and New Immigrants Can Opt Out of Statewide Tests

NYC Chancellor Carmen Farina

Of course Carmen Farina wants parents of students who have Individualized Education Plans and/or are new immigrants to opt out of tests!!! She assumes that these groups of kids would not do well on the tests, and she wants all schools to look good (scrubbing of grades is happening throughout NYC).

That's my 2 cents.

Betsy Combier

betsy.combier@gmail.com
Editor, NYC Rubber Room Reporter
Editor, Parentadvocates.org
Editor, New York Court Corruption
Editor, National Public Voice

Farina Says It's OK for Some Parents to Opt Out of Statewide Tests

by Amy Zimmer,  March 25, 2016

LINK

BROOKLYN — Schools Chancellor Carmen Fariña said it's OK for some parents to opt out of statewide tests in English and Math, which runs counter to her public stance against the growing opt-out movement, DNAinfo New York has learned.

Her comments were made at an invite-only meeting Thursday night with parents who are part of the opt-out movement in Brooklyn's District 15.

Students at the Bronx Academy of Promise

“I think there is a place and a time to opt out,” Fariña told the parents from the district that includes Carroll Gardens, Park Slope and Sunset Park where she was once superintendent.

She provided two instances where, she said, “I certainly as a parent would opt out,” according to a transcript posted on Facebook of the meeting held at the Park Slope office of City Councilman Brad Lander.

One was for children with special needs who have mandated services through an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). The other was for newly arrived immigrants.

Just 4.4 percent of students who were English Language Learners were deemed proficient in English and 14.6 percent were proficient in math,based on last year’s scores. Nearly 7 percent of students with special needs were proficient in English and 11.3 percent were proficient in math.

“A special ed parent, with a child with an IEP who has a very low frustration level, who no matter how much you’re going to do is never [going to] get to a certain level on this kind of test,” she said. “That’s not to say that they’re not going to have success in life and so forth but to sit through a test with maybe a level 1 or 2 reader … I think it is a little bit, you know, too much.

"So if I were that kind of a parent, I’d probably opt out.”

Fariña also said that she’s been fighting the state to eliminate the entireNew York State English as a Second Language Achievement Test, which is designed to assess the English language proficiency of all English Language Learners each year enrolled in grades K – 12.

"If I was a parent of a newly arrived immigrant, and I was taking the test after being in this country for one year, I’d say, 'What? Are you kidding?” Fariña said. “We want this changed … I want the NYSESLAT as a whole eliminated, but this particular criteria of putting kids through something that there’s no way they can succeed at, again that to me is an option [for opting out].”

Her words diverge from her previous statements as well as some recent actions of principals.

In August, when announcing the results of last year's state tests, Fariña said, "I don't believe in opt out. I believe that everyone needs to be assessed."

And last week a Williamsburg principal recently confiscated “refusing the test” forms a fifth grader was handing out to classmates and held an impromptu lecture telling students they couldn’t talk about opting out, parents said.

Since then, however, the tide has shifted with the recent election of Betty Rosa as chancellor of the state’s Board of Regents.

“If I was a parent and I was not on the Board of Regents, I would opt out at this time,” Rosa recently said, according to Chalkbeat.

As head of the Board of Regents, Rosa now oversees the State Education Department, which administers the tests.

City Department of Education spokeswoman Devora Kaye said that Farina has met with parents to listen, answer questions, discuss concerns and educate community members about the changes that have been made to the state tests.

She is discussing how the changes "are beneficial for students, parents, teachers and administrators,” Kaye said.

“Specifically, the Chancellor consistently stresses that there will be fewer questions, unlimited time as long as students are working productively and that test scores won’t determine promotion,” she said. “The data collected is critical to inform better instruction, and while it is ultimately a parent's decision, the Chancellor urges families to rest assured that many of their concerns have been addressed and that participation is important in order to hold ourselves accountable for progress.”

Many parents and teachers, however, have pointed out that the tests have been reduced by roughly two questions, and though the tests will now be untimed, the time spent taking them is unlikely to decrease. Third graders, for instance, are still expected to spend seven hours taking the tests.

Lander said he "thought Chancellor Farina did a great job explaining her point-of-view, discussing the changes that have been made to the State tests, and listening to the views of those in the room."

He said the parents "effectively expressed their strong opinions, and we are lucky to have such engaged parent leaders in our neighborhood schools. I give the Chancellor a lot of credit for coming out to share her views, and to listen."