From: Michael Mulgrew mmulgrew@uft.org
To:
Sent: Tue, May 11, 2010 8:21 pm
Subject: Union and state create new teacher evaluation and improvement plan
Dear Colleague,
On Monday, the UFT, NYSUT and the State Education Department reached a new agreement — subject to legislative approval — to create a teacher evaluation and improvement plan.
As we all know, the current evaluation system is too subjective and too dependent on the whims of administrators. We also know many so-called reformers have long fought to base evaluations solely on test scores, something that we have adamantly opposed.
We have long sought an evaluation process based on multiple measures. We were emphatic on that point, as well as the necessity of teacher voice in the process.
Under the new agreement, which would take effect in September 2011, the majority of an individual’s evaluation is based on qualitative measures that may include observations, student portfolios and projects.
If a teacher is identified as ineffective, there will now be a genuine teacher improvement process to support his or her professional growth before any disciplinary action is taken. This is an unprecedented requirement in an evaluation system.
This new process will allow the rest of the state to follow the rubber room agreement we recently reached for those facing incompetence charges.
Here’s what you need to know:
This process is much more objective than the current process.
This process includes much more teacher voice.
This process includes a true teacher improvement plan.
This process limits the emphasis on standardized tests.
Michael Mulgrew
United Federation of Teachers • A Union of Professionals
52 Broadway, New York, NY 10004 • 1-212-777-7500
Questions and Answers Related to Collective Bargaining Agreements and the New Comprehensive Teacher and Principal Evaluation Law (Education law §3012-c as added by Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010)
LINK
1. Q. What is the effective date of Education Law §3012-c?
A. Education Law §3012-c, which establishes a new statewide comprehensive evaluation system for classroom teachers and building principals based on multiple measures of effectiveness, takes effect July 1, 2010. However, the law provides for a phase-in of the new comprehensive evaluation system, including prescribed student achievement measures, beginning with the 2011-2012 school year.
2. Q. What is the phase-in schedule under the law?
A. The law provides for a phase-in of the new evaluation system and percentage of student achievement measures as follows:
2011-2012 school year
The system will apply to classroom teachers in the common branch subjects or ELA and math in grades 4-8 and to school principals in buildings in which these teachers are employed. 20 percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on State assessments or comparable measures, and 20 percent shall be based on other locally-selected measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with standards prescribed by the Commissioner.
2012-2013 school year and subsequent years before the Board of Regents approval of a value-added model:
The new evaluation system will apply to all classroom teachers and building principals. 20 percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on State assessments or comparable measures, and 20 percent shall be based on other locally-selected measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with standards prescribed by the Commissioner.
Subsequent years following Regents approval of a value-added model for all classroom teachers and principals:
Upon adoption of a value-added model, all classroom teachers and building principals will be required to be evaluated in accordance with the following: 25 percent of the evaluation shall be based upon student growth data on State assessments or comparable measures, and 15 percent on other locally selected measures that are rigorous and comparable across classrooms in accordance with standards prescribed by the Commissioner.
The remaining 60 percent of the evaluations and ratings would be based on locally developed measures that meet standards prescribed by the Commissioner.
Relationship of the New Law to Existing Agreements
3. Q. What is the relationship of the new law to evaluation provisions contained in existing collective bargaining agreements? What are the immediate obligations of school districts and BOCES?
A. Education Law §3012-c requires that all collective bargaining agreements for teachers and building principals entered into after July 1, 2010 be consistent with its provisions. It further provides that any conflicting provisions of collective bargaining agreements in effect on July 1, 2010 are not abrogated and remain in effect until there is a successor agreement. In such case, upon entry into a successor agreement, the provisions of Education Law §3012-c apply and the successor agreement must be consistent with the provisions of this section. For example, a successor agreement cannot require that only 15% of all classroom teachers’ evaluations be based on student growth on State assessments. This would be inconsistent with Education Law §3012-c.
4. Q. What if my district’s or BOCES’ collective bargaining agreement is effective for three more years? Does the law permit us to modify the evaluation provisions of our contract sooner?
A. Yes. The law specifically permits districts, BOCES and their local collective bargaining agents to re-negotiate the evaluation provisions in their collective bargaining agreements at any time. It is also possible for a school district or BOCES and their respective teachers’ or principals’ union to enter into agreements outside their collective bargaining contract to re-negotiate their evaluation process to be consistent with the provisions of Education Law §3012-c. The Department strongly encourages parties with ongoing contracts to consider re-negotiating any inconsistent provisions in their agreements as soon as possible to hasten statewide implementation of the new evaluation system.
Incorporating the Provisions of the New Law Into Agreements
5. Q. If a school district or BOCES’ collective bargaining agreement expires after July 1, 2010, how should the provisions of the new law be incorporated, particularly when implementing regulations have not yet been developed?
A. As noted above, any new collective bargaining agreements must be consistent with the provisions of the new law.
6. Q. Do new contracts need to reference all the provisions of the new law, i.e., percentages relating to teacher and principal effectiveness and student growth?
A. No. New collective bargaining agreements do not need to reference all the provisions of the new law. The new agreements and any evaluation system for teachers and principals, however, shall not be inconsistent with the provisions of Education Law 3012-c.
7. Q. Must agreements negotiated after July 1, 2010, include provisions linking teacher and principal evaluations and ratings to supplemental compensation?
A. Pursuant to Education Law section 3012-c all collective bargaining agreements applicable to classroom teachers and building principals entered into after July 1, 2010 shall be consistent with the new law. The law requires that the new evaluations be a significant factor for employment decisions, including, but not limited to promotion, retention, tenure determination, termination and supplemental compensation as well as teacher and principal professional development. What this means is that any new agreements entered into after this date must allow for the new teacher and principal evaluations to be a significant factor in employment decisions, including, but not limited to, supplemental compensation, in accordance with the phase in schedule required by the law.
8. Q. What happens if my district’s or BOCES’ collective bargaining agreement expires after July 1, 2010, but contract negotiations are stalled and a new agreement cannot be reached?
A. Education Law §3012-c provides that any inconsistent provisions in an agreement in effect on July 1, 2010 continue until entry into a successor agreement. While contractprovisions may not be abrogated during this period, districts and BOCES must continue to abide by the applicable provisions of the APPR regulation (see below).
Interplay Between New Law (Education Law §3012-c) and Existing APPR Regulation (8 NYCRR §100.2[o])
9. Q. How does the new law relate to §100.2(o) of the Commissioner’s regulations governing the Annual Professional Performance Review (APPR) of teachers? Are school districts and BOCES required to comply with §100.2(o) of the Commissioner’s regulations governing the APPR of teachers for the 2010-2011 school year?
A. The new statewide evaluation system established by section 3012-c builds on, not eliminates, the existing APPR regulations. Specifically, Education Law §3012-c(3) provides:
Nothing in this section shall be construed to excuse school districts or boards of cooperative educational services from complying with the standards set forth in the regulations of the commissioner for conducting annual professional performance reviews of classroom teachers or principals, including but not limited to required quality rating categories, in conducting evaluations prior to July first, two thousand eleven, or, for classroom teachers or principals subject to paragraph (c) of subdivision two of this section, prior to July 1, two thousand twelve.
Therefore, school districts and BOCES must comply with the requirements in §100.2(o) of the Commissioner’s regulations for all classroom teachers prior to July 1, 2011 and thereafter as the provisions of the new law phase in. In other words, even during the first year of the new comprehensive statewide system (i.e. 2011-2012), school districts and BOCES must comply with the applicable provisions of §100.2(o) for all classroom teachers, even for those whom the new statutory system has not yet phased in. In effect, during the phase-in of the new system, districts and BOCES will be operating a dual system of evaluations.
Recent amendments to §100.2(o) apply to all classroom teacher evaluations conducted on or after July 1, 2011. Among other things, the revised APPR regulations require that annual evaluations incorporate student growth and use four prescribed rating categories (highly effective, effective, developing and ineffective). As noted above, these provisions will be effective for all classroom teachers beginning July 1, 2011 as the new law phases in. Companion regulations for principals are currently under consideration.
Additional amendments to the Commissioner’s regulations to incorporate the new statutory system will be required following a process which will consider input from a newly formed teacher and principal effectiveness advisory committee (Regents Task Force on Teacher and Principal Effectiveness). It is anticipated that those amendments will be considered by the Board of Regents in early spring 2011.
10. Q. Can a school district or BOCES still seek a variance from the requirements set forth in §100.2(o) of the Commissioner’s regulations?
A. Yes, limited variances continue to be available. Section 100.2(o)(2)(vi) of the Commissioner’s regulations provide:
1. A variance shall be granted from a requirement of this paragraph, upon a finding by the commissioner that a school district or BOCES has executed prior to May 1, 2010, an agreement negotiated pursuant to article 14 of the Civil Service Law whose terms continue in effect and are inconsistent with such requirement.
2. A variance shall be granted from the criteria for the evaluation of teachers providing instructional services, prescribed in subclause (iv)(b)(1) of this paragraph, upon a finding by the commissioner that the school district or BOCES has demonstrated that a local model for the evaluation of such teachers has produced successful results.
Therefore, a school district or BOCES may be granted a variance from certain provisions of §100.2(o) if the Commissioner finds that a provision in a collective bargaining agreement executed prior to May 1, 2010 is inconsistent with a requirement in the regulation. Any such variance would only be effective until the school district or BOCES enters into a successor agreement. As noted above, all agreements entered into after July 1, 2010 must be consistent with the new law and incorporate its provisions.
A variance permitting a local model for the evaluation of teachers will continue to be available up through June 30, 2011. At that point, as the new law phases in, variances will need to be restricted to situations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of the law. It is anticipated that the variance provisions in §100.2(o) may be further revised in future regulatory amendments.
Teaching Standards and Evaluation Resources
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Shocking Statistics On U.S. Education
10 Shocking Stats on the State of U.S. Education
November 1st, 2010
LINK
Like everything created and operated by fallible humans, the American education system boasts some impressive strengths but lags behind with some rather egregious offenses. Studies persistently become available that shed light on the positives and the negatives, allowing teachers, administrators and parents a look at what factors need some serious tweaking. Ignoring the issues means compromising students’ abilities to succeed in college (should they elect to attend) and careers alike. By no means comprehensive, this list points out some of the more surprising statistics available – so be sure to explore other research for a much broader glimpse at what goes down in the nation’s schools; not to mention the impact on society on the whole.
1. Twenty-two percent of American adults are considered illiterate: Intensive testing by the National Center for Education Statistics in 2003 revealed that 22% of American adults displayed "below basic" literacy. The study did not include those with Alzheimer’s or other cognitive or learning disorders, and they noted discrepancies based on sex, race and education level. Adults with a high school education or higher understandably scored higher than those who ended in elementary or middle school. Theories abound over why this is allowed to happen, and many attribute it to apathetic teachers passing kids with inadequate reading comprehension skills just to get them out of their classrooms. Many believe that parents form the first line of defense against illiteracy and shoulder the responsibility of teaching their children to read. Others blame internet and text message-speak for the degradation of the English language. Whatever the source, which likely varies from case to case, the citizens of the United States must work harder to ensure that every child leaves the education system capable of basic reading and comprehension skills.
2. Forty-three percent and 53% of eighth graders receive inadequate music and visual arts educations, respectively: For most Americans, knowing that on an NAEP from 0 to 300, students scored between 105 and 194 on music assessments and between 104 and 193 on the visual art equivalent seems like a trifle. After all, schools tend to emphasize math, science and athletics at the expense of most other subjects. When institutions need to scale back their budgets, the visual and performing arts usually take the heaviest hits. In reality, a well-rounded education means balancing logical, analytic and objective disciplines with the creative, abstract and subjective. Music and its mathematical constructs make for an especially viable bridge between the two. Ignoring the importance of all arts means students graduate with incomplete skill sets — certainly a handicap when searching for colleges and employers who value creativity and improvisation. So yes, these statistics should be extremely disconcerting to parents and educators alike. Much more horrifying than knowing that the football team won’t be getting shiny new jerseys this year.
3. Around 57% of preschool-aged children are enrolled in center-based daycare programs: Daycare centers and preschools offer harried parents a convenient way to keep their kids safe while they tend to work, but the advantages extend beyond that. Those genuinely concerned with the well-being of their clients provide appropriate educational toys, games and activities as a means of granting them a head start in their academic careers — especially when it comes to reading and math. Considering around 90% of a child’s brain development occurs before the age of 5, this definitely puts this 57% at an advantage once they enroll in kindergarten. In addition to nurturing their educations, daycare providers also facilitate socializing at an early age, teaching children an awareness of and ability to relate with their peers. Certainly skills they need to succeed in school and business!
4. Only 73.2% of students graduate from high school on time: As of the last data aggregation from the class of 2005-06, anyways — though the number has likely fluctuated little in 2010. Every dropout or student who repeats a grade has their own personal reason for their status, and almost all of them possess enough self-awareness to know how their decisions may negatively impact the future. At least half of those who never complete high school made the decision because they felt disengaged and bored with classes, though serious illness, unexpected parenthood, caretaking and failing grades also contribute heavily to the dropout rate as well. There will always be students who either never graduate or take longer than four years, of course, but knowing that so many quit on account of apathy offers up a massive challenge to educators. Finding creative ways to capture student attention without compromising the ultimate lesson can certainly solve a major component of the issue at hand.
5. Forty-seven percent of female and 38% of male teenagers understand proper birth control methods: Said comprehension of practicing safe sex comes either courtesy of parents, school or both. Both sexes seem to equally understand the dangers of contracting an STD or STI, yet young women typically know much more about the proper methods of preventing them — and unwanted pregnancies. Considering worldwide efforts to stop the spread of AIDS and HIV, the fact that only two-thirds of American teenagers know anything about prophylactics whatsoever is beyond jarring. It seems as if abstinence-only approaches and their "Just Say No!" tactics give curious kids an incomplete picture of sex that could lead to irreversible consequences. Yes, abstinence is the only strategy for a 100% avoidance of diseases and babies. But that information won’t help the 38.9% of students who already do not use condoms during intercourse — probably because nobody ever taught them how. Only well-rounded, objective discussions that never purposely circumnavigate certain corners can help prevent such risky behaviors.
6. Nineteen-point-nine percent of students are bullied on campus: The CDC’s survey on risky youth behavior reveals that 19.9% of American high school students have been forced to deal with bullying at school. While educational institutions may not always have the resources for addressing cyberbullying, they can make a better effort to prevent and stop it on campus. This does place many schools at an impasse, though, especially considering the spate of GLBTQIA teens unfairly mocked for their gender identity or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, local parents who distort religion in order to promote hate make it difficult for administrators to promote the tolerance and harmony needed to seriously cut back on verbal, physical, emotional and mental abuse. Stricter policies for dealing with perpetrators and the avoidance of victim-blaming need implementing, but this does put the poor kid on the receiving end at the risk of escalated torture. Faculty and staff members must also keep a sharper eye out for suspicious behavior and direct both the bullies and the bullied towards the proper mental health channels.
7. Thirteen-point-eight percent of students have seriously considered suicide: Ten-point-nine percent of them went through with making the preparations, 6.3% actually attempted and 1.9% needed medical treatment as a result. Not all of these instances necessarily stemmed from bullying, either. An estimated 20% of teenagers suffer from depression before entering adulthood. Most schools do offer counseling services for students, but prevailing social stigmas against pursuing psychological help prevent them from receiving the intervention they desperately need. Some states provide outreach to educational institutions with free materials on caring for mentally ill teenagers — regardless of whether or not they experience suicidal thoughts. Concerned parents, faculty, staff and students should work towards encouraging teenagers who need help to schedule a meeting with their school counselor or psychologist. Despite what the vocal ignorant dictate, strength lay in admitting weakness and actively pursuing treatment; not in denying its existence and allowing issues to fester forever until they boil over.
8. An average of 5% of students want to avoid school for fear of violence: Race, socioeconomic bracket, gender, sexual identity and placement in a public or private school all factor into a students’ reticence to show up for class, though the total 2007 average sat at 5%. This is an improvement over the 12% surveyed between 1995 and 2007, but no percentage of children should consider a house of education a frightful place. An average of 7% of students did not hope to avoid school altogether, but they made it a point to stay away from specific classes or areas where they felt unsafe. Many of them suffer from the persistent threat of general violence, whether from gang activity, ignorant bullies, shootings or some other source — though females especially have to guard themselves against the threat of sexual assault and rape.
9. Six percent of high school students have possessed weapons on campus: Unfortunately, the National Center for Education Statistics did not include survey questions on motivation for carrying weaponry to school. Eighteen percent of high school students, however, confessed to the habit of always keeping something on their person at all times. Regardless of whether or not they lug around a gun or a knife for self-defense or far more sinister purposes, there’s really no place for them on school grounds. If most bring them on campus in order to protect themselves from harm, then faculty and staff members have to seriously contemplate solutions to quell the violent, aggressive behavior. Some of the more dangerous ones out there have taken to installing metal detectors and security cameras, but not all of them can afford such measures. Others perform random or routine bag searches in order to catch any contraband. Unfortunately, such things do not entirely deter violence — the only way to really end such things is to chip away at the broader systemic functions that allow it to occur. Not exactly a realistic undertaking.
10. Thirty-five percent of students have seen hate-related graffiti at school: And 10% have reported hearing some sort of hateful slur hurled in their direction. Such actions certainly fall under the heading of bullying, and the same solutions apply — though eradicating hate and ignorance is about as easy as curing AIDS and widespread hunger. In 2007, 5% of students answered that the harmful words spewed on them specifically targeted their race, 3% their ethnicity, 2% their religion or gender and 1% their sexual orientation or disability. Females were more likely to receive gender-based insults, whereas males were slapped with more racial and ethnic slurs.
LINK
Like everything created and operated by fallible humans, the American education system boasts some impressive strengths but lags behind with some rather egregious offenses. Studies persistently become available that shed light on the positives and the negatives, allowing teachers, administrators and parents a look at what factors need some serious tweaking. Ignoring the issues means compromising students’ abilities to succeed in college (should they elect to attend) and careers alike. By no means comprehensive, this list points out some of the more surprising statistics available – so be sure to explore other research for a much broader glimpse at what goes down in the nation’s schools; not to mention the impact on society on the whole.
1. Twenty-two percent of American adults are considered illiterate: Intensive testing by the National Center for Education Statistics in 2003 revealed that 22% of American adults displayed "below basic" literacy. The study did not include those with Alzheimer’s or other cognitive or learning disorders, and they noted discrepancies based on sex, race and education level. Adults with a high school education or higher understandably scored higher than those who ended in elementary or middle school. Theories abound over why this is allowed to happen, and many attribute it to apathetic teachers passing kids with inadequate reading comprehension skills just to get them out of their classrooms. Many believe that parents form the first line of defense against illiteracy and shoulder the responsibility of teaching their children to read. Others blame internet and text message-speak for the degradation of the English language. Whatever the source, which likely varies from case to case, the citizens of the United States must work harder to ensure that every child leaves the education system capable of basic reading and comprehension skills.
2. Forty-three percent and 53% of eighth graders receive inadequate music and visual arts educations, respectively: For most Americans, knowing that on an NAEP from 0 to 300, students scored between 105 and 194 on music assessments and between 104 and 193 on the visual art equivalent seems like a trifle. After all, schools tend to emphasize math, science and athletics at the expense of most other subjects. When institutions need to scale back their budgets, the visual and performing arts usually take the heaviest hits. In reality, a well-rounded education means balancing logical, analytic and objective disciplines with the creative, abstract and subjective. Music and its mathematical constructs make for an especially viable bridge between the two. Ignoring the importance of all arts means students graduate with incomplete skill sets — certainly a handicap when searching for colleges and employers who value creativity and improvisation. So yes, these statistics should be extremely disconcerting to parents and educators alike. Much more horrifying than knowing that the football team won’t be getting shiny new jerseys this year.
3. Around 57% of preschool-aged children are enrolled in center-based daycare programs: Daycare centers and preschools offer harried parents a convenient way to keep their kids safe while they tend to work, but the advantages extend beyond that. Those genuinely concerned with the well-being of their clients provide appropriate educational toys, games and activities as a means of granting them a head start in their academic careers — especially when it comes to reading and math. Considering around 90% of a child’s brain development occurs before the age of 5, this definitely puts this 57% at an advantage once they enroll in kindergarten. In addition to nurturing their educations, daycare providers also facilitate socializing at an early age, teaching children an awareness of and ability to relate with their peers. Certainly skills they need to succeed in school and business!
4. Only 73.2% of students graduate from high school on time: As of the last data aggregation from the class of 2005-06, anyways — though the number has likely fluctuated little in 2010. Every dropout or student who repeats a grade has their own personal reason for their status, and almost all of them possess enough self-awareness to know how their decisions may negatively impact the future. At least half of those who never complete high school made the decision because they felt disengaged and bored with classes, though serious illness, unexpected parenthood, caretaking and failing grades also contribute heavily to the dropout rate as well. There will always be students who either never graduate or take longer than four years, of course, but knowing that so many quit on account of apathy offers up a massive challenge to educators. Finding creative ways to capture student attention without compromising the ultimate lesson can certainly solve a major component of the issue at hand.
5. Forty-seven percent of female and 38% of male teenagers understand proper birth control methods: Said comprehension of practicing safe sex comes either courtesy of parents, school or both. Both sexes seem to equally understand the dangers of contracting an STD or STI, yet young women typically know much more about the proper methods of preventing them — and unwanted pregnancies. Considering worldwide efforts to stop the spread of AIDS and HIV, the fact that only two-thirds of American teenagers know anything about prophylactics whatsoever is beyond jarring. It seems as if abstinence-only approaches and their "Just Say No!" tactics give curious kids an incomplete picture of sex that could lead to irreversible consequences. Yes, abstinence is the only strategy for a 100% avoidance of diseases and babies. But that information won’t help the 38.9% of students who already do not use condoms during intercourse — probably because nobody ever taught them how. Only well-rounded, objective discussions that never purposely circumnavigate certain corners can help prevent such risky behaviors.
6. Nineteen-point-nine percent of students are bullied on campus: The CDC’s survey on risky youth behavior reveals that 19.9% of American high school students have been forced to deal with bullying at school. While educational institutions may not always have the resources for addressing cyberbullying, they can make a better effort to prevent and stop it on campus. This does place many schools at an impasse, though, especially considering the spate of GLBTQIA teens unfairly mocked for their gender identity or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, local parents who distort religion in order to promote hate make it difficult for administrators to promote the tolerance and harmony needed to seriously cut back on verbal, physical, emotional and mental abuse. Stricter policies for dealing with perpetrators and the avoidance of victim-blaming need implementing, but this does put the poor kid on the receiving end at the risk of escalated torture. Faculty and staff members must also keep a sharper eye out for suspicious behavior and direct both the bullies and the bullied towards the proper mental health channels.
7. Thirteen-point-eight percent of students have seriously considered suicide: Ten-point-nine percent of them went through with making the preparations, 6.3% actually attempted and 1.9% needed medical treatment as a result. Not all of these instances necessarily stemmed from bullying, either. An estimated 20% of teenagers suffer from depression before entering adulthood. Most schools do offer counseling services for students, but prevailing social stigmas against pursuing psychological help prevent them from receiving the intervention they desperately need. Some states provide outreach to educational institutions with free materials on caring for mentally ill teenagers — regardless of whether or not they experience suicidal thoughts. Concerned parents, faculty, staff and students should work towards encouraging teenagers who need help to schedule a meeting with their school counselor or psychologist. Despite what the vocal ignorant dictate, strength lay in admitting weakness and actively pursuing treatment; not in denying its existence and allowing issues to fester forever until they boil over.
8. An average of 5% of students want to avoid school for fear of violence: Race, socioeconomic bracket, gender, sexual identity and placement in a public or private school all factor into a students’ reticence to show up for class, though the total 2007 average sat at 5%. This is an improvement over the 12% surveyed between 1995 and 2007, but no percentage of children should consider a house of education a frightful place. An average of 7% of students did not hope to avoid school altogether, but they made it a point to stay away from specific classes or areas where they felt unsafe. Many of them suffer from the persistent threat of general violence, whether from gang activity, ignorant bullies, shootings or some other source — though females especially have to guard themselves against the threat of sexual assault and rape.
9. Six percent of high school students have possessed weapons on campus: Unfortunately, the National Center for Education Statistics did not include survey questions on motivation for carrying weaponry to school. Eighteen percent of high school students, however, confessed to the habit of always keeping something on their person at all times. Regardless of whether or not they lug around a gun or a knife for self-defense or far more sinister purposes, there’s really no place for them on school grounds. If most bring them on campus in order to protect themselves from harm, then faculty and staff members have to seriously contemplate solutions to quell the violent, aggressive behavior. Some of the more dangerous ones out there have taken to installing metal detectors and security cameras, but not all of them can afford such measures. Others perform random or routine bag searches in order to catch any contraband. Unfortunately, such things do not entirely deter violence — the only way to really end such things is to chip away at the broader systemic functions that allow it to occur. Not exactly a realistic undertaking.
10. Thirty-five percent of students have seen hate-related graffiti at school: And 10% have reported hearing some sort of hateful slur hurled in their direction. Such actions certainly fall under the heading of bullying, and the same solutions apply — though eradicating hate and ignorance is about as easy as curing AIDS and widespread hunger. In 2007, 5% of students answered that the harmful words spewed on them specifically targeted their race, 3% their ethnicity, 2% their religion or gender and 1% their sexual orientation or disability. Females were more likely to receive gender-based insults, whereas males were slapped with more racial and ethnic slurs.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
3020-a, NYSUT, and NYS Social Services Law 419
In the discussion of wrong-doing by Mike Bloomberg, Joel Klein, and Mike Mulgrew (and, of course, not keeping me at the UFT to pursue the Teacher Advocacy Initiative that I presented to you), there has not been adequate discussion of the malpractice of NYSUT as the Attorneys do not adequately defend their clients, at least in the New York City 3020-a.
Full disclosure: over the past 7 years I have attended 3020-a hearings as a member of the public, and I have met several NYSUT Attorneys who I like personally. My reporting on the process that is used at 3020-a should not be seen as a personal attack on any NYSUT Attorney, as many of the NYSUT Attorneys are very nice people. My writing about the 3020-a process focuses on injustice, wherever and whoever carries this forward. In some instances I specifically point to what I consider a pattern and practice of 'misconduct', as in the cases of Melinda Gordon and Mitch Rubenstein, and I will continue to report on what I consider inappropriate behavior of any hired person, NYSUT, NYC DOE, CSA member, it doesn't matter. Hey, this is my blog, after all. I document what I see, hear and read.
One of the reasons why I have volunteered seven years of my life to observing 3020-a hearings (teachers brought to 3020-a are entitled to an open and public hearing under the contract) is to see what defense NYSUT provides to random and arbitrary charges against tenured personnel. The defense is seldom adequate.
I'll give you an example of what I mean:
Teachers often are charged with misconduct that stems from their whistleblowing some act of a principal, such as abuse of a student in the school, theft of PTA money, etc. The cases of David Pakter and Hipolito Colon are clearly whistleblower retaliation cases.
NYSUT attorneys do not bring up all the misconduct of a principal/assistant principal but defend the client based upon the act charged, not what else may be going on, like child abuse, theft, etc. by the principal/AP. This leaves the arbitrator to rule that the principal has no motive to target the teacher/respondent, and then will substantiate the charge against the teacher/respondent. I do not know of an instance where the assigned NYSUT Attorney defended the actions of the client in reporting a principal by using New York State Social Services Law 419.
Here is the relevant clause in NYS Social Services Law 419:
"Legal Protections for Mandated Reporters: What Protection or Liability Do I Have?
Source Confidentiality
The Social Service Law provides confidentiality for mandated reporters and all sources of child abuse and maltreatment reports. OCFS and local CPS are not permitted to release to the subject of the report any data that would identify the source of a report unless the source has given written permission to do so. Information regarding the source of the report may be shared with court officials, police, and district attorneys but only in certain circumstances.
Immunity from Liability
If a mandated reporter makes a report with earnest concern for the welfare of a child, he or she is immune from any criminal or civil liability that might result. This is referred to a making a report in "good faith".
Penalties for Failure to Report
Anyone who is mandated to report suspected child abuse or maltreatment - and fails to do so - could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor and subject to criminal penalties. Further, mandated reporters can be sued in a civil court for monetary damages for any harm caused by the mandated reporter's failure to make the report to the SCR.
Therefore if you are a mandated reporter and you know of misconduct of a principal/AP, report it, but NOT to OSI or SCI, the two agencies that will charge you for revealing what is going on at the school and cover up what you have reported. If you see child abuse or suspect it, report this to your principal as you are mandated to do, but also secretly report this to the State Agencies cited above.
Document your report with all the information sent by email, hard copy, or recorded by you (if it is a telephone call). You should tape all your conversations with the DOE or OSI, SCI investigators. In New York State you can secretly record anyone with whom you are in a conversation. Keep copies of everything.
Hope I've scared you enough.
Happy Halloween everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Betsy Combier
Full disclosure: over the past 7 years I have attended 3020-a hearings as a member of the public, and I have met several NYSUT Attorneys who I like personally. My reporting on the process that is used at 3020-a should not be seen as a personal attack on any NYSUT Attorney, as many of the NYSUT Attorneys are very nice people. My writing about the 3020-a process focuses on injustice, wherever and whoever carries this forward. In some instances I specifically point to what I consider a pattern and practice of 'misconduct', as in the cases of Melinda Gordon and Mitch Rubenstein, and I will continue to report on what I consider inappropriate behavior of any hired person, NYSUT, NYC DOE, CSA member, it doesn't matter. Hey, this is my blog, after all. I document what I see, hear and read.
One of the reasons why I have volunteered seven years of my life to observing 3020-a hearings (teachers brought to 3020-a are entitled to an open and public hearing under the contract) is to see what defense NYSUT provides to random and arbitrary charges against tenured personnel. The defense is seldom adequate.
I'll give you an example of what I mean:
Teachers often are charged with misconduct that stems from their whistleblowing some act of a principal, such as abuse of a student in the school, theft of PTA money, etc. The cases of David Pakter and Hipolito Colon are clearly whistleblower retaliation cases.
NYSUT attorneys do not bring up all the misconduct of a principal/assistant principal but defend the client based upon the act charged, not what else may be going on, like child abuse, theft, etc. by the principal/AP. This leaves the arbitrator to rule that the principal has no motive to target the teacher/respondent, and then will substantiate the charge against the teacher/respondent. I do not know of an instance where the assigned NYSUT Attorney defended the actions of the client in reporting a principal by using New York State Social Services Law 419.
Here is the relevant clause in NYS Social Services Law 419:
"Legal Protections for Mandated Reporters: What Protection or Liability Do I Have?
Source Confidentiality
The Social Service Law provides confidentiality for mandated reporters and all sources of child abuse and maltreatment reports. OCFS and local CPS are not permitted to release to the subject of the report any data that would identify the source of a report unless the source has given written permission to do so. Information regarding the source of the report may be shared with court officials, police, and district attorneys but only in certain circumstances.
Immunity from Liability
If a mandated reporter makes a report with earnest concern for the welfare of a child, he or she is immune from any criminal or civil liability that might result. This is referred to a making a report in "good faith".
Penalties for Failure to Report
Anyone who is mandated to report suspected child abuse or maltreatment - and fails to do so - could be charged with a Class A misdemeanor and subject to criminal penalties. Further, mandated reporters can be sued in a civil court for monetary damages for any harm caused by the mandated reporter's failure to make the report to the SCR.
Therefore if you are a mandated reporter and you know of misconduct of a principal/AP, report it, but NOT to OSI or SCI, the two agencies that will charge you for revealing what is going on at the school and cover up what you have reported. If you see child abuse or suspect it, report this to your principal as you are mandated to do, but also secretly report this to the State Agencies cited above.
Document your report with all the information sent by email, hard copy, or recorded by you (if it is a telephone call). You should tape all your conversations with the DOE or OSI, SCI investigators. In New York State you can secretly record anyone with whom you are in a conversation. Keep copies of everything.
Hope I've scared you enough.
Happy Halloween everybody!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Betsy Combier
No Teacher Data For Re-assigned Teachers
Hola Mr. Klein!
On friday I was contacted by a teacher who was recently re-assigned and will be charged under 3020-a for incompetence. He made the mistake of signing up for PIP+, so he is now on the termination track.
He asked me why he could not get any evaluation data on his performance from the New York City Board of Education, and why he could not get the data from ARIS on how his students did on their tests. He cares about his students, and is a tenured teacher who has been given satisfactory ratings for many years, until be became a voice of wrong-doing by the principal of his school.
He has not been 'convicted' of incompetence yet, and therefore he should be able to obtain his data, I think.
I heard from the NYC BOE that any teacher suspended from his/her teaching position for any reason, is blocked from seeing his/her performance data or the scores of his/her students on tests from the date of removal from his/her classroom. As you may know, tenured teachers accused of misconduct or incompetency are now being told to stay in the office of the school or district while he/she awaits charges, "secret'' rubber rooms, so that the public doesn't get angry with Mayor Bloomberg for using public money to pay for two teachers for the same job.
When a teacher is re-assigned suddenly because a principal doesn't like/want him/her in that position any longer, someone else has to be placed in the original teacher's position. This is why the public should be outraged at the random and arbitrary removal process, and this is why this process will be the ball and chain of the Bloomberg administration.....and the UFT, namely Mike Mulgrew, as I report on how Bloomberg and Mulgrew know that they are committing public funds to the violation of public policy, Social Services Law and due process rights of not only UFT members, but parents, children and anyone else who gets in their way. Policy questions are not allowed by the two Mikes.
I know, because I was let go from the UFT because while I was hired to 'assist members', but this was not what I was hired to do at all. My articles on the death to teacher rights as the foundation of PIP+ has enraged the UFT administration, I hear. Sunlight on corruption and fraud works. In a few days I will be profiling some UFT staff members, and you will see that my advocacy is not what 'they' wanted, but 'they' could not get rid of me unless the rubber rooms were 'closed' (which still has not happened). Smoke and mirrors only need fresh air to get cleaned up.
Well, you know what I mean.
Betsy
On friday I was contacted by a teacher who was recently re-assigned and will be charged under 3020-a for incompetence. He made the mistake of signing up for PIP+, so he is now on the termination track.
He asked me why he could not get any evaluation data on his performance from the New York City Board of Education, and why he could not get the data from ARIS on how his students did on their tests. He cares about his students, and is a tenured teacher who has been given satisfactory ratings for many years, until be became a voice of wrong-doing by the principal of his school.
He has not been 'convicted' of incompetence yet, and therefore he should be able to obtain his data, I think.
I heard from the NYC BOE that any teacher suspended from his/her teaching position for any reason, is blocked from seeing his/her performance data or the scores of his/her students on tests from the date of removal from his/her classroom. As you may know, tenured teachers accused of misconduct or incompetency are now being told to stay in the office of the school or district while he/she awaits charges, "secret'' rubber rooms, so that the public doesn't get angry with Mayor Bloomberg for using public money to pay for two teachers for the same job.
When a teacher is re-assigned suddenly because a principal doesn't like/want him/her in that position any longer, someone else has to be placed in the original teacher's position. This is why the public should be outraged at the random and arbitrary removal process, and this is why this process will be the ball and chain of the Bloomberg administration.....and the UFT, namely Mike Mulgrew, as I report on how Bloomberg and Mulgrew know that they are committing public funds to the violation of public policy, Social Services Law and due process rights of not only UFT members, but parents, children and anyone else who gets in their way. Policy questions are not allowed by the two Mikes.
I know, because I was let go from the UFT because while I was hired to 'assist members', but this was not what I was hired to do at all. My articles on the death to teacher rights as the foundation of PIP+ has enraged the UFT administration, I hear. Sunlight on corruption and fraud works. In a few days I will be profiling some UFT staff members, and you will see that my advocacy is not what 'they' wanted, but 'they' could not get rid of me unless the rubber rooms were 'closed' (which still has not happened). Smoke and mirrors only need fresh air to get cleaned up.
Well, you know what I mean.
Betsy
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Email From Joel Klein On Publishing Teacher Evaluation Reports
So, after there is a major scandal in the scores for testing (and therefore the A - F grades for schools), which the NYC Board of Education wants squashed because they need to have everyone ignore this valuable information, Joel Klein insists that grading teachers is the right thing to do.... and here's the punchline:
"for the children".
From: Klein Joel I.
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:57 PM
Subject: Teacher data
Dear Colleagues,
As you have likely heard or read, several media outlets recently issued Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests to the City, requiring the Department to share the Teacher Data Reports we provide schools and teachers in grades 4 through 8 each year. These reports use a method called “value-added data” that seeks to predict student performance based on factors outside of a teacher’s control (high levels of poverty, for example), and then determines whether a given teacher’s students exceeded or fell short of these predicted examination scores (teachers may always access their reports at http://schools.nyc.gov/Teachers/TeacherDevelopment/TeacherDataToolkit/GetYourReports/default.htm). By controlling for factors beyond a teacher’s control, it is the fairest system-wide way we have to assess the real impact of teachers on student learning. And while the City’s particular value-add method is not etched in stone, this is why the State passed legislation this spring, endorsed by the teachers’ unions, committing to using value-added data for all teachers. It is also why value-added data is increasingly being used throughout the nation as part of a comprehensive system of teacher evaluation.
In the past we have provided the numeric value-added data to the press with no indication of the identity of individual teachers. I am writing to you today because media outlets, prompted by similar data being published by the Los Angeles Times, have requested the names of individual teachers, not just the statistics. As it is the City’s legal interpretation that we are legally obligated to provide the media this information, it is our intent to provide the data as requested.
In the time since we informed the UFT that we intended to comply with the FOIL request, the union has sued the City to prevent the release, and we have agreed to delay any release until at least November 24, when a court hearing will be held. So no data have yet been released. But I want to make sure that, as you read about these events in the newspapers, you understand the circumstances and you understand my view on the issue overall.
Our most important task is to ensure that every one of our students has a great teacher. It is critical, therefore, that when we have indications of a teacher’s proficiency, we use that indication to do what’s right for kids. One indication will never tell the whole story, and sometimes it is hard to discern definitive evidence from data alone—such as with a teacher who is “average” according to these numbers, for example. But where teachers have performed consistently toward the top or the bottom, year after year, these data surely tell us something very important. Namely, we need to retain and reward the great teachers, and we need to develop the low-performing teachers. And those who don’t improve quickly need to be replaced with better-performing teachers.
Secretary Arne Duncan last week said it best when he said, “I give New York credit for sharing this information with teachers so they can improve and get better.” More than anything, these data demonstrate that we need a better, more comprehensive system of evaluation than the one we have now. That’s why the State legislature and the unions supported an evaluation system that uses value-added data. Now it’s time that the DOE and UFT together build a new system that gives teachers an honest sense of how well they’re doing and how they can improve.
In the end, this is about real people. On one hand, for too long, parents have been left out of the equation, left to pray each year that the teacher greeting their children on the first day of school is truly great, but with no real knowledge of whether that is the case, and with no recourse if it’s not.
But this is also about teachers. They take on the hardest work there is, and they deserve our respect. If anyone sees these data as an opportunity to scapegoat public servants, that is a mistake. Doing what’s right for children means making hard decisions; it has nothing to do with personal attacks.
We’ve made huge strides for our kids over the last eight years. That’s because we’ve been willing to face hard facts. It’s also because we have made kids’ best interests our shared priority. My hope is that we approach this issue with both of those thoughts in mind, ensuring fair treatment for adults, but always keeping children first.
Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein
Why teacher scores should be released
By JOEL KLEIN, NY POST, October 23, 2010
LINK
Last week, the New York City Department of Education planned to release Teacher Data Reports, which include the names of more than 12,000 city teachers and what are known as their “value-added” scores.
The release of these data reports — which tell us which teachers are contributing the most (and the least) to their students’ achievement — raises complex issues. While they are provided every year to principals and teachers directly, they have never before been released with teacher names to the public, and the United Federation of Teachers has gone to court to block their release.
First and foremost, we believe that the public has a right to this information under the Freedom of Information Law. But we also strongly disagree with the UFT’s argument that the public isn’t smart enough to understand this information.
So what is value-added data and what can it tell us?
It starts with the idea of fairness. Statisticians look at factors that have historically affected student achievement, such as high levels of poverty, and create a picture of each child’s background that enables them to predict how well a child is likely to do. They then see whether the child — or the whole class — did better than or worse than was predicted. The point is to remove all of the factors teachers can’t control.
For example, let’s say Adam is a first year, seventh-grade math teacher. His students are predicted to score an average of 3.22 on the state math test. But instead, his students score a 3.3, meaning he added .08. Leslie, meanwhile, also is a first year, seventh-grade math teacher in the same school. Her students also have a predicted proficiency score of 3.22, but they only score a 3.17, meaning she subtracted .05. Both teachers are then compared to peers across the city who are first-year, seventh-grade math teachers, and it is determined that Adam’s value-added score is in the 85th percentile, while Leslie’s is only in the 33rd.
It’s a quantitative way to show what many of us have argued for years — not all teachers are equally effective. If one teacher is found to be consistently high performing, don’t we want that teacher collaborating with others? And, in turn, if one teacher is found to be consistently low performing, don’t we want to help that teacher improve, or move to replace him or her?
No one believes value-added data tell the whole story of a teacher. But it provides a valuable window into teacher effectiveness, which is why we have used and will continue to use the data when we determine whether to award lifetime tenure. And New York state recently passed a law, supported by the UFT, mandating the use of teacher effectiveness data in teacher evaluation systems. In New York, value-added data may comprise 25% of a teacher’s overall evaluation; in states like Colorado and Louisiana, it’s up to 50%.
We aren’t naive about the impact this release could have on our teachers, which is why we hope that no one misuses the data or views it as an opportunity to scapegoat teachers. Our teachers deserve the utmost respect.
But these are public schools and public tax dollars. As Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “Parents and community members have the right to know how their districts, schools, principals and teachers are doing. It’s up to local communities to set the context for these courageous conversations, but silence is not an option.”
Joel Klein is the chancellor of New York City’s schools.
"for the children".
From: Klein Joel I.
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 3:57 PM
Subject: Teacher data
Dear Colleagues,
As you have likely heard or read, several media outlets recently issued Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests to the City, requiring the Department to share the Teacher Data Reports we provide schools and teachers in grades 4 through 8 each year. These reports use a method called “value-added data” that seeks to predict student performance based on factors outside of a teacher’s control (high levels of poverty, for example), and then determines whether a given teacher’s students exceeded or fell short of these predicted examination scores (teachers may always access their reports at http://schools.nyc.gov/Teachers/TeacherDevelopment/TeacherDataToolkit/GetYourReports/default.htm). By controlling for factors beyond a teacher’s control, it is the fairest system-wide way we have to assess the real impact of teachers on student learning. And while the City’s particular value-add method is not etched in stone, this is why the State passed legislation this spring, endorsed by the teachers’ unions, committing to using value-added data for all teachers. It is also why value-added data is increasingly being used throughout the nation as part of a comprehensive system of teacher evaluation.
In the past we have provided the numeric value-added data to the press with no indication of the identity of individual teachers. I am writing to you today because media outlets, prompted by similar data being published by the Los Angeles Times, have requested the names of individual teachers, not just the statistics. As it is the City’s legal interpretation that we are legally obligated to provide the media this information, it is our intent to provide the data as requested.
In the time since we informed the UFT that we intended to comply with the FOIL request, the union has sued the City to prevent the release, and we have agreed to delay any release until at least November 24, when a court hearing will be held. So no data have yet been released. But I want to make sure that, as you read about these events in the newspapers, you understand the circumstances and you understand my view on the issue overall.
Our most important task is to ensure that every one of our students has a great teacher. It is critical, therefore, that when we have indications of a teacher’s proficiency, we use that indication to do what’s right for kids. One indication will never tell the whole story, and sometimes it is hard to discern definitive evidence from data alone—such as with a teacher who is “average” according to these numbers, for example. But where teachers have performed consistently toward the top or the bottom, year after year, these data surely tell us something very important. Namely, we need to retain and reward the great teachers, and we need to develop the low-performing teachers. And those who don’t improve quickly need to be replaced with better-performing teachers.
Secretary Arne Duncan last week said it best when he said, “I give New York credit for sharing this information with teachers so they can improve and get better.” More than anything, these data demonstrate that we need a better, more comprehensive system of evaluation than the one we have now. That’s why the State legislature and the unions supported an evaluation system that uses value-added data. Now it’s time that the DOE and UFT together build a new system that gives teachers an honest sense of how well they’re doing and how they can improve.
In the end, this is about real people. On one hand, for too long, parents have been left out of the equation, left to pray each year that the teacher greeting their children on the first day of school is truly great, but with no real knowledge of whether that is the case, and with no recourse if it’s not.
But this is also about teachers. They take on the hardest work there is, and they deserve our respect. If anyone sees these data as an opportunity to scapegoat public servants, that is a mistake. Doing what’s right for children means making hard decisions; it has nothing to do with personal attacks.
We’ve made huge strides for our kids over the last eight years. That’s because we’ve been willing to face hard facts. It’s also because we have made kids’ best interests our shared priority. My hope is that we approach this issue with both of those thoughts in mind, ensuring fair treatment for adults, but always keeping children first.
Sincerely,
Joel I. Klein
Why teacher scores should be released
 |
| Mike Bloomberg, Nicole Seligman (Mrs. Klein), Joel Klein, Diana Taylor |
LINK
Last week, the New York City Department of Education planned to release Teacher Data Reports, which include the names of more than 12,000 city teachers and what are known as their “value-added” scores.
The release of these data reports — which tell us which teachers are contributing the most (and the least) to their students’ achievement — raises complex issues. While they are provided every year to principals and teachers directly, they have never before been released with teacher names to the public, and the United Federation of Teachers has gone to court to block their release.
First and foremost, we believe that the public has a right to this information under the Freedom of Information Law. But we also strongly disagree with the UFT’s argument that the public isn’t smart enough to understand this information.
So what is value-added data and what can it tell us?
It starts with the idea of fairness. Statisticians look at factors that have historically affected student achievement, such as high levels of poverty, and create a picture of each child’s background that enables them to predict how well a child is likely to do. They then see whether the child — or the whole class — did better than or worse than was predicted. The point is to remove all of the factors teachers can’t control.
For example, let’s say Adam is a first year, seventh-grade math teacher. His students are predicted to score an average of 3.22 on the state math test. But instead, his students score a 3.3, meaning he added .08. Leslie, meanwhile, also is a first year, seventh-grade math teacher in the same school. Her students also have a predicted proficiency score of 3.22, but they only score a 3.17, meaning she subtracted .05. Both teachers are then compared to peers across the city who are first-year, seventh-grade math teachers, and it is determined that Adam’s value-added score is in the 85th percentile, while Leslie’s is only in the 33rd.
It’s a quantitative way to show what many of us have argued for years — not all teachers are equally effective. If one teacher is found to be consistently high performing, don’t we want that teacher collaborating with others? And, in turn, if one teacher is found to be consistently low performing, don’t we want to help that teacher improve, or move to replace him or her?
No one believes value-added data tell the whole story of a teacher. But it provides a valuable window into teacher effectiveness, which is why we have used and will continue to use the data when we determine whether to award lifetime tenure. And New York state recently passed a law, supported by the UFT, mandating the use of teacher effectiveness data in teacher evaluation systems. In New York, value-added data may comprise 25% of a teacher’s overall evaluation; in states like Colorado and Louisiana, it’s up to 50%.
We aren’t naive about the impact this release could have on our teachers, which is why we hope that no one misuses the data or views it as an opportunity to scapegoat teachers. Our teachers deserve the utmost respect.
But these are public schools and public tax dollars. As Education Secretary Arne Duncan said, “Parents and community members have the right to know how their districts, schools, principals and teachers are doing. It’s up to local communities to set the context for these courageous conversations, but silence is not an option.”
Joel Klein is the chancellor of New York City’s schools.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Shifting The Truth About Charter Schools by Paul Thomas
By supporting charter school initiatives that reinforce corporate agendas that seek to hide social failures such as poverty, the Brookings Institution and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute are unwittingly exposing the mask that is charter schools because their research and admissions about the complexity of educational reform confirm what we know to be the truth about charter schools--they are no better than public schools: "And yet, this study [from CREDO] reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their TPS [traditional public school] counterparts. Further, tremendous variation in academic quality among charters is the norm, not the exception. The problem of quality is the most pressing issue that charter schools and their supporters face."
Shifting The Truth About Charter Schools
by Paul Thomas
LINK
October 23, 2010
"There is no compelling evidence that investments in parenting classes, health services, nutritional programs, and community improvement in general have appreciable effects on student achievement in schools in the U.S.," concludes Whitehurst and Croft in their appraisal of the celebrated Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ), adding: "Indeed there is considerable evidence in addition to the results from the present study that questions the return on such investments for academic achievement."
Whitehurst and Croft's study (July 20, 2010) for the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings prompted a New York Times article to reveal "Mr. Canada and his charter schools have struggled with the same difficulties faced by other urban schools, even as they outspend them."
However, just about a year and half earlier, David Brooks, also writing in the New York Times, had sparked the claims of "miracle" surrounding Canada's HCZ which fueled a series of media outlets praising these charter schools, including "President Obama institut[ing] a Promise Neighborhoods Initiative intended to replicate the HCZ in 20 cities across the country. The program received a $10 million appropriation from Congress in 2010, under which 339 communities applied to the U.S. Department of Education for planning grants to create Promise Neighborhoods."
From the President to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to Oprah and 60 Minutes to the controversial Waiting for Superman and the media blitz surrounding that documentary, the charter movement has been experiencing an unprecedented level of support across the political and popular spectrum.
Along with Whitehurst and Croft's cautions, however, other cracks in the move toward charter schools have been expressed, although not nearly as well publicized as the praise.
In an excerpt from the book, Ohio's Education Reform Challenges: Lessons from the Front Lines, included in Education Next, Terry Ryan, Michael B. Lafferty, and Chester Finn Jr. admit: "Sobered and a bit battered, Fordham continues as an authorizer of Ohio charter schools. . .and a vigorous participant in the state's larger education-policy debates. . . .Meanwhile, we've learned a lot about how much harder it is to walk the walk of education reform than simply to talk the talk, and about how the most robust of theories are apt to soften and melt in the furnace of actual experience."
What, then, is the truth behind the shifting support for charter schools?
• "Charter school" as a term and a concept has been co-opted by education reformers who support school choice and market forces over public education. The Whitehurst and Croft arguments against the HCZ being cost effective is placed against Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools: "There are 3 KIPP schools represented in the graph. All score higher than the HCZ Promise Academy." In short, charter schools of a certain kind, quasi-private schools, are welcomed as the next phase of school choice initiatives that have failed when promoting vouchers and tuition tax credits.
• Charter schools are mechanisms for promoting the claims that schools can reform society, and thus a mechanism for discounting the impact of poverty on the learning and lives of children. Whitehurst and Croft proceed to discount efforts such as the HCZ and traditional federal programs such as Head Start: "In contrast to disappointing results for Broader, Bolder initiatives, there is a large and growing body of evidence that schools themselves can have significant impacts on student achievement." Corporate reformers are fully invested in branding public education as a failure while simultaneously arguing that schools can overcome social forces, despite evidence to the contrary.
• Charter schools are often closely associated with alternatives to traditional teacher certification and an avenue to circumventing teachers unions. Teach for America (TfA) in charter schools is one such alliance, including being represented in Waiting for Superman and standing to reap significant boosts if federal policy helps fund and support more charter schools with faculties drawn largely from TfA recruits. Focusing on bad teachers and demonizing teachers unions as the status quo have roots in corporate agendas, not school reform.
• Charter schools also help promote "no excuses" ideology ("new paternalism") and deficit perspectives of children living in poverty that perpetuate classist dynamics in the schools, thus exacerbating the inequities of children's lives in the schools themselves. These corrosive ideologies are further wrapped in compelling rhetoric such as the "soft bigotry of low expectations," despite the practices themselves institutionalizing racism, classism, and elitism.
By supporting charter school initiatives that reinforce corporate agendas that seek to hide social failures such as poverty, the Brookings Institution and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute are unwittingly exposing the mask that is charter schools because their research and admissions about the complexity of educational reform confirm what we know to be the truth about charter schools--they are no better than public schools: "And yet, this study [from CREDO] reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their TPS [traditional public school] counterparts. Further, tremendous variation in academic quality among charters is the norm, not the exception. The problem of quality is the most pressing issue that charter schools and their supporters face."
Author's Bio: An Associate Professor of Education at Furman University since 2002, Dr. P. L. Thomas taught high school English for 18 years at Woodruff High along with teaching as an adjunct at a number of Upstate colleges. He holds an undergraduate degree in Secondary Education (1983) along with an M. Ed. in Secondary Education (1985) and Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction (1998), all from the University of South Carolina. Dr. Thomas has focused throughout his career on writing and the teaching of writing. He has published fiction, poetry, and numerous scholarly works since the early 1980s. Currently, he works closely with the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) as a column editor for English Journal, Challenging Text, and the SC Council of Teachers of English (SCCTE) as co-editor of South Carolina English Teacher. His major publications include a critique of American education, Numbers Games (2004, Peter Lang); a text on the teaching of writing, Teaching Writing Primer (2005, Peter Lang); and books in a series edited by Thomas, Confronting the Text, Confronting the World--his most recent volume being Reading, Learning, Teaching Ralph Ellison (2008, Peter Lang). He has also co-authored a work with Joe Kincheloe (McGill University), Reading, Writing, and Thinking: The Postformal Basics (2006, Sense Publishers), and Renita Schmidt, 21st Century Lieracy: If We Are Scripted Are We Literate? (Springer, 2009). His next books include Parental Choice? (2010, Information Age Publishing) and the first volume in a new series he edits, Challenging Genres: Comics and Graphic Novels (Sense Publishers). His scholarship and teaching deal primarily with critical literacy and social justice. See his work at: http://wrestlingwithwriting.blogspot.com/
Shifting The Truth About Charter Schools
by Paul Thomas
LINK
October 23, 2010
"There is no compelling evidence that investments in parenting classes, health services, nutritional programs, and community improvement in general have appreciable effects on student achievement in schools in the U.S.," concludes Whitehurst and Croft in their appraisal of the celebrated Geoffrey Canada's Harlem Children's Zone (HCZ), adding: "Indeed there is considerable evidence in addition to the results from the present study that questions the return on such investments for academic achievement."
Whitehurst and Croft's study (July 20, 2010) for the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings prompted a New York Times article to reveal "Mr. Canada and his charter schools have struggled with the same difficulties faced by other urban schools, even as they outspend them."
However, just about a year and half earlier, David Brooks, also writing in the New York Times, had sparked the claims of "miracle" surrounding Canada's HCZ which fueled a series of media outlets praising these charter schools, including "President Obama institut[ing] a Promise Neighborhoods Initiative intended to replicate the HCZ in 20 cities across the country. The program received a $10 million appropriation from Congress in 2010, under which 339 communities applied to the U.S. Department of Education for planning grants to create Promise Neighborhoods."
From the President to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to Oprah and 60 Minutes to the controversial Waiting for Superman and the media blitz surrounding that documentary, the charter movement has been experiencing an unprecedented level of support across the political and popular spectrum.
Along with Whitehurst and Croft's cautions, however, other cracks in the move toward charter schools have been expressed, although not nearly as well publicized as the praise.
In an excerpt from the book, Ohio's Education Reform Challenges: Lessons from the Front Lines, included in Education Next, Terry Ryan, Michael B. Lafferty, and Chester Finn Jr. admit: "Sobered and a bit battered, Fordham continues as an authorizer of Ohio charter schools. . .and a vigorous participant in the state's larger education-policy debates. . . .Meanwhile, we've learned a lot about how much harder it is to walk the walk of education reform than simply to talk the talk, and about how the most robust of theories are apt to soften and melt in the furnace of actual experience."
What, then, is the truth behind the shifting support for charter schools?
• "Charter school" as a term and a concept has been co-opted by education reformers who support school choice and market forces over public education. The Whitehurst and Croft arguments against the HCZ being cost effective is placed against Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools: "There are 3 KIPP schools represented in the graph. All score higher than the HCZ Promise Academy." In short, charter schools of a certain kind, quasi-private schools, are welcomed as the next phase of school choice initiatives that have failed when promoting vouchers and tuition tax credits.
• Charter schools are mechanisms for promoting the claims that schools can reform society, and thus a mechanism for discounting the impact of poverty on the learning and lives of children. Whitehurst and Croft proceed to discount efforts such as the HCZ and traditional federal programs such as Head Start: "In contrast to disappointing results for Broader, Bolder initiatives, there is a large and growing body of evidence that schools themselves can have significant impacts on student achievement." Corporate reformers are fully invested in branding public education as a failure while simultaneously arguing that schools can overcome social forces, despite evidence to the contrary.
• Charter schools are often closely associated with alternatives to traditional teacher certification and an avenue to circumventing teachers unions. Teach for America (TfA) in charter schools is one such alliance, including being represented in Waiting for Superman and standing to reap significant boosts if federal policy helps fund and support more charter schools with faculties drawn largely from TfA recruits. Focusing on bad teachers and demonizing teachers unions as the status quo have roots in corporate agendas, not school reform.
• Charter schools also help promote "no excuses" ideology ("new paternalism") and deficit perspectives of children living in poverty that perpetuate classist dynamics in the schools, thus exacerbating the inequities of children's lives in the schools themselves. These corrosive ideologies are further wrapped in compelling rhetoric such as the "soft bigotry of low expectations," despite the practices themselves institutionalizing racism, classism, and elitism.
By supporting charter school initiatives that reinforce corporate agendas that seek to hide social failures such as poverty, the Brookings Institution and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute are unwittingly exposing the mask that is charter schools because their research and admissions about the complexity of educational reform confirm what we know to be the truth about charter schools--they are no better than public schools: "And yet, this study [from CREDO] reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their TPS [traditional public school] counterparts. Further, tremendous variation in academic quality among charters is the norm, not the exception. The problem of quality is the most pressing issue that charter schools and their supporters face."
Author's Bio: An Associate Professor of Education at Furman University since 2002, Dr. P. L. Thomas taught high school English for 18 years at Woodruff High along with teaching as an adjunct at a number of Upstate colleges. He holds an undergraduate degree in Secondary Education (1983) along with an M. Ed. in Secondary Education (1985) and Ed. D. in Curriculum and Instruction (1998), all from the University of South Carolina. Dr. Thomas has focused throughout his career on writing and the teaching of writing. He has published fiction, poetry, and numerous scholarly works since the early 1980s. Currently, he works closely with the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) as a column editor for English Journal, Challenging Text, and the SC Council of Teachers of English (SCCTE) as co-editor of South Carolina English Teacher. His major publications include a critique of American education, Numbers Games (2004, Peter Lang); a text on the teaching of writing, Teaching Writing Primer (2005, Peter Lang); and books in a series edited by Thomas, Confronting the Text, Confronting the World--his most recent volume being Reading, Learning, Teaching Ralph Ellison (2008, Peter Lang). He has also co-authored a work with Joe Kincheloe (McGill University), Reading, Writing, and Thinking: The Postformal Basics (2006, Sense Publishers), and Renita Schmidt, 21st Century Lieracy: If We Are Scripted Are We Literate? (Springer, 2009). His next books include Parental Choice? (2010, Information Age Publishing) and the first volume in a new series he edits, Challenging Genres: Comics and Graphic Novels (Sense Publishers). His scholarship and teaching deal primarily with critical literacy and social justice. See his work at: http://wrestlingwithwriting.blogspot.com/
Friday, October 22, 2010
Andrew Cuomo's Corruption And Fraud On The People Of New York State: The Money Business
Andrew Cuomo's Corruption And Fraud On The People Of New York State: The Money Business
Andrew Cuomo promises Big Money that when he is elected Governor, he will put favors on the table to be acknowledged and paid back. Citizens of New York will be guaranteed a denial of Constitutional rights....unless you can pay for them.
I have the story of how Cuomo uses the real estate cartel to steal property from the dead through the Surrogates' Courts. He, with the help of his Assistant Attorney General Monica Connell, helped the Unified Court System steal my mother's property left to me in her Will. More about that later, in Part 2. And I am not alone in the victimization of citizens of New York State by Andrew Cuomo.
Betsy Combier
Following the Cuomo money trail
Big donors dominate $25 million war chest, so what do they want?
By Phil Fairbanks, Buffalo News, October 21, 2010
LINK
Andrew M. Cuomo is accepting money, lots of it, from the same special interests he promises to take on if elected New York's next governor.
Cuomo amassed a $25.6 million campaign war chest in just two years and did it with the help of the same labor, business and political interests that have long influenced state government.
The Democrat's friends and allies -- he has received more than 10,000 contributions over that time -- read like a who's who of people and companies doing business with New York State.
His donors range from Albany lobbyists and New York City real estate giants to public employee unions and health care providers.
It's a group littered with the rich and famous, names such as Leonard Lauder, Howard Rubenstein, and Donald and Ivanka Trump.
"Money flows to power," said Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "They assume Cuomo's going to win, so they fork over money in the hopes that when they make a phone call, someone will answer it."
A Buffalo News analysis of Cuomo's contributions dating from July 2008 found the following:
* One of every $3 raised by Cuomo came from corporations, partnerships, unions and other special interests.
* About half of Cuomo's donors gave him $1,000 or more, and 1 in 6 gave him $5,000 or more.
* A large percentage of his money came from New York City real estate interests that in some instances gave up to $100,000.
* Seven of every $10 that Cuomo took in across New York State came from New York City, Long Island or Westchester County.
* Cuomo's fundraising pales in comparison to previous candidates for governor, but he still refunded more money last month than his opponent took in.
Cuomo's reliance on wealthy downstate donors and their large contributions helped him build up a political bank account that a month ago, when the last accounting was made, still had a balance of $20 million.
That's 95 times more than what Republican candidate Carl P. Paladino had on hand, an edge Cuomo can attribute to hundreds of companies, unions, lobbyists and other special interests eager to have a friend in Albany.
New financial-disclosure reports, due out Friday, will provide a more up-to-date accounting of where the Cuomo and Paladino campaigns stand in the head-to-head race for cash.
"Andrew Cuomo has shown time and again that he will take money from anyone," said Paladino spokesman Michael R. Caputo. "A look at his list of high-dollar donors shows the usual suspects: big-money lobbyists, connected corporations, unions, pay-to-play artists and the ruling elite."
Cuomo declined to comment for this article, but one thing is certain: The state's wealthiest political donors view Cuomo as one of two things or maybe both -- the best person for the job or the most likely candidate to win.
If they're right, and front-running Cuomo does indeed defeat Paladino in the Nov. 2 general election, they may find themselves in the new governor's cross hairs.
Unions loom large
From the day he announced his candidacy in May, Cuomo has promised to take on Albany's dysfunction, including corruption that would "make Boss Tweed blush."
"We will be taking on very powerful special interests, which have much to lose," he said in a video announcing his candidacy. "We must change systems and cultures long in the making."
And what if those special interests are the same folks who ponied up big money to help you get elected?
"One of the reasons Albany's dysfunctional is the way they finance elections," said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, counsel to the Brennan Center for Justice, the New York University organization that has repeatedly described the State Legislature as the country's most dysfunctional.
Cuomo, of course, is no different than most other candidates for governor, said Torres-Spelliscy. They finance their campaigns with big-money donations from special interests, she said, and, if successful, they soon find themselves facing the prospect of having to say "no" to them.
Does Cuomo have the will to do that? Can he say "no" to the Teamsters or the Service Employees International Union, two of his biggest contributors and two unions with important business in Albany?
The Teamsters, as recently as this spring, gathered at the State Capitol to rally against Gov. David A. Paterson's proposed soda tax.
"Not only does the soda tax hurt consumers," union President James P. Hoffa told his members, "it will hurt small businesses and result in further job losses."
Even more problematic for Cuomo is his relationship with the SEIU, which represents thousands of employees at hospitals and nursing homes across the state.
It's hard to imagine a union with more clout in Albany or a union more opposed to cuts in health care, one of the fastest-growing parts of the state budget.
It's also hard to think of a labor organization with closer ties to Cuomo.
Jennifer Cunningham, the union's former political director and current lobbyist, managed Cuomo's 2006 run for attorney general and has served as an informal campaign adviser.
"It's up to him to say, 'OK, I've heard you, now I'm going to do what I think is right'," said Jeffrey M. Stonecash, a political science professor at Syracuse University.
Stonecash thinks the manner in which Cuomo deals with the special interests who helped finance his campaign will go a long way in evaluating his character.
Real estate largess
And it's not just unions.
One industry that Cuomo's critics will be watching is real estate. No other sector of the economy has provided more largess for Cuomo, and the money has come in the form of both corporate and individual contributions.
His donors include some of the biggest names in real estate, people such as New York City developer Jerry I. Speyer and construction giant Daniel R. Tishman. Together, they and their families kicked in more than $187,000 to Cuomo's run for governor.
What do they expect in return?
No one knows for certain, but there are a number of large-scale development projects, including the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, that could require the next governor's blessing.
Horner thinks their motivation may be a lot simpler. He points to Cuomo's tenure as attorney general, where he had responsibility over real estate investments, mortgage fraud and most new housing developments, to suggest that real estate executives simply want to make sure Cuomo remains accessible.
"They already have a relationship," Horner said. "They just want to make sure their phone calls get answered."
Cuomo surprised some of those same real estate executives this month when he announced that the Attorney General's Office would expand its investigation into housing foreclosures.
While his action hits banks the hardest -- he asked them to suspend all foreclosure sales -- real estate experts say that it could hurt an already struggling housing market.
Cuomo's probe focuses on a practice known as "robo-signing," the practice of mortgage lenders filing affidavits without truthfully knowing the facts behind a foreclosure.
"I will not allow New Yorkers to lose their homes due to mortgage goliaths that buck the system," Cuomo said in a statement.
$38,500 from Masiello
Real estate professionals are not the only ones giving money in hopes of gaining access to a Cuomo administration.
So are Albany's lobbyists.
"'Hey, Andrew; hey, Andrew -- I'm over here,'" Stonecash said when asked why lobbyists give to candidates.
Like many candidates, Cuomo has tapped into the state's lobbying community in a big way. A study by the New York Public Interest Research Group in June estimated that the Democrat had received $320,540 from lobbyists.
One of the biggest givers is former Buffalo Mayor Anthony M. Masiello, a longtime Cuomo ally. At last count, Masiello had given Cuomo $38,500, one of the largest contributions by an individual lobbyist.
Masiello said his intent is not to gain access -- he and Cuomo have a relationship that dates back 30 years -- but rather to help an old friend get elected governor.
"I think he's got the right stuff," Masiello said of his fellow Democrat. "He's serious about making a difference. He knows the state's in trouble."
'Payoff,' says Paladino
Cuomo has run into his share of criticism for how he raises money. Some of his biggest contributions have come from lawyers, including some who represent clients investigated by the Attorney General's Office.
For example, he accepted $37,000 from Boies Schiller & Flexer, a New York City firm, even though David Boies, one of the nation's pre-eminent trial attorneys, represented a former insurance and financial services executive under investigation by Cuomo's office.
The Democratic candidate also came under criticism, especially from Paladino, for his relationship with Andrew L. Farkas, one of his biggest benefactors.
Their ties date from the 1990s, when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, under Cuomo's leadership, accused one of Farkas' companies of paying kickbacks to building owners.
The company eventually settled the lawsuit by paying the government $7.4 million, and, years later, Farkas hired Cuomo to work for one of his real estate companies.
"Where I come from, this is called a payoff," Paladino said in a campaign ad released last month.
Farkas and his family also became one of Cuomo's biggest contributors, donating more than $57,000 to his campaign in the last two years. One of Farkas' companies also kicked in another $37,500.
Cuomo contends that Paladino's accusations are off-base and says the government's settlement with Farkas' company was negotiated by the Justice Department, not HUD.
"Pay-to-play Paladino is now rewriting history with a mud pen," Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto said last month.
What Farkas does reflect is Cuomo's reliance on big-money donors, who often join with family members or fellow employees to increase their contribution.
Nixon Peabody, a Rochester firm with a long history of political activity, gave Cuomo more than $55,000 but did it through a series of more than 70 smaller contributions.
Farkas also symbolizes the Democrat's reliance on large contributions from downstate, many from New York's wealthiest individuals.
"Think of where the money is," said Jamie P. Pimlott, an assistant professor of political science at Niagara University. "People who give to campaigns tend to be wealthier."
A question of influence
Pimlott, who has researched the role of small donors, views Cuomo as the rule, not the exception.
She does think that government could do more to encourage participation by smaller contributors, most notably through lower contribution limits.
"That would force candidates to reach out to more people, to get more people engaged," Pimlott said.
Cuomo, as part of his campaign finance reform agenda, has endorsed lower contribution limits.
"We must address the inappropriate influence that companies and individuals that do business with the state have over our elected representatives," he said in his nine-page platform for reform.
While good-government advocates welcome Cuomo's support, they view it with some skepticism.
"I really hope that, once he's governor, he sticks by that promise," said Torres-Spelliscy of the Brennan Center. "Of course, we've had others before him who made that pledge, and once in office changed their mind."
It's easy to see why.
Under the current system, Cuomo raised $25.6 million in two years, and he did it largely with the help of wealthy individuals and interests giving him large contributions.
And before him, there was the Democratic winner of the last gubernatorial election, Eliot L. Spitzer, who raised $31 million.
And before him, Republican Gov. George E. Pataki, who took in $42 million.
As Horner suggests, "It's easier to say than to do."
pfairbanks@buffnews.com
I have the story of how Cuomo uses the real estate cartel to steal property from the dead through the Surrogates' Courts. He, with the help of his Assistant Attorney General Monica Connell, helped the Unified Court System steal my mother's property left to me in her Will. More about that later, in Part 2. And I am not alone in the victimization of citizens of New York State by Andrew Cuomo.
Betsy Combier
Following the Cuomo money trail
Big donors dominate $25 million war chest, so what do they want?
By Phil Fairbanks, Buffalo News, October 21, 2010
LINK
Andrew M. Cuomo is accepting money, lots of it, from the same special interests he promises to take on if elected New York's next governor.
Cuomo amassed a $25.6 million campaign war chest in just two years and did it with the help of the same labor, business and political interests that have long influenced state government.
The Democrat's friends and allies -- he has received more than 10,000 contributions over that time -- read like a who's who of people and companies doing business with New York State.
His donors range from Albany lobbyists and New York City real estate giants to public employee unions and health care providers.
It's a group littered with the rich and famous, names such as Leonard Lauder, Howard Rubenstein, and Donald and Ivanka Trump.
"Money flows to power," said Blair Horner, legislative director of the New York Public Interest Research Group. "They assume Cuomo's going to win, so they fork over money in the hopes that when they make a phone call, someone will answer it."
A Buffalo News analysis of Cuomo's contributions dating from July 2008 found the following:
* One of every $3 raised by Cuomo came from corporations, partnerships, unions and other special interests.
* About half of Cuomo's donors gave him $1,000 or more, and 1 in 6 gave him $5,000 or more.
* A large percentage of his money came from New York City real estate interests that in some instances gave up to $100,000.
* Seven of every $10 that Cuomo took in across New York State came from New York City, Long Island or Westchester County.
* Cuomo's fundraising pales in comparison to previous candidates for governor, but he still refunded more money last month than his opponent took in.
Cuomo's reliance on wealthy downstate donors and their large contributions helped him build up a political bank account that a month ago, when the last accounting was made, still had a balance of $20 million.
That's 95 times more than what Republican candidate Carl P. Paladino had on hand, an edge Cuomo can attribute to hundreds of companies, unions, lobbyists and other special interests eager to have a friend in Albany.
New financial-disclosure reports, due out Friday, will provide a more up-to-date accounting of where the Cuomo and Paladino campaigns stand in the head-to-head race for cash.
"Andrew Cuomo has shown time and again that he will take money from anyone," said Paladino spokesman Michael R. Caputo. "A look at his list of high-dollar donors shows the usual suspects: big-money lobbyists, connected corporations, unions, pay-to-play artists and the ruling elite."
Cuomo declined to comment for this article, but one thing is certain: The state's wealthiest political donors view Cuomo as one of two things or maybe both -- the best person for the job or the most likely candidate to win.
If they're right, and front-running Cuomo does indeed defeat Paladino in the Nov. 2 general election, they may find themselves in the new governor's cross hairs.
Unions loom large
From the day he announced his candidacy in May, Cuomo has promised to take on Albany's dysfunction, including corruption that would "make Boss Tweed blush."
"We will be taking on very powerful special interests, which have much to lose," he said in a video announcing his candidacy. "We must change systems and cultures long in the making."
And what if those special interests are the same folks who ponied up big money to help you get elected?
"One of the reasons Albany's dysfunctional is the way they finance elections," said Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, counsel to the Brennan Center for Justice, the New York University organization that has repeatedly described the State Legislature as the country's most dysfunctional.
Cuomo, of course, is no different than most other candidates for governor, said Torres-Spelliscy. They finance their campaigns with big-money donations from special interests, she said, and, if successful, they soon find themselves facing the prospect of having to say "no" to them.
Does Cuomo have the will to do that? Can he say "no" to the Teamsters or the Service Employees International Union, two of his biggest contributors and two unions with important business in Albany?
The Teamsters, as recently as this spring, gathered at the State Capitol to rally against Gov. David A. Paterson's proposed soda tax.
"Not only does the soda tax hurt consumers," union President James P. Hoffa told his members, "it will hurt small businesses and result in further job losses."
Even more problematic for Cuomo is his relationship with the SEIU, which represents thousands of employees at hospitals and nursing homes across the state.
It's hard to imagine a union with more clout in Albany or a union more opposed to cuts in health care, one of the fastest-growing parts of the state budget.
It's also hard to think of a labor organization with closer ties to Cuomo.
Jennifer Cunningham, the union's former political director and current lobbyist, managed Cuomo's 2006 run for attorney general and has served as an informal campaign adviser.
"It's up to him to say, 'OK, I've heard you, now I'm going to do what I think is right'," said Jeffrey M. Stonecash, a political science professor at Syracuse University.
Stonecash thinks the manner in which Cuomo deals with the special interests who helped finance his campaign will go a long way in evaluating his character.
Real estate largess
And it's not just unions.
One industry that Cuomo's critics will be watching is real estate. No other sector of the economy has provided more largess for Cuomo, and the money has come in the form of both corporate and individual contributions.
His donors include some of the biggest names in real estate, people such as New York City developer Jerry I. Speyer and construction giant Daniel R. Tishman. Together, they and their families kicked in more than $187,000 to Cuomo's run for governor.
What do they expect in return?
No one knows for certain, but there are a number of large-scale development projects, including the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan, that could require the next governor's blessing.
Horner thinks their motivation may be a lot simpler. He points to Cuomo's tenure as attorney general, where he had responsibility over real estate investments, mortgage fraud and most new housing developments, to suggest that real estate executives simply want to make sure Cuomo remains accessible.
"They already have a relationship," Horner said. "They just want to make sure their phone calls get answered."
Cuomo surprised some of those same real estate executives this month when he announced that the Attorney General's Office would expand its investigation into housing foreclosures.
While his action hits banks the hardest -- he asked them to suspend all foreclosure sales -- real estate experts say that it could hurt an already struggling housing market.
Cuomo's probe focuses on a practice known as "robo-signing," the practice of mortgage lenders filing affidavits without truthfully knowing the facts behind a foreclosure.
"I will not allow New Yorkers to lose their homes due to mortgage goliaths that buck the system," Cuomo said in a statement.
$38,500 from Masiello
Real estate professionals are not the only ones giving money in hopes of gaining access to a Cuomo administration.
So are Albany's lobbyists.
"'Hey, Andrew; hey, Andrew -- I'm over here,'" Stonecash said when asked why lobbyists give to candidates.
Like many candidates, Cuomo has tapped into the state's lobbying community in a big way. A study by the New York Public Interest Research Group in June estimated that the Democrat had received $320,540 from lobbyists.
One of the biggest givers is former Buffalo Mayor Anthony M. Masiello, a longtime Cuomo ally. At last count, Masiello had given Cuomo $38,500, one of the largest contributions by an individual lobbyist.
Masiello said his intent is not to gain access -- he and Cuomo have a relationship that dates back 30 years -- but rather to help an old friend get elected governor.
"I think he's got the right stuff," Masiello said of his fellow Democrat. "He's serious about making a difference. He knows the state's in trouble."
'Payoff,' says Paladino
Cuomo has run into his share of criticism for how he raises money. Some of his biggest contributions have come from lawyers, including some who represent clients investigated by the Attorney General's Office.
For example, he accepted $37,000 from Boies Schiller & Flexer, a New York City firm, even though David Boies, one of the nation's pre-eminent trial attorneys, represented a former insurance and financial services executive under investigation by Cuomo's office.
The Democratic candidate also came under criticism, especially from Paladino, for his relationship with Andrew L. Farkas, one of his biggest benefactors.
Their ties date from the 1990s, when the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, under Cuomo's leadership, accused one of Farkas' companies of paying kickbacks to building owners.
The company eventually settled the lawsuit by paying the government $7.4 million, and, years later, Farkas hired Cuomo to work for one of his real estate companies.
"Where I come from, this is called a payoff," Paladino said in a campaign ad released last month.
Farkas and his family also became one of Cuomo's biggest contributors, donating more than $57,000 to his campaign in the last two years. One of Farkas' companies also kicked in another $37,500.
Cuomo contends that Paladino's accusations are off-base and says the government's settlement with Farkas' company was negotiated by the Justice Department, not HUD.
"Pay-to-play Paladino is now rewriting history with a mud pen," Cuomo spokesman Josh Vlasto said last month.
What Farkas does reflect is Cuomo's reliance on big-money donors, who often join with family members or fellow employees to increase their contribution.
Nixon Peabody, a Rochester firm with a long history of political activity, gave Cuomo more than $55,000 but did it through a series of more than 70 smaller contributions.
Farkas also symbolizes the Democrat's reliance on large contributions from downstate, many from New York's wealthiest individuals.
"Think of where the money is," said Jamie P. Pimlott, an assistant professor of political science at Niagara University. "People who give to campaigns tend to be wealthier."
A question of influence
Pimlott, who has researched the role of small donors, views Cuomo as the rule, not the exception.
She does think that government could do more to encourage participation by smaller contributors, most notably through lower contribution limits.
"That would force candidates to reach out to more people, to get more people engaged," Pimlott said.
Cuomo, as part of his campaign finance reform agenda, has endorsed lower contribution limits.
"We must address the inappropriate influence that companies and individuals that do business with the state have over our elected representatives," he said in his nine-page platform for reform.
While good-government advocates welcome Cuomo's support, they view it with some skepticism.
"I really hope that, once he's governor, he sticks by that promise," said Torres-Spelliscy of the Brennan Center. "Of course, we've had others before him who made that pledge, and once in office changed their mind."
It's easy to see why.
Under the current system, Cuomo raised $25.6 million in two years, and he did it largely with the help of wealthy individuals and interests giving him large contributions.
And before him, there was the Democratic winner of the last gubernatorial election, Eliot L. Spitzer, who raised $31 million.
And before him, Republican Gov. George E. Pataki, who took in $42 million.
As Horner suggests, "It's easier to say than to do."
pfairbanks@buffnews.com
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Winning Your 3020-a: New Disciplinary Procedures in New York
TO ALL Respondents about to enter 3020-a: READ the changes to Chapter 103 below!!!!
New York Labor and Employment Law Report
by Howard Wexler, October 13, 2010
LINK
New York's Overhaul of Teacher and Principal Evaluation Procedures
Earlier this year, Governor David Paterson signed into law Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 which, among other things, drastically alters the way classroom teachers and building principals are evaluated and the procedures for disciplining tenured teachers. These changes will take effect over the course of the next several years. Many key provisions were effective on July 1, 2010. The changes have significant implications for collective bargaining between school districts and the unions representing teachers and principals.
The impetus for these far reaching changes was New York State’s application for Phase II of the Federal Government’s Race to the Top Program (“RTT”). RTT was created as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), and authorizes the United States Department of Education to award up to $4.3 billion in grant money to encourage and reward States that create conditions for education innovation and reform. New York was one of several states to win Phase II of RTT. As a result, New York will receive approximately $700 million to help implement changes RTT was designed to foster, including how the performance of teachers and principals is measured.
The most widely publicized aspect of the new legislation is Section 3012 c of the Education Law (“3012-c”), which contains the new comprehensive Annual Professional Performance Review (“APPR”) system for teachers and principals. For the 2011-2012 school year, the new APPR system applies only to evaluations of teachers in the common branch subjects or English Language Arts, and Math in grades four through eight, as well as building principals. The new APPR system will apply to all teachers and principals effective in the 2012-2013 school year. The APPR system requires teacher and principal evaluations to result in a single composite score made up of the following components.
* Forty percent of the composite score must be based on student achievement measures; with 20 percent based on student improvement on state exams (or other comparable local exams), and the other 20 percent based on local measures of student achievement which must be established through the collective bargaining process.
* The remaining 60 percent of the APPR score must be based on evidence of overall teacher effectiveness, as determined through locally developed measures (established through the collective bargaining process), and in accordance with standards determined by the Commissioner of Education. As of the date of this post, those standards have not been promulgated.
The composite score must be a significant factor in employment decisions, including, but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure, termination, and supplemental compensation. The APPR composite score will result in teachers and principals receiving a rating of either: (1) Highly Effective; (2) Effective; (3) Developing; or (4) Ineffective. In connection with this rating system, Districts are required to create Teacher Improvement Plans (“TIP”) and Principal Improvement Plans (“PIP”) for those teachers and principals who receive ratings of either Developing or Ineffective. Two consecutive annual ratings of “Ineffective,” will be deemed to establish a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance” which may be a basis for just cause removal of a teacher or principal.
From a labor relations perspective, one of the more controversial aspects of 3012-c is the requirement of a locally developed (negotiated) appeals process under which the teacher or principal has the right to challenge the substance of the evaluation, adherence to standards and procedures for reviews, and implementation of a TIP/PIP. In fact, evaluations conducted pursuant to 3012-c cannot even be introduced during a disciplinary proceeding under Section 3020-a of the Education Law prior the expiration of the appeals process.
The legislation also establishes an expedited Section 3020-a disciplinary process for teachers and principals charged with demonstrating a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance.” The expedited process requires completion of the hearing before a single hearing officer within sixty (60) days of the pre-hearing conference. When a tenured teacher is charged with a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance” the District must establish that it has negotiated and agreed to a TIP/PIP applicable to that individual.
All collective bargaining agreements covering teachers and building principals entered into after July 1, 2010 must be consistent with 3012-c. Those provisions of collective bargaining agreements that were entered into prior to July 1, 2010 and conflict with 3012-c remain in effect until a successor agreement is entered into, at which time the parties must negotiate over the issues implicated by 3012-c.
http://www.nylaborandemploymentlawreport.com/admin/trackback/226514
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
One Lincoln Center
Syracuse, NY 13202
Phone:
(315) 218-8000
Fax:
(315) 218-8100
New York Labor and Employment Law Report
by Howard Wexler, October 13, 2010
LINK
New York's Overhaul of Teacher and Principal Evaluation Procedures
Earlier this year, Governor David Paterson signed into law Chapter 103 of the Laws of 2010 which, among other things, drastically alters the way classroom teachers and building principals are evaluated and the procedures for disciplining tenured teachers. These changes will take effect over the course of the next several years. Many key provisions were effective on July 1, 2010. The changes have significant implications for collective bargaining between school districts and the unions representing teachers and principals.
The impetus for these far reaching changes was New York State’s application for Phase II of the Federal Government’s Race to the Top Program (“RTT”). RTT was created as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”), and authorizes the United States Department of Education to award up to $4.3 billion in grant money to encourage and reward States that create conditions for education innovation and reform. New York was one of several states to win Phase II of RTT. As a result, New York will receive approximately $700 million to help implement changes RTT was designed to foster, including how the performance of teachers and principals is measured.
The most widely publicized aspect of the new legislation is Section 3012 c of the Education Law (“3012-c”), which contains the new comprehensive Annual Professional Performance Review (“APPR”) system for teachers and principals. For the 2011-2012 school year, the new APPR system applies only to evaluations of teachers in the common branch subjects or English Language Arts, and Math in grades four through eight, as well as building principals. The new APPR system will apply to all teachers and principals effective in the 2012-2013 school year. The APPR system requires teacher and principal evaluations to result in a single composite score made up of the following components.
* Forty percent of the composite score must be based on student achievement measures; with 20 percent based on student improvement on state exams (or other comparable local exams), and the other 20 percent based on local measures of student achievement which must be established through the collective bargaining process.
* The remaining 60 percent of the APPR score must be based on evidence of overall teacher effectiveness, as determined through locally developed measures (established through the collective bargaining process), and in accordance with standards determined by the Commissioner of Education. As of the date of this post, those standards have not been promulgated.
The composite score must be a significant factor in employment decisions, including, but not limited to, promotion, retention, tenure, termination, and supplemental compensation. The APPR composite score will result in teachers and principals receiving a rating of either: (1) Highly Effective; (2) Effective; (3) Developing; or (4) Ineffective. In connection with this rating system, Districts are required to create Teacher Improvement Plans (“TIP”) and Principal Improvement Plans (“PIP”) for those teachers and principals who receive ratings of either Developing or Ineffective. Two consecutive annual ratings of “Ineffective,” will be deemed to establish a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance” which may be a basis for just cause removal of a teacher or principal.
From a labor relations perspective, one of the more controversial aspects of 3012-c is the requirement of a locally developed (negotiated) appeals process under which the teacher or principal has the right to challenge the substance of the evaluation, adherence to standards and procedures for reviews, and implementation of a TIP/PIP. In fact, evaluations conducted pursuant to 3012-c cannot even be introduced during a disciplinary proceeding under Section 3020-a of the Education Law prior the expiration of the appeals process.
The legislation also establishes an expedited Section 3020-a disciplinary process for teachers and principals charged with demonstrating a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance.” The expedited process requires completion of the hearing before a single hearing officer within sixty (60) days of the pre-hearing conference. When a tenured teacher is charged with a “pattern of ineffective teaching or performance” the District must establish that it has negotiated and agreed to a TIP/PIP applicable to that individual.
All collective bargaining agreements covering teachers and building principals entered into after July 1, 2010 must be consistent with 3012-c. Those provisions of collective bargaining agreements that were entered into prior to July 1, 2010 and conflict with 3012-c remain in effect until a successor agreement is entered into, at which time the parties must negotiate over the issues implicated by 3012-c.
http://www.nylaborandemploymentlawreport.com/admin/trackback/226514
Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC
One Lincoln Center
Syracuse, NY 13202
Phone:
(315) 218-8000
Fax:
(315) 218-8100
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Julie Cavanagh: Behavior Modification of Joel Klein
Wagging My Finger While My Boss Wags The Dog
by Julie Cavanagh, Huffington Post
LINK
I recently found myself reflecting on a class I took in college that examined emotional and behavioral disabilities. One of the behavior modification methods discussed was pointing one's finger as a visual reinforcer in tandem with a verbal reinforcer being given to a child. I remember being outraged by this, "who wags their finger at a child?" I queried. Fast forward 11 years later, and I probably wag my finger on a daily basis. Although my repertoire of behavior modification techniques includes positive reinforcement and other tricks, a simple, "No, no," along with a slight finger wag, sends a brief, but easily understood message to my students.
As surprised as I have been to find myself wagging my finger to correct a thrown toy or an excited push for the jungle gym, I was even more surprised this month to find myself wagging my finger at New York City Schools' Chancellor Joel Klein.
At this month's Panel for Educational Policy (The Panel has replaced the old Board of Education here in New York City under Mayoral Control) Chancellor Klein engaged in an exchange with panel member, Patrick Sullivan, regarding the merit of Mr. Klein's focus on charter schools at a time when all of the data is showing charters are not the panacea Klein and other "reformers" make them out to be. This was particularly relevant because this meeting was to focus on changes to Chancellor's Regulation A-190. This regulation governs the closure of a school or a co-location of a charter school within a public school building.
Mr. Sullivan questioned Mr. Klein's gusto for charter schools and alerted the Panel and the public to the facts:
1.Klein and Bloomberg's own school report card accountability system shows NYC public schools dramatically outperform charters in the city.
2.Two of lionized charter school founder Geoffrey Canada's schools received C's on the school report cards.
3.Ross Global Academy, a DOE authorized charter, received an F, and is dead last out of every school in the city.
4.While charters may have long waiting lists, as Mr. Klein noted, those lists are manufactured with millions in marketing dollars, money siphoned away from students.
5.Only one in five charters perform better than public schools; that means the vast majority do not.
Mr. Klein postured that, "... the debate between district schools and charter schools is a false one," and that anyone who engages in this debate is, "... just playing politics." He went on to say that good schools should be replicated, regardless of whether they are public or charter. To a person who may not be intimately associated with Chancellor Klein's policies and ideology, these may sound like benign statements. But, to those of us who have been the victims of his misguided infatuation with charter schools, these statements were astounding. His actions, sadly, have not and do not support this message.
My school was forced to co-locate with a charter school three years ago. The co-location has been nothing short of a disaster that has drained our resources in a myriad of ways. What is most troubling, is that my school is an "A" school, according to Klein's school report cards, and performs better than 95 percent of elementary schools in New York City by every measure. So, during public comment time, I had no choice but to approach the microphone, raise my finger, and explain to Chancellor Klein and the Panel that I had taught all day, took three trains to the Bronx to attend the meeting, and could guarantee that neither my interest nor my motivation was politics. I further pointed out to Mr. Klein that if his statements were true, he would be supporting and replicating the great accomplishments of my school, but instead, he is squeezing us out of our own building, stifling our growth, subordinating our students, and limiting our programs and services in favor of an untested charter school, that by the way, is run by the son of a hedge-fund billionaire who has donated millions to the school reform projects Mr. Klein holds dear. I charged, "That, is politics."
As I walked away (and retracted my finger), I thought to myself, "Did I just really wag my finger at Mr. Klein?" After all, he is for intents and purposes my boss. I rationalized; when I say, "No, no," with a finger wag, my students generally stop their undesirable behavior, perhaps Mr. Klein will take a cue from the students he is charged with serving.
For eight years public school educators, parents and students in New York City have suffered through the hallmarks of the neo-liberal education reform movement; we have been inundated with Mr. Klein's endless pro-charter rhetoric, we have watched obscene amounts of our money poured into so-called accountability measures and ill-planned restructuring, all while slashing our school based budgets and demonizing teachers and their union.
To "wag the dog" is to divert attention from what is really happening onto something else, often divisionary, rooted in crisis, or irrelevant to the real facts. To "wag the finger" is to point out an error in judgment so that the behavior might cease. I can only hope that wagging my finger at Mr. Klein while he wags the metaphorical dog might bring a level of awareness that could stop the misinformation madness that is causing the miseducation of our youth. The truth is, while Mr. Klein is charged with improving our public schools, he is slowly but surely undermining and dismantling them. You need only to look at my school to know the truth; with little to no support from Mr. Klein our teachers, staff, students and families are doing their best and getting it right, while our chancellor allows our current and future programs to be diminished and compromised by a charter school invasion.
by Julie Cavanagh, Huffington Post
LINK
I recently found myself reflecting on a class I took in college that examined emotional and behavioral disabilities. One of the behavior modification methods discussed was pointing one's finger as a visual reinforcer in tandem with a verbal reinforcer being given to a child. I remember being outraged by this, "who wags their finger at a child?" I queried. Fast forward 11 years later, and I probably wag my finger on a daily basis. Although my repertoire of behavior modification techniques includes positive reinforcement and other tricks, a simple, "No, no," along with a slight finger wag, sends a brief, but easily understood message to my students.
As surprised as I have been to find myself wagging my finger to correct a thrown toy or an excited push for the jungle gym, I was even more surprised this month to find myself wagging my finger at New York City Schools' Chancellor Joel Klein.
1.Klein and Bloomberg's own school report card accountability system shows NYC public schools dramatically outperform charters in the city.
2.Two of lionized charter school founder Geoffrey Canada's schools received C's on the school report cards.
3.Ross Global Academy, a DOE authorized charter, received an F, and is dead last out of every school in the city.
4.While charters may have long waiting lists, as Mr. Klein noted, those lists are manufactured with millions in marketing dollars, money siphoned away from students.
5.Only one in five charters perform better than public schools; that means the vast majority do not.
Mr. Klein postured that, "... the debate between district schools and charter schools is a false one," and that anyone who engages in this debate is, "... just playing politics." He went on to say that good schools should be replicated, regardless of whether they are public or charter. To a person who may not be intimately associated with Chancellor Klein's policies and ideology, these may sound like benign statements. But, to those of us who have been the victims of his misguided infatuation with charter schools, these statements were astounding. His actions, sadly, have not and do not support this message.
My school was forced to co-locate with a charter school three years ago. The co-location has been nothing short of a disaster that has drained our resources in a myriad of ways. What is most troubling, is that my school is an "A" school, according to Klein's school report cards, and performs better than 95 percent of elementary schools in New York City by every measure. So, during public comment time, I had no choice but to approach the microphone, raise my finger, and explain to Chancellor Klein and the Panel that I had taught all day, took three trains to the Bronx to attend the meeting, and could guarantee that neither my interest nor my motivation was politics. I further pointed out to Mr. Klein that if his statements were true, he would be supporting and replicating the great accomplishments of my school, but instead, he is squeezing us out of our own building, stifling our growth, subordinating our students, and limiting our programs and services in favor of an untested charter school, that by the way, is run by the son of a hedge-fund billionaire who has donated millions to the school reform projects Mr. Klein holds dear. I charged, "That, is politics."
As I walked away (and retracted my finger), I thought to myself, "Did I just really wag my finger at Mr. Klein?" After all, he is for intents and purposes my boss. I rationalized; when I say, "No, no," with a finger wag, my students generally stop their undesirable behavior, perhaps Mr. Klein will take a cue from the students he is charged with serving.
For eight years public school educators, parents and students in New York City have suffered through the hallmarks of the neo-liberal education reform movement; we have been inundated with Mr. Klein's endless pro-charter rhetoric, we have watched obscene amounts of our money poured into so-called accountability measures and ill-planned restructuring, all while slashing our school based budgets and demonizing teachers and their union.
To "wag the dog" is to divert attention from what is really happening onto something else, often divisionary, rooted in crisis, or irrelevant to the real facts. To "wag the finger" is to point out an error in judgment so that the behavior might cease. I can only hope that wagging my finger at Mr. Klein while he wags the metaphorical dog might bring a level of awareness that could stop the misinformation madness that is causing the miseducation of our youth. The truth is, while Mr. Klein is charged with improving our public schools, he is slowly but surely undermining and dismantling them. You need only to look at my school to know the truth; with little to no support from Mr. Klein our teachers, staff, students and families are doing their best and getting it right, while our chancellor allows our current and future programs to be diminished and compromised by a charter school invasion.
Friday, October 15, 2010
From Hal Lanse: I Received No Help From Mike Mulgrew, UFT President
Mulgrew Gives Rank and File the Cold Shoulder
by Hal Lanse
Here’s the update on my case. First, I have requested that Michael Mulgrew, UFT President become personally involved in my case. His office has read my request, but Mr. Mulgrew has elected to respond with silence. Since this test case has implications for the entire teaching force, Mulgrew has in essence given the entire rank and file the cold shoulder.
There was a step 1 grievance which was a joke. The so-called supervisor (the one who took two weeks to introduce herself to me) now knows that she has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement. She has proceeded to suspend my pay and health care.
Oh sure, the UFT will go through the standard grievance process but here’s the problem: By permitting the DOE to allow this procedure to move at the typical snail’s pace the Union (or what’s left of it) has given tacit approval to a dangerous precedent. In the future, we may no longer see the 3020a process—which teachers are permitted by law. Instead, teachers will be illegally terminated without pay. How many of us can last a year or more without pay and without health care? We will be forced to resign in order to take lower paying jobs (if any are available) just to have some money coming in. And how many of us can afford private lawyers to litigate?
Do you see? By taking a hands-off approach, the UFT President has in effect given away your right to due process. If you are outraged, email him and tell him so. And I’d appreciate a copy of your email just so I can know if anyone takes this as seriously as I do. Mulgrew’s email is:
mmulgrew@uft.org.
From Betsy Combier:
Another teacher called Leroy Barr and told him that she has been in a rubber room since December 2009, without any charges and no notice of an investigation by either the SCI or OSI. She asked what she could do to get back to her school. The answer: "Sorry, we can't help you".
By the way, Mr. Mulgrew, why were you removed from Grady High School in 2004 and moved to the UFT, along with teacher Eva Mendez? Please let me know.
Thanks,
Betsy
Here is the previous email from Mr. Lanse:
Email from Hal Lanse, former Rubber Room teacher at 501 Courtlandt Avenue in the Bronx:
After blowing the whistle on my principal and contacting the Daily News after he ordered teachers to falsify grades, I was hit with false charges and sent to the rubber room for the better part of a year. Although my case was dismissed in August the DOE refused to honor their agreement to make me an ATR. They have kept me in a rubber room at 1 Fordham Plaza. (Yes, there ARE still rubber rooms!) My agreement with the DOE was that I'd become an ATR. The DOE's agreement with the UFT stipulates that teachers like me should be sent back to our schools. None of this has happened. I was given no work for two weeks until I fell asleep on a couch. (I refused to sit in the corner as ordered. My lawyer says this is corporal punishment.)
Then, I was given a few menial tasks like collating papers and stuffing folders with papers. I refused, however, when the DOE stooped to ordering me to put paper clips on stacks of papers. (A job that can be done in seconds by the office coy machine.) I pointed out that my contract stipulated a particular job: ATR--a substitute teacher.
Last week, my supervisor yelled at me in front of other to "Get back to your seat, NOW"; and when she followed this up the next day by closing the distance between us when I said to her "I don't want to be verbally harassed again; please move away from me," I filed a complaint. The DOE refused to log-in the complaint, so I followed the UFT's advice and called the police.
The result: More retaliation. I have been suspended without pay just five weeks before going on terminal leave. The DOE cited no law or regulations allowing them to do this. Below is my letter to Michael Mulgrew regarding this matter. This suspension has citywide and possibly national implications.
If you think Mulgrew's reacting should be swift and strong contact him and tell him so.
Dear Michael Mulgrew,
I am involved in a situation that is so unprecedented it could put an end to due process as we know it. I have been suspended without pay even though the DOE failed to cite any law or regulation justifying such an action. I believe this is a test case. If the situation is allowed to stand then the DOE can argue in the future that the UFT has given tacit approval of this action and has set a precedent by failing to protest. I believe that we will see the 3020a process replaced by blanket, open-ended, unpaid suspensions.
I am asking you to personally handle my case. I am scheduled to meet tomorrow (Tuesday) at 3 PM with Bronx Special Rep. David Kazansky. Can you please attend?
Fraternally,
Hal Lanse
by Hal Lanse
Here’s the update on my case. First, I have requested that Michael Mulgrew, UFT President become personally involved in my case. His office has read my request, but Mr. Mulgrew has elected to respond with silence. Since this test case has implications for the entire teaching force, Mulgrew has in essence given the entire rank and file the cold shoulder.
There was a step 1 grievance which was a joke. The so-called supervisor (the one who took two weeks to introduce herself to me) now knows that she has violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement. She has proceeded to suspend my pay and health care.
Oh sure, the UFT will go through the standard grievance process but here’s the problem: By permitting the DOE to allow this procedure to move at the typical snail’s pace the Union (or what’s left of it) has given tacit approval to a dangerous precedent. In the future, we may no longer see the 3020a process—which teachers are permitted by law. Instead, teachers will be illegally terminated without pay. How many of us can last a year or more without pay and without health care? We will be forced to resign in order to take lower paying jobs (if any are available) just to have some money coming in. And how many of us can afford private lawyers to litigate?
Do you see? By taking a hands-off approach, the UFT President has in effect given away your right to due process. If you are outraged, email him and tell him so. And I’d appreciate a copy of your email just so I can know if anyone takes this as seriously as I do. Mulgrew’s email is:
mmulgrew@uft.org.
From Betsy Combier:
Another teacher called Leroy Barr and told him that she has been in a rubber room since December 2009, without any charges and no notice of an investigation by either the SCI or OSI. She asked what she could do to get back to her school. The answer: "Sorry, we can't help you".
By the way, Mr. Mulgrew, why were you removed from Grady High School in 2004 and moved to the UFT, along with teacher Eva Mendez? Please let me know.
Thanks,
Betsy
Email from Hal Lanse, former Rubber Room teacher at 501 Courtlandt Avenue in the Bronx:
After blowing the whistle on my principal and contacting the Daily News after he ordered teachers to falsify grades, I was hit with false charges and sent to the rubber room for the better part of a year. Although my case was dismissed in August the DOE refused to honor their agreement to make me an ATR. They have kept me in a rubber room at 1 Fordham Plaza. (Yes, there ARE still rubber rooms!) My agreement with the DOE was that I'd become an ATR. The DOE's agreement with the UFT stipulates that teachers like me should be sent back to our schools. None of this has happened. I was given no work for two weeks until I fell asleep on a couch. (I refused to sit in the corner as ordered. My lawyer says this is corporal punishment.)
Then, I was given a few menial tasks like collating papers and stuffing folders with papers. I refused, however, when the DOE stooped to ordering me to put paper clips on stacks of papers. (A job that can be done in seconds by the office coy machine.) I pointed out that my contract stipulated a particular job: ATR--a substitute teacher.
Last week, my supervisor yelled at me in front of other to "Get back to your seat, NOW"; and when she followed this up the next day by closing the distance between us when I said to her "I don't want to be verbally harassed again; please move away from me," I filed a complaint. The DOE refused to log-in the complaint, so I followed the UFT's advice and called the police.
The result: More retaliation. I have been suspended without pay just five weeks before going on terminal leave. The DOE cited no law or regulations allowing them to do this. Below is my letter to Michael Mulgrew regarding this matter. This suspension has citywide and possibly national implications.
If you think Mulgrew's reacting should be swift and strong contact him and tell him so.
Dear Michael Mulgrew,
I am involved in a situation that is so unprecedented it could put an end to due process as we know it. I have been suspended without pay even though the DOE failed to cite any law or regulation justifying such an action. I believe this is a test case. If the situation is allowed to stand then the DOE can argue in the future that the UFT has given tacit approval of this action and has set a precedent by failing to protest. I believe that we will see the 3020a process replaced by blanket, open-ended, unpaid suspensions.
I am asking you to personally handle my case. I am scheduled to meet tomorrow (Tuesday) at 3 PM with Bronx Special Rep. David Kazansky. Can you please attend?
Fraternally,
Hal Lanse
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)