From The Washington Post: Can the Unions And The D.C. School System Keep Poor Teachers Out Of The Classroom?

When Randi Weingarten hired me to  work at the UFT, she asked me to help any member that needed assistance, and she also  asked me to find out why members were in the "rubber room", what was their 'story'. Most, but not all, of the people I spoke with on a daily basis were the teachers labelled "incompetent, sexual perverts, thieves, and rogues of all sorts who were sitting in the 7 (then 8) Temporary Re-Assignment Centers (TRCs) or "rubber rooms" located throughout New York City. These people were targets of principals who were empowered to do whatever they wanted in their schools....including getting rid of 'garbage' like expensive employees with senior status who were paid high salaries. Why pay someone that amount of money ($80,000-100,000) when you could get two young, vulnerable newbies for the same price? This is not new information, and I dont need to repeat why this has nothing whatsoever to do with children, academic achievement, success for all. What I needed to do was find out how each member ended up re-assigned, what event or non-compliance with a rule, regulation, or law, placed X or Y in the re-assigned location.

The point I want to make, and will make in my book on the Rubber Rooms and the 3020-a Arbitration process, is that we all need to look at how the labelling/judgment of people as "poor" or "incompetent" happens, and what changes need to be made relative to the way that false claims against a person's character, career, life, etc. are accepted at face value and become 'fact'. I have spoken to some of my daughters' teachers who, in my opinion, are the best in the classrooms of New York City. One person whose story I will write about shortly was thrown out of my youngest daughter's school, NEST, after years of harassment. He sued Dr. Olga Livanis, the Principal, won his case, and now is back doing the excellent job that he was always doing. When he came to my office  at the UFT he was angry and bitter, which is understandable, and vowed to get his job back, which he did, but underneath all of the words was a speck of self-doubt. He was not able to ignore the fact that the principal found him intolerable, and this ate away at his self-esteem. I was very saddened by this (I'm one of his biggest fans) however I see this all the time - teachers labelled miscreants for any reason end up sometimes believing the lie. They give up, settle, go to  the job market with "Ineligible/No Hire List" on their resume and act as if somehow there was some truth behind it, and never are able to shake the label that they are, indeed, in some way, garbage.

Whether someone is indeed "incompetent" necessitates the application of facts gathered by means of a thorough investigation conducted by a neutral person in good faith. This fact-finding is time-consuming, but the only basis upon which labels of "poor", "incompetent", "pervert" or other label can have any value.

Thus I have a problem with the title of the article in the Washington Post below. Of course no parent or school administrator wants a "poor" teacher. But who defines this word? Why?

Betsy Combier

Can the unions and D.C. school system keep poor teachers out of the classroom?

Editorial, The Washington Post
Friday, February 18, 2011; 8:14 PM
LINK

WE GET IT. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten and Washington Teachers' Union President Nathan Saunders really don't like former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle A. Rhee. That was apparent in their response to our criticism of an arbitrator's ruling reinstating 75 probationary teachers dismissed from the school system two years ago. But their critique of Ms. Rhee - what they called her "my way or the highway" style - doesn't address the core issue: that these teachers needed to be fired. Nor did it answer the question of why a union that purports to have no tolerance for low-performing teachers would fight to return to the classroom teachers so problematic that even the arbitrator acknowledged that their conduct warranted termination.

D.C. school officials are determining the best way to deal with the Feb. 7 ruling by arbitrator Charles Feigenbaum ordering back pay and reinstatement of teachers who, he determined, were denied due process. At issue was the system's failure to give exact reasons why the teachers were not being recommended by their principals for tenure. Ms. Rhee has said the process was in keeping with city law and guidance from the system's legal team. Interestingly, the local union had had some inkling of how the system planned to proceed when hiring letters were sent to the teachers but, according to testimony provided to the arbitrator, didn't object because the letters were sent to people before they were part of the bargaining unit.

Clearly, in hindsight, the specific reasons should have been spelled out because the thought of reemploying this group - which ran the gamut from teachers chronically AWOL to those neglectful, even abusive, of students - is frightening. We also don't think Ms. Weingarten is wrong when she argues the need for teachers to have information about their performance, although we suspect the teacher who had been repeatedly warned about playing DVDs in class and his use of inappropriate language with students must have had some inkling things weren't going well. Ditto the teacher who received a "Needs Improvement" rating for the year and had a habit of calling in sick on Mondays and Fridays.

The critical question is what happens next. School officials seem leery of an appeal because of what they see as a propensity for the public employee relations board to find in favor of labor. Another avenue being explored is bringing back the teachers and then firing them, this time detailing the reasons. Here's another idea: Why don't Mr. Saunders and Ms. Weingarten - who both say they don't countenance poor teachers - try to work out an agreement with school officials to achieve that goal instead of refighting old battles about the long-gone Ms. Rhee?

Rhee's firing of 75 D.C. teachers in 2008 was improper, arbitrator says

By Bill Turque, Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, February 9, 2011
LINK

An independent arbitrator says that the District must reinstate 75 new teachers fired by then-D.C. schools chancellor Michelle A. Rhee during their probationary period in 2008, ruling that the dismissals were improper because they were not told the reasons why.

The ruling, issued Monday by Charles Feigenbaum, was narrowly cast. It said the school system had the right to fire teachers during their two-year probationary period if they had received negative recommendations from school principals. Feigenbaum said the "glaring and fatal flaw" in Rhee's action was that the teachers were not given reasons for their terminations.

"They had no opportunity to provide their side of the story," Feigenbaum wrote.

D.C. schools spokesman Frederick Lewis said that the District was "reviewing its options to appeal or challenge the arbitrator's decision and has not come to any decision about further litigation."

Rhee could not be reached for comment Tuesday.

The 75 teachers were part of the approximately 1,000 educators fired during Rhee's 31/2-year tenure, which ended with her resignation in October. Of the total, 266 were laid off in October 2009 for budgetary reasons, about 200 were dismissed because of poor performance, and the rest were on probation or did not have licensing required by the No Child Left Behind law.

Feigenbaum ordered the District to make a 60-day good-faith effort to find the fired teachers and offer them reinstatement in an appropriate job. He also ordered that they be made financially whole. Union officials estimate the back-pay award could amount to $7.5 million - a considerable sum for the cash-strapped District.

Lewis said the cash awards would be offset by any earnings since the day of termination.

Nathan Saunders, president of the Washington Teachers' Union, said the arbitrator's decision is affirmation that Rhee's aggressive approach to firing teachers was counterproductive and illegal.

"This argument that Michelle Rhee-style terminations en masse improve the quality of education is unfounded and expensive for the government when it acts in this fashion," Saunders said.

Probationary employees generally are considered to have fewer workplace protections than those with permanent status. But the collective bargaining agreement that was in place at the time of the firings made no distinction between the dismissal of probationary and tenured teachers.

Feigenbaum said that the city and the union had "a long unbroken practice" of following the same procedures for dismissing permanent and probationary educators, which required a negative recommendation from a school principal.

Before Rhee's arrival, it was rare for teachers from either group to be fired for performance issues.

Under the labor contract ratified in June, all teachers are subject to the IMPACT evaluation system, which stipulates that teachers receiving a "minimally effective" rating for two consecutive years face dismissal.
 
New WTU Pres. Nathan Saunders: 'It's been all teacher blood' on the floor

By Bill Turque, Washington Post

Space and time limitations kept me--as they often do--from including as much as I wanted in today's story about new WTU president Nathan Saunders. So here's a bit more.

Saunders, 45, is the son of a bricklayer, born in the Washington Highlands neighborhood of Southeast D.C. His name first surfaced in The Washington Post in the summer of 1981 as a 16-year-old intern for D.C. Council member Wilhelmina Rolark (D-Ward 8). According to the story, Saunders was trying to organize support for an extension of the Voting Rights Act. Standing near the corner of Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. and Portland Street S.E., he told a group of voting-age adults: "If you don't vote, it's just like you're a slave standing in a cotton field. You don't have any say in what happens."

Saunders attended Catholic elementary and secondary schools before graduating from Morehouse College with a business degree. He worked as an accountant and in real estate and economic development before beginning his education career--first as a volunteer teaching chess at the old Phelps Vocational High School and then as a government teacher at Anacostia High School in the late 1990s. Saunders said his union activism began when a colleague's grievance was ignored by the WTU. Looking at the union financial reports with an accountant's eye, he said it became apparent that the numbers under president Barbara Bullock didn't add up.

Bullock eventually pled guilty to conspiracy and other charges in the theft of $4.6 million in union funds from 1995 to 2002 and served five years in federal prison. Saunders filed a civil suit charging that WTU and the American Federation of Teachers failed to oversee union finances and spending. He was elected general vice president in 2005, part of a reform ticket that included George Parker, the union president he unseated this week.

He holds a masters degree from the National Labor College and completed Harvard Law School's six-week Trade Union Program for labor leaders. His wife, Chandrai Jackson-Saunders, is a school psychologist for DCPS and the daughter of former WTU president Jimmie Jackson. They have a son who is a senior at Roosevelt High School.

Here are more excerpts from our conversation Wednesday afternoon, edited for clarity and length:

BT: When I talked to George Parker last week I asked what he expected if you won. He said gridlock and confrontation.

NS: I've got more skills to solve problems than practically any president that's ever run WTU. I also have formalized training in problem resolution. My masters is in negotiation and management....Part of the Harvard Trade Union Program is conflict management. And so I think I have some unique skills to solve problems.

BT: There is a segment of the DCPS community that sees your election as a setback.

NS: No, absolutely not. My election indicates that WTU will be up and running and fully functioning and contributing to real public school dialogue and success. The fact of the matter is that public school reform to a large extent under the former mayor and the former chancellor did not involve the community and teachers very successfully. I can say to you that I will not sit by idly while policies and practices are instituted that do not involve the teachers and the community. I'm going to be very proactive, not reactive, in involving the community and teachers in public school reform. So in that regard it's positive. Now if you don't want any community input and you don't want any teacher input, then [my election] could be viewed as a negative.

BT: You framed your victory as one for job security and union democracy. What was absent was any mention of the interests of students.

NS: What's good for teachers is often times good, very good, for students. Empowering teachers is also a method of empowering students. I argue that the best teachers are empowered teachers. That's what I tried to do as a classroom teacher. I saw in my students a sense of pride and a sense of personal growth and development when I was dealing with the Bullock scandal and dealing with my union. When they saw me in the newspaper and they saw me speaking publicly about issues of education, they were proud....I taught social justice. Rev. Al Sharpton co-taught my government class with me during [his] presidential campaign. So students are important. But I'm not afraid to talk about teacher empowerment. The union serves three primary functions: compensation, negotiation and working conditions. Members pay to be in the union. Under the law you are required to represent those interests and that's what I do and I'm proud of that. It doesn't mean that I don't represent student interests, though. I believe that often times the best way to get an excellent finished product is to represent the worker who has to complete the finished product.

BT: So it would be a mistake to assume there will be a new period of confrontation and conflict?

NS: Absolutely. Listen, today I begin to build my legacy as president of the WTU. I get nowhere with confrontation. Nowhere at all. But whenever confrontation will lead me to progress for the people I represent, I will engage in confrontation. But confrontation is not the first order business. Getting the job done is the first order of business. At the same time, when your opponent understands that you're not afraid to go to the mat, you don't have to go to the mat quite as often. But what we've experienced in the last three years is a lot of blood on the floor, and it's been all teacher blood.

BT: Tell me as succinctly as you can your biggest issues with IMPACT.

NS: My biggest issue with IMPACT is that it causes teachers to be unnecessarily stressed about a job which requires a tremendous amount of creativity. I think my problem with IMPACT is that it requires teachers' careers to be jeopardized for factors that they have absolutely no control over, which include poverty, health care and dysfunctional homes.

BT: So if you had Harry Potter's wand what would you do to IMPACT? How would you change it to make it fair?

NS: I don't feel responsible to change it to make it fair. What I feel responsible for is to help create a system that yields fair results for the people that it judges....that is not punitive and cannot be easily manipulated by individuals with nefarious intent.

BT: You think the whole thing needs to be re-thought?

NS: It should be in its entirety, absolutely.

BT: In an evaluation instrument [that you consider] fair to teachers, is there any place for value-added methodology? Taking students' previous year's test scores, developing a predictive model for how they should do the next year and then measuring that against how they ultimately perform?

NS: Teachers do that every day. I did in the classroom. It's called pre-test and post-test....I love testing in the European model, which is that they test for determining a baseline, not for purposes of punishing.

BT: So you don't believe that value-added should be used, if it's used at all, for high-stakes decisions like hiring and firing?

NS: Absolutely. Now that's a fact. But I believe it can and should be used, but it is only as one of many evaluation tools.

BT: There's a legal barrier you face in that IMPACT cannot be collectively bargained.

NS: Ever seen a law you couldn't change? All you have to do is have the will. All you have to do is build a movement around an issue and change public opinion. You show merit in your ideas. That to me is very exciting.

BT: Before IMPACT, before Michelle Rhee, the vast majority of teachers got "meets expectations" or "exceeds expectations" on their evaluations. Yet the school district had a really abysmal record of academic achievement. There's a disconnect there that people find hard to justify.

NS: I find it hard to justify that in one of the most educated cities, probably the most educated city in America, and one of the most affluent cities, one third of our children live in poverty. I find that more appalling.

BT: Basically the Rhee reality is, "We know there's poverty, that there's family dysfunction and health issues. We can't do anything about that. All we can control is what is in the classroom. And we can't use that as an excuse any more. But you're in a different place.

NS: Absolutely. And let's understand why I'm in a different place. I believe that the Rhee reality you just described helps allow those conditions to exist. Because they take the pressure off society to focus on them...We do a disservice to children whenever we allow the government or others to discount the fact that crime exists in these communities and we say it doesn't matter...It does matter. That's the social justice aspect of education.

Rhee didn't play by the rules

By Randi Weingarten and Nathan A. Saunders, Washington
LINK

The Feb. 11 editorial “What does it take to fire a teacher?” was quick to question why arbitrator Charles Feigenbaum would reinstate 75 “bad teachers.” It sadly and predictably missed the most important point of the ruling. Mr. Feigenbaum made clear that former D.C. schools chancellor Michelle Rhee never told fired teachers why they were dismissed. She ran a secret black box program when it came to firing the teachers, saying, “Trust me, I know best.” She found it acceptable to dismiss 75 teachers without providing notice, reason, opportunity to demonstrate remediation or opportunity to be heard.

This is yet another glaring example of why her “my way or the highway” management style was not good for students or teachers. The consequences of this style continue to create great injustice within our system — for our community’s children and for those who work to make a difference every day in our children’s lives.

Ms. Rhee often believed she was above the rules. Thankfully, an arbitrator reminded her — and all of us — that no matter who we are, we must play by the rules.

The writers are, respectively, president of the American Federation of Teachers and president of the Washington Teachers’ Union.

The Nation: Labor's Last Stand

Labor's Last Stand

Jane McAlevey, The Nation, February 16, 2011
LINK

Emboldened by November’s election results, corporations and their right-wing allies have launched what they hope will be their final offensive against America’s unions. Their immediate target is government workers’ unions. While New Jersey’s Republican Governor Chris Christie has gained national fame by beating up on public school teachers, the threat to unionized workers is playing out in all fifty states, to the drumbeat in the media about states going broke because of government workers’ wages, pensions and benefits. By late January, with the swearing-in ceremonies complete in the twenty-one states where Republicans have a “trifecta,” controlling the governor’s office and both statehouses, hundreds of bills had been introduced seeking to hem in unions if not ban them altogether. On February 11, Wisconsin’s new Republican Governor Scott Walker made what amounts to a declaration of all-out war on public sector workers in his historically progressive state, moving to deprive them of the very right to bargain collectively on matters essential to their economic security.

Walker’s gambit has rightly elicited outrage, but considering the breadth of the attack unions are facing nationally, it is only the tip of the iceberg. Right-to-work legislation has been filed in twelve states; this is in addition to the twenty-two that already have such laws on the books. In technical terms, this legislation makes it illegal for employers to condition employment on union membership or the equivalent dues payments even when a majority of workers vote to form a union; practically speaking, it makes building and maintaining a strong union very difficult, which in turn makes it harder to organize new workplaces because there are few positive examples of unions to point to. In Virginia, the corporations and right-wing ideologues decided that the existing right-to-work law wasn’t sufficient, and introduced a measure to embed the right-to-work provisions in the state Constitution. Three more states—Montana, Ohio and Wisconsin—are expected to have bills introduced converting their legal status to right-to-work.

Alabama passed legislation in January that bans public employee unions from collecting dues unless the unions first prove that none of the money will be used for supporting election campaigns. In every subsequent year after the initial certification, the union must submit itemized reports accounting for how its money is being spent. This law, sold as “paycheck protection” by the right but known as “paycheck deception” among union activists, has been introduced in four other states this year, including Arizona, Kansas, Mississippi and Missouri. In California there has already been ballot initiative language submitted to do the same. Using a variety of legal tools, these measures prohibit the use of union dues for political activity. Union advocates are expecting twelve more states to file bills or initiatives banning the collection of union monies for politics.

Building and construction unions are facing their own daunting lineup of bills that would gut prevailing wage laws and what are known as Project Labor Agreements (PLAs). These measures facilitate collective bargaining and the division of labor for unionized construction jobs, particularly construction jobs with public financing. In twenty states there is legislation expected to ban PLAs. In Iowa the new governor, Terry Branstad, was so excited to take up the challenge, he undid PLAs with his first executive order. The new governor of Ohio, John Kasich, has pledged to eliminate prevailing wage laws. It’s hard to say whether Missouri or Maine will beat him to his goal, though: Missouri’s legislation to ban prevailing wages has been introduced, and the new governor of Maine appointed the head of the building and construction industry organization to the position of state legislative director, a sure sign that he’s serious about eliminating such laws. The AFL-CIO says it anticipates anti–prevailing wage laws in fifteen states.

It is government workers, however, who face attacks in every state. Teacher tenure is being targeted in five states: New Jersey, Nevada, Indiana, Idaho and Florida. Laws that would allow parents, by petition, to “trigger” an entire school district to move to charter schools or to voucher programs are expected in at least eleven states. States that are considering either weakening or removing entirely the ability of public sector workers to bargain collectively include not only Wisconsin but Ohio, South Dakota, Colorado, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Oklahoma. Measures to dismantle benefits for government workers are expected in some form in all fifty states. Newt Gingrich and Jeb Bush, meanwhile, are pushing to allow states to declare bankruptcy, which would enable them to break their agreements that cover the pensions of hundreds of thousands of retired government workers. On top of all this, President Obama has called for a freeze on federal workers’ pay.

At the same time, a push to privatize public assets and services is mounting, posing a dire threat to public workers. Groups like In the Public Interest (inthepublicinterest.org [1]) are working to hold back the privatization tide, but the momentum is on the other side. Donald Cohen, the group’s chair, notes a recent shift in the nature of the opposition. “The entire world of public administration is being driven by a new cartel of consulting firms who offer their services to elected leaders—peddling themselves as efficiency experts,” he says, explaining that these firms are increasingly playing the role that used to be filled by right-wing think tanks. “They are accounting firms, law firms and more who promote privatization, and they make money for completing the deal. And yet it has very little to do with efficiency and probably nothing to do with actually improving public services.”

It isn’t as if these types of attacks on unions are new; what’s different is their scale, intensity and real possibility of success. After outspending unions in November’s election by an estimated 4-to-1 margin, corporations and their allies are exploiting the fiscal crises across the nation to drive a stake into the heart of what is left of organized labor—public workers’ unions. According to the just-released Bureau of Labor Statistics annual report for 2010, the overall union membership rate in America continued its slide, dropping from 12.3 percent to 11.9 percent. But perhaps most striking is the way unionization is skewed when comparing private sector workers, who are just 6.9 percent unionized, and public sector workers, 36.2 percent of whom belong to unions. The public sector, in other words, is labor’s last stronghold.

Grover Norquist laid out a sort of blueprint for the current right-wing assault in the February 2001 American Spectator. Identifying labor unions as the first of “five pillars” of Democratic strength, he calculated that they “raise $8 billion a year from 16 million union members paying an average of $500 dues,” and outlined a game plan for destroying union power, key to the right’s larger mission of abolishing all regulations that impede its agenda, from environmental laws to occupational safety to affirmative action.

But, of course, the right’s campaign against labor has been decades in the making. In 1975 the overall unionization rate in the private sector was 25 percent. Thanks to the class war that has been waged since then—involving trade liberalization, radical reorganization of global finance rules, unionbusting, deindustrialization, rejiggered accounting rules and more—Norquist’s goal is now within reach for the right. According to union expert and author Bill Fletcher Jr., “There has been a three-decade campaign by the neoliberal Democrats and the right wing to destroy the base of the strength of the American middle class, which can be boiled down to unions and government regulation of corporate excess. As a result, unionization rates and corresponding pay and benefits now appear higher in the government sector, and the same forces are now attacking government workers’ unions.”

The irony, according to Janice Fine, professor at the Rutgers School of Management and Labor Relations, is that in the 1960s it was the private sector workers who earned more than their government counterparts. “Back then, the private sector unions helped the government workers get organized as part of a program to raise the standards for all workers,” she notes. Now, as Ed Ott, former director of the New York City Central Labor Council, puts it, “After thirty years of wage suppression in the private sector, big business wants to compare wages and benefits between the private sector and the government sector.” Republican presidential hopeful Tim Pawlenty did just that in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed. “Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt,” he wrote. These claims are distorted [see Robert Pollin and Jeffrey Thompson, “The Betrayal of Public Workers [2]”], but to the extent that public workers do enjoy hard-won union benefits, they have a target painted on their back.

The stakes for both political parties in this struggle are high, because where the campaign to gut public sector unions succeeds, Republicans will be poised for almost certain electoral gains. In general, across the nation, the lower the rate of unionization, the redder the state. And in the bluest states, the public sector dominates the union scene: in New York, for example, the most unionized state, the rate among government workers is 70.5 percent, next to 13.7 percent in the private sector. In California the unionization rate among government workers is 56.6 percent, compared with 9.3 percent among the private sector workforce.

There is a strong correlation, moreover, between red states, right-to-work laws, an overall worse quality of life for the average worker or poor person, and a more hostile climate for progressives, from environmentalists to civil rights activists. The average worker in a right-to-work state earns $5,333 less than his or her counterpart in a pro-worker state. Twenty-one percent more people lack health insurance. Late last year, immigration advocates anticipated Arizona-like measures in twenty-two states, eleven of which are controlled by Republicans. Of those, seven are right-to-work states. Not surprisingly, three that are not—Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana—are where the attack on government workers’ unions is the strongest.

Given the strategic importance of this fight, you would expect the progressive community to be rallying to mount a loud and vigorous counterattack. But the response has been anemic at best. Unions and progressives need to reset and develop a strategy quickly if they are to defend the ground they still hold, let alone recapture what has been lost. For almost forty years, the right has been systematically tearing apart the achievements of unions and social justice movements. The first challenge is to own up to the ways progressives and unions have failed to counter this onslaught.

Take the teachers unions. In the late 1960s they fought against community control of the New York City schools, sparking tension with the black community that lingers even now. As Fletcher argues, this rift is reflective of some of the deeper issues facing unions. “The AFT, at least until fairly recently, in confronting the attacks on public education, tended toward a very defensive posture. Rarely did they contextualize their fight as part of the larger fight to defend the public sector,” he explains. “Their fight almost had the appearance of being a fight to defend a particular craft under assault rather than to defend a key component of civilization.” As a result, Fletcher points out, neither the American Federation of Teachers nor the National Education Association has been able to assemble significant coalitions for education reform, and even in many progressive circles are seen—unfairly—as a hindrance to education rather than as a key champion.

Likewise, 1199/SEIU alienated progressives with its selfish dealmaking under former New York Governor George Pataki, a Republican. For example, when Blue Cross Blue Shield privatized, the healthcare workers union brazenly claimed the one-time windfall of money to pay for wage increases, in exchange for endorsing the man who was stepping on every other member of the traditional Democratic coalition.

The lukewarm support for unions generally and for government workers unions in particular in the progressive world is partly a legacy of such missteps by unions themselves. But in addition, there’s a more fundamental source of tension that is often ignored: most people who constitute the opinion-making class among liberals and progressives are upper middle class and mostly white. The progressives in academia and journalism, and the staff of most nonprofits from all movements, think tanks and foundations, are from a class that has little to no contact with unions. Even when there is an intellectual understanding of labor’s role in US history, there is often a lack of sympathy about the need for unions today. This is particularly true among liberal and progressive foundations, where support for unions is often a hot-button issue with boards of directors and top executives. Because these foundations represent the employer class for the social change movement, this has impeded the development of more effective strategies to counter the right-wing agenda.

Even among unions the fissures run deep. In New York, for example, where newly elected Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo has made slashing the state budget his single-minded mission, organized labor has not put up a united front against the cutbacks. The construction unions were especially eager to sell out the government workers unions for their own benefit. Ott explains how this works: “With the crashing economy, unemployment in the building trades in NYC is now somewhere in the 35 percent range, and some political entity comes along and says to the trades, ‘Hey, we will produce some jobs for your members on the capital side if you support us politically in this revenue fight.’”

This logic is not unusual for construction unions, which operate largely as craft unions—representing workers with a specific craft or skill, who have the ability to negotiate for themselves by withholding that skill. The construction unions have a long history of being an elitist labor force that has been used by politicians to split the union movement.

Rutgers’s Janice Fine says that overcoming divisions will take real work among unions. “When unionization rates and corresponding pay and benefits are so asymmetrical between the public and private sectors, unions have to take very deliberate steps to preserve solidarity,” she says, citing historical examples of public unions providing support to private sector unions by boycotting products, stores and companies, and supporting union products, banks and hotels. “This tradition is gone, and union members need to go back to consuming in a way that supports the unionized class. And private sector unions need to resist the short-term gain of undercutting public sector unions’ wages, benefits and pensions as it will only reinforce a race to the bottom that has no place for unions of any kind.”

The entire house of labor and all progressives must understand that we have not had a moment as threatening as this in our lifetime. The right is making the connections—attacking public employee unions and public services at the same time in order to wage complete war on the poor, people of color, and the working and middle classes of this country. Sadly, the left has not made the connections. To the extent that public sector unions, private sector unions and those fighting budget cuts allow themselves to be divided, they are playing into the right’s hands.

Assuming unions and progressives can focus on the enormity of the challenge before us, let’s review some of the tools and knowledge in our arsenal to defeat the antigovernment and antiunion offensive.

In Nevada, where I led a union that had been heavily dominated by public sector workers, we successfully beat back a divide-and-conquer unionbusting campaign waged by right-wing forces who had teamed up with the Democrats who led county government. In 2003 a Democratic county executive named Thom Reilly aligned with the Chamber of Commerce and the Nevada Taxpayers Union to produce a report that sounded the same themes as the current national campaign against government workers. In a media blitz, Reilly blasted public workers for earning more than their private sector counterparts. With a Democrat as the messenger, liberals were confused, including many union members.

In response, we set out first with a massive campaign to educate the rank and file about the coming attack. In the first year, we organized meetings with more than 2,000 government workers by designing an educational module distributed to almost every unionized facility at break times and shift changes. At every union meeting for two years, attention was directed to the economy; the class war against all workers; how the right had come first for private sector unions and now were coming for public sector unions; and the need to “draw a line in the desert” to raise expectations, so that workers could unite to reclaim what they deserved.

We talked openly and often about how, if the county executive wanted to point out the disparity in the pay of unionized government workers versus that of workers in the nonunionized private sector, he was right. But rather than accepting that government workers—including many people of color and women—who still had a decent job with the ability to retire should surrender what they had to the lowest common denominator, we challenged them to get behind two big initiatives. The first was to organize the private sector workers as fast as possible so that we could bring them up to the same standard. The second was to change the image of the government workers by making the quality of the government services reflect the highest standards possible. We wanted “government workers” to have a sort of Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval in the public’s mind.

We kept at these efforts over the next several years, and by the time the government workers arrived at their next round of collective bargaining, the county executive’s message—that county workers were overpaid compared with their private sector counterparts—had lost its force. For one thing, we had raised private sector standards through organizing and negotiating strong contracts. In fact, in a two-year period, the private sector hospital workers went from wages and benefits far below those at the big public hospital to wages higher than and benefits catching up to those of government workers. And through it all, we elevated an internal education campaign and external message framed around the American Dream—who had stolen it and how the way to bring it back was by organizing, bargaining and setting higher standards for all workers. It was crucial that despite lots of strains, union solidarity held together to beat back one ballot initiative after another that sought to all but eliminate the already small tax base in Nevada.

We also took on the libertarian contempt for government that was so popular in Nevada—which was prominently displayed in hateful editorial cartoons like those that are now common in states like New Jersey, depicting government workers as fat, lazy, overpaid bureaucrats. We did this in part by engaging the members in a newly designed training program for union stewards aimed at reshaping the grievance process for a union whose workers perform services for the community rather than assembly line work on a machine. But it was only after thousands of conversations that we were able to help workers—even government workers—overcome their suspicions of government.

We know that Americans are predisposed to be more suspicious of government than they are of unions. Union organizer Fernando Gapasin, co-author of Solidarity Divided, says, “Karl Rove did an analysis of the core values of Americans, and he took that individualism is one core idea. For a lot of people this translates to the corporations as the highest form of someone’s individual aspirations. For a lot of people individual responsibility and individual achievement gets confusing, and it leads to workers telling me that if they were laid off, they would refuse to collect unemployment, because if they or their families can’t take care of themselves, there’s something wrong with them.” The Norquist forces are, in effect, running a message that aligns neatly with the dominant cultural narrative in America. Unions and progressives have a message and solutions that are seemingly running against this narrative. This is precisely why organizers and organizing are required, not simply mobilizing and messaging.

Liberals and progressives don’t understand why, in poll after poll, Americans support Social Security, Medicare and money for their local parks and other services but oppose “big government.” If we want to close the gap in the often bimodal results of polling, we don’t need more polling: we need well-trained and highly skilled organizers who can help facilitate conversations among next-door neighbors and co-workers. We have good “framers.” We have smart policy wonks with big degrees who can write good policy. We have lawyers to defend the policy. And we have no one in any serious way out talking with Americans about this crisis. It’s organizers who help people in large numbers to come to the self-realization that things aren’t working and that it isn’t their fault. Good organizing is really the only way that workers, the unemployed and the poor can overcome the impulse to blame themselves for the crisis they face. Yet liberal foundations often balk at funding such efforts, believing that it won’t add up to policy change and channeling money instead to policy, legal and “communications” work.

Unions and progressives need to return to engaging large numbers of people in one-on-one conversations. Unions should kick-start the campaign by sponsoring and unleashing the biggest Union Summer program of all time and pay student interns, and unemployed rank-and-file workers, to work with union groups and nonunion allies in a mass education campaign that seeks to change the narrative from “We all go down together” to “It’s time to return to the American Dream we all deserve.” Unions must stop pretending to be engaging the base by setting up call centers or buying cellphones for their members. Foundations must stop pretending that unions don’t matter, and that messaging strategies can overcome America’s cultural norms of extreme individualism. Real conversations, where people have a chance to understand the war that is being waged against them and the power they must build, are the only thing that will save us.

Links:
[1] http://inthepublicinterest.org
[2] http://www.thenation.com/article/158647/betrayal-public-workers

Teacher Paul Karrer Writes A Letter To President Obama: "Your Race To The Top is Killing The Wrong Guys"

A Letter to My President - The One I Voted For

February 1, 2011
LINK

Dear President Obama:

I mean this with all respect. I’m on my knees here, and there’s a knife in my back, and the prints on it kinda match yours. I think you don’t get it.

Your Race to the Top is killing the wrong guys. You’re hitting the good guys with friendly fire. I’m teaching in a barrio in California. I had 32 kids in my class last year. I love them to tears. They’re 5th graders. That means they’re 10 years old, mostly. Six of them were 11 because they were retained. Five more were in special education, and two more should have been. I stopped using the word “parents” with my kids because so many of them don’t have them. Amanda’s mom died in October. She lives with her 30-year-old brother. (A thousand blessings on him.) Seven kids live with their “Grams,” six with their dads. A few rotate between parents. So “parents” is out as a descriptor.

Here’s the kicker: Fifty percent of my students have set foot in a jail or prison to visit a family member.

Do you and your secretary of education, Arne Duncan, understand the significance of that? I’m afraid not. It’s not bad teaching that got things to the current state of affairs. It’s pure, raw poverty. We don’t teach in failing schools. We teach in failing communities. It’s called the ZIP Code Quandary. If the kids live in a wealthy ZIP code, they have high scores; if they live in a ZIP code that’s entombed with poverty, guess how they do?

We also have massive teacher turnover at my school. Now, we have no money. We haven’t had an art or music teacher in 10 years. We have a nurse twice a week. And because of the No Child Left Behind Act, struggling public schools like mine are held to impossible standards and punished brutally when they don’t meet them. Did you know that 100 percent of our students have to be on grade level, or else we could face oversight by an outside agency? That’s like saying you have to achieve 100 percent of your policy objectives every year.

It’s not bad teaching that got things to the current state of affairs. It’s pure, raw poverty.

You lived in Indonesia, so you know what conditions are like in the rest of the world. President Obama, I swear that conditions in my school are akin to those in the third world. We had a test when I taught in the Peace Corps. We had to describe a glass filled to the middle. (We were supposed to say it was half full.) Too many of my kids don’t even have the glass!

Next, gangs. Gangs eat my kids, their parents, and the neighborhood. One of my former students stuffed an AK47 down his pants at a local bank and was shot dead by the police. Another one of my favorites has been incarcerated since he was 13. He’ll be 27 in November. I’ve been writing to him for 10 years and visiting him in the maximum-security section of Salinas Valley State Prison.

Do you get that it’s tough here? Charter schools and voucher schools aren’t the solution. They are an excuse not to fix the real issues. You promised us so much. And you want to give us merit pay? Anyway, I think we really need to talk. Oh, and can you pull the knife out while you’re standing behind me? It really hurts.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Karrer
Fifth grade teacher at Castroville Elementary School
North Monterey County, CA

The NYC Department of Education Will Audit Their Schools For Cheating On Test Scores

How lovely. As soon as scores for school tests become suspect, the fox - oops, I mean Cathie Black, Shael Polakow-Sharansky and her coworkers - send in other foxes to the hen house. This sounds to me like we should call in Norm Scott with his video camera, and other reporters, to set up cameras outside schools where 60%+ passed the regents with a score of 65 and take pictures of the shredded documents that will be on the sidewalk soon.

What is at all confusing about principals demanding that teachers scrub test scores or else, and give them their students' Regents to grade! Commissioner Steiner says this procedure is "not ideal".

Betsy Combier

February 18, 2011

Shael Polakow-Suransky


City to Toughen Auditing of School Test Scores
By SHARON OTTERMAN, NY TIMES

New York City school officials said Friday that they would introduce a new, rigorous system of auditing the test scores, grading practices and graduation rates of the public high schools, appearing to acknowledge rising concerns that some schools might be manipulating the statistics they are judged by.

The move comes as the city and the state have sought to raise standards to better prepare students for college and careers, and as mounting evidence has cast doubt on whether even the current standards are being met.

In at least the past two years, an unusually large number of students have obtained exactly the minimum score needed to pass state Regents exams, which are often graded by their regular teachers. City officials say the anomaly existed even before Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took control of the city’s schools in 2003.

In an e-mail sent Friday to high school principals, Shael Polakow-Suransky, the department’s chief academic officer, said that auditors would look at how schools awarded course credits, graded Regents exams and tallied graduation figures in determining which schools to audit.

In a departure, the auditor general of the department, Brian Fleischer, is to oversee the new audits, to ensure greater independence. Previous audits were conducted case by case by the same office that develops the accountability practices.

“Ultimately, we want to have confidence, for ourselves, and for the public, in the data we use to measure schools,” Mr. Fleischer said. The new audit procedures, he said, “will be much more data-driven and systematic.”

About 60 high schools will be selected for the first round of audits, based on whether their data showed suspicious patterns, like sudden rises in scores, he said. Allegations of misconduct would be referred to the special commissioner of investigation for city schools. In the first year, however, the emphasis will be on providing guidance and training to schools so that employees understand what is expected.

Despite the increased scrutiny, Mr. Polakow-Suransky has said he does not believe there is widespread cheating. He said last week that the city aggressively investigated the “tiny handful of cases” where there were allegations. On the question of Regents scoring, a process determined by the state, he said, “We feel an obligation to work on this issue, despite the fact that they are not our tests.”

But observers of the school system, including those who have been skeptical of rising test scores and graduation rates, said officials seemed to acknowledge issues with some of the data.

“It seems to me that the D.O.E. is realizing that they have a credibility problem with their numbers and they’re trying to address that,” said Kim Sweet, executive director of Advocates for Children of New York, which has questioned whether some schools tally dropouts incorrectly to help graduation rates.

Officials said that they started working on toughening auditing procedures more than a year ago, but that in recent months they approached the issue with greater urgency.

The state comptroller recently completed a review of the city’s graduation rates, which has not yet been released to the public, though it has been submitted to city officials for their response.

The city had already begun investigating grading at the school that had the highest score on the department’s annual report cards, the Theatre Arts Production Company High School in the Bronx. Its teacher handbook indicated that failing grades were only for students who never went to class.

And an analysis by The New York Times found that on the English and history Regents exams in the past two years, students in the city’s public high schools were roughly five times as likely to score 65, the passing grade, or slightly above it than to score just below it.

Statisticians say that such a difference is out of line with the smooth scoring curve that should normally result. A recent report in The Wall Street Journal came to a similar conclusion.

Even on the algebra exam, where there are no essays, 8,451 students got grades of exactly 65, while only 7,145 students combined ended up with a score of 61, 62, 63 or 64.

Regents exams are graded by teachers within schools, and teachers are not barred from grading their own students. While the practice is controversial, some say it is appropriate to give students the benefit of the doubt.

There is ambiguity in grading essays, and even in mathematics tests, in which extra points can be given for students’ showing their work.

At one Queens high school, the number of students scoring 65 to 69 last year in the five most popular Regents exams — integrated algebra, global history, biology, English and United States history — was more than five times the number who scored 60 to 64.

“If you have a kid with a 64, you want to look at the paper again to give the kid an even chance,” said the school’s principal, who spoke only on condition that her name, and the name of her school, not be published. “We’re not talking about changing the grade where the kid got it wrong to make it right.”

David M. Steiner, the state education commissioner, acknowledged in an interview in January that the state had known for years of the spikes in scoring patterns.

The department has made some changes, like required training for teacher-scorers, and it is phasing in computer scoring for multiple-choice questions.

But of the practice of teachers’ grading their students’ exams, Dr. Steiner said, “obviously, it’s not ideal.”

The state, he said, was focused on building the next generation of exams, to come into use in three to five years, which may be completely graded by computer.

Amanda Cox, Robert Gebeloff and Fernanda Santos contributed reporting

NY POST's Andrea Peyser On The Black Appointment

Mike's Black mark
By ANDREA PEYSER, NY POST, February 17, 2011
LINK

In the annals of Really Bad Ideas, a few stand out as stupendously dumb.

Bike-lane proliferation. Sen. Al Franken. Charlie Sheen's in-mansion rehab.

The installation of Cathie Black to the post of city schools chancellor has devolved over seven weeks into a brand-new category of managerial screw-up. Mayor Bloomberg has to know he made a mistake.

Well, mismatching a shirt and tie qualifies as a boo-boo. Hiring Black to run a school system of 1.1 million kids, the nation's largest -- a job for which she is not temperamentally suited, intellectually qualified or, from the look on her scowling face, interested in performing -- is akin, in terms of political trauma, to hiring a BP executive to explain an oil spill.

But rather than let Black, 66 -- a gifted magazine executive before Bloomberg found her at a dinner party -- get her life back, the mayor has dug in his heels. Even as he undermines her.

Black's selection couldn't come at a worse time. The administration is trying to win parents' hearts and minds as it closes dozens of rotten schools and battles the teachers union on "last-in, first out" layoff policies.

Against this backdrop, Black's ascendance was the most closely guarded urban mystery since the opening date of "Spider-Man." Two sources told me that Bloomberg's close aide, Deputy Mayor Howard Wolfson, whom Bloomberg snatched from political consulting (he did Hillary Rodham Clinton's US Senate campaign), learned of Black's hiring "half an hour before it happened."

"I don't understand what his thinking is. I've been so disappointed by this," said a government insider. Wolfson said only, "She's going to do a dynamite job." Black wouldn't comment.

January ranks as Black's mensis horribilis. But even before her public meltdowns, Bloomberg, who'd insisted for weeks that Black was "exactly the right person for the job," let it drop that she wasn't his first choice. He wanted Harlem educator Geoffrey Canada, who said, "No thanks."

Bloomberg "did that to make it sound like there was a decision-making process of sorts," said the insider. By revealing he preferred the more qualified Canada, "he threw her under a bus."

In short succession, Black uttered two bloopers that reverberated through city ears like nails on a blackboard. On Jan. 13, a parent asked Black about overcrowding. She joked, "Could we just have some birth control for a while? It could really help us all out a lot."

Furious parents took away two things: Black, a wealthy, white lady who sent her kids to private boarding school, referred to birth rates in minority communities. Also, the parent had asked about how schools would accommodate babies who were already born.

Which may explain Black's next quip. She said budget cuts have forced her into "many Sophie's choices," a tasteless reference to the book and movie about a mother in Auschwitz forced to choose which of her children has to die. She apologized.

Then Black hit bottom. On Feb. 1, faced by howling parents carrying condoms, she presided over a hearing to close failing schools. Weary from the seven-hour harangue, she complained that the audience was not allowing her to speak. The crowd said, "Awwwww."

Black mocked them back. "Ohhhh," she said, disgust coloring her face.

Upper West Side parent Noah Gotbaum just wanted Black's opinion on school closings. "You know what we got? Nine words! Black told us, 'These are very difficult decisions to make,' " said Gotbaum, a plaintiff in the lawsuit to cancel the state waiver that made Black chancellor.

Truth is, Black's predecessor, Joel Klein, wasn't popular in many communities. But Klein, who once taught sixth grade, commanded a level of respect that Black -- who received a 21 percent favorability rating in a recent poll to Klein's 46 -- will never get.

"The mayor hires those he enjoys as dinner guests, like Bicycle Lady Janette Sadik-Khan," said Manhattan mom Leslie Gold. "He doesn't think we are smart enough to know the right answer. Black was a 'Devil Wears Prada' sort in her corporate life, and isn't used to having an internal dialogue or defending her image."

Some mistakes are too big to admit.

ALERT TO ATRs

ALERT ALL ATRs:
An email is making the rounds through the online underground, and I am re-posting it below so that all ATRs can be aware of this (I dont know if it is true or not):

Please pass this on!!! An ATR came in for an interview last week at the school where I am presently teaching We struck up a conversation and they informed me that the DOE is now sending out random MANDATORY interview notices that are being sent DIRECTLY to your DOE email even if you are working and have a full schedule(which this person did)!

If you are like me, I am working and I rarely check it because I am working! It turns out that if you miss three to four of these notices the DOE is using that against ATRs to fire them on the grounds that they are resisting attempts to obtain permanent employment! It is my understanding that some ATRs have already fallen victim to this "scam"! Please let others know since we must be vigilant because the DOE is not playing around when it comes to teachers in general and ATRs in particular!

Education Reform Now, or ERN, With Chairman Joel Klein of the NY POST, Advocates An End To "LIFO"

I remember Joe when he worked for the Daily News, and refused to do stories on the disaster we now know as the Mike Bloomberg/Joel Klein public education "reform". Then, he wrote a book about cheating the kids....

something wrong here. Oh, it is also said that The Robin Hood Foundation pledged $1,000,000 to ERN and The Robertson Foundation $250,000. Mike Bloomberg's daughter works for the Robin Hood Foundation, and the mission is to help those who are too poor to help themselves. how does giving money to ERN  fit into this focus?
Betsy Combier

TV blitz to keep better teachers

By FREDRIC U. DICKER in Albany and CARL CAMPANILE in NY, February 11, 2011
LINK

An education-reform group is launching a multimillion-dollar TV ad blitz to persuade the state Legislature to repeal the "last in, first out" law requiring schools to lay off teachers based on seniority rather than merit.

The 60-second ad financed by Education Reform Now -- featuring three public-school teachers -- will air starting today in New York City and Albany.

"The last-in-first-out policy is bad for teachers, bad for schools and, most importantly, bad for kids," said ERN President Joe Williams.

"Reckless layoffs that aren't based on a teacher's effectiveness have the potential to destroy a school's culture and derail all the progress that's been made to improve student achievement," Williams added. "Our lawmakers can't say they want to improve schools and protect great teachers on the one hand and support this antiquated policy on the other."

State Senate Majority Leader Dean Skelos (R-Nassau) yesterday endorsed curbing LIFO.

"If a person is found, whether in a rubber room, or if they're found that their grading has been such that they're not in a classroom, I think that those people should go first before the younger teachers that are doing a good job," Skelos said at a Crain's breakfast.

ERN has emerged as a formidable advocacy group chaired by former Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, now a top exec at News Corp., which owns The Post.

The group is bankrolled by financiers interested in school reform, including billionaires Bill Gates and Eli Broad and a network of hedge-fund managers who pushed Albany to lift the cap on charter schools.

Close allies of Mayor Bloomberg are chief strategists in the bid to repeal LIFO. Among them is consultant Bradley Task, a political adviser to the mayor who ran Bloomberg's successful 2009 campaign for re-election to a third term.

United Federation of Teachers President Mike Mulgrew said he's fighting to prevent layoffs, but skirts questions about whether LIFO should be changed. The union has long opposed any changes.

fredric.dicker@nypost.com

NYPOST Comments (1)
Nuff Said
02/11/2011 4:30 PM
Educators reform now, Educators for excellence--ALL FUNDED and Headed by JOEL KLEIN and backed by Eli Broad and Bill Gates. But why after 8 years of Kleins experiments and failures is anybody listening to them? Kleins last major move was to siphon off $1 Billion dollars for IZone schools (virtual online). And who are the direct beneficiaries of his conflict of interest largess--well 1st is NYS Chancellor Meryyl Tisch--her husband owns K12 one of NYC major Izone school suppliers , then there is Klein and Murdock who just bought the company that provides ALL of NYC's educational technology--student/teacher/school report cards and the ARIS system. Bill Gates, who certainly doesn't need any more money ,microsoft that will provide all the programming and tech no-how including online curriculum.So how does following Kleins lead as an utter data manipulating failure help kids. Honestly with enough truth and bad press i expect Murdoch and Gates to hang him out to dry on his own---they really don't need this destruction of their legacies.

Education Reform Now, Inc.


Education Reform Now, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) organization based in New York. Their political arm is a related 501(c)4, Education Reform Now Advocacy Committee, Inc.

ERN recorded $92,500 in revenue during their first year (2005)[PDF]. Their President at the time, Amy Wilkins (now at Ed Trust), made $16,329 and an additional $2,017 in benefits. John Petry and R Boykins Curry IV are listed as unpaid directors. Their primary exempt purpose is to “develop policy alternatives in education”. They reimbursed Education Reform Now Advocacy Committee, Inc $83,099 for “labor costs and operating expenses based on timesheets and other contemporaneous accountable plan arrangements.” ERN ended the year with $59,584 in the bank.

The nonprofit brought in $80,000 in 2006 [PDF]. Amy Wilkins saw her salary jump to $65,731; Curry and Petry were still listed as directors. They spent a total of $118,829 in 2006, most of it on salaries ($83,594) and “other expenses”($24,525). Professional fees and occupancy accounts for the rest of their operating budget.

ERN recorded $173,500 in revenues during 2007 [PDF]. Joe Williams replaced Amy Wilkins as President, and Sidney Hawkins replaced R Boykins Curry IV as a director (Petry remained).



Revenues rose to $1,280,081 in 2008 [PDF]. A full $1,070,023 went to program services. According to their 990:



The organization sponsored public awareness events – “Harlem Charter School Night”, “Brooklyn Charter School Night”, and “ED Challenge for Change” at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in 2008. We also conducted outreach to the press on polling results.



ERN also spent $612,000 in “awards and grants” (no money trail?) and over a quarter million in “consulting services”. Joe Williams’ salary jumped to $114,545 (with $32,455 from a related organization).

Deny Waiver Coalition Files An Appeal Of The Dismissal Of Their Lawsuit Against NYC DOE Chief, Cathie Black

The uproar about Cathie Black's appointment as schools CEO is not, actually, about her - it's about the public dislike, frustration, and anger against Mike Bloomberg for ignoring their voices since 2002.

That being said, I just dont get why Cathy Black would WANT the job of "Chancellor" in name only, and why she wants to be the focus of so much wrath. This is a story on it's own - how a Mayor loses all trust of his constituents, despite being a billionaire with all the "right" political ties, and stubbornly goes forward without the public mandate he (and the she-wolf, Cathie Black) need to succeed. This is democracy at work.

Betsy Combier

Cathie Black's Waiver Worries Will Never End

By Garth Johnston on Feb 9, 2011

You almost have to feel sorry for Cathie Black. Almost. All she wanted to do was run the New York Department of Education in peace and instead all she gets are boos, angry parents and, now, threats her new job might not be hers for long. Remember how she had to get a waiver to take the job because she wasn't qualified? And how parents swore they'd appeal when she got it? Well, it looks like they're living up to their threat.


A group of lawmakers and child advocates, the Deny the Waiver Coalition, are planning to announce tomorrow from the steps of the Tweed Courthouse that they are appealing a lower court's decision on Black's waiver, hoping to push her out of the job.

f they succeed and Black's waiver is revoked, she'd have to step down immediately. Which doesn't really have the Coalition worried. Their lawyer makes the sound argument to the Observer that by design Bloomberg and the Department have "surrounded her with a bunch of people who are qualified to run the school system. If they're all as qualified as they say they are, which they certainly seem to be, then they can last for a couple weeks while they find a replacement for her."

The appellate court will decide on the appeal on March 15th. The Ides of March.

Another Bad Night For Cathie Black

LINK


WCBS 2 Things just are not going well for Schools Chancellor Cathie Black. Not well at all. On top of her disastrous Wednesday night appearance (in which she mocked jeering parents at a vote over 10 school closures) last night things got so tense that more than a thousand angry parents, union members and teachers stormed out of a meeting regarding another 12 school closures. ""Ms. Black, what in the world is wrong with you? You show utter contempt and scorn for the parents you should be serving. If you don't want to be here, then leave—because many of us don't want you here anyway," City Councilman Jumaane Williams (D-Brooklyn) told the Chancellor.

Black spoke little over the course of the hearing (as she was there to mostly hear) but that didn't stop the scorn heaped upon her. After the first round of people spoke at the hearing—350 people signed up to speak, The Awl has a few highlights from them including “you have created the Lost Generation,” and “since I know you’ve already made up your minds, I’m not going to address you, I’m going to address the audience” and “as far as the UFT is concerned, this panel, this process, is illegitimate.”—things got crazy when a large portion of the auditorium stood up and, according to NY1, "began marching out to the sound of drums and whistles, forcing the panel to suspend the hearing for the next half hour."

Then the hearing restarted there were only a few hundred people left. Just before 1 a.m. the panel voted to close all of the schools on the chopping block.

And in other bad news for Black, a new poll found that only 21 percent of New York voters think she has done a good or excellent job in her first month as Chancellor. Not that the Mayor, who chose Black for the job, cares. On WOR this morning hizzoner instead focused on how unpatriotic it is to boo: “The decorum—this is embarrassing for New York City, New York State, for America. This is not democracy, letting people yell and scream. That’s not freedom of expression. That’s just taking away someone else’s rights,” he said.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

Disband The Panel For Educational Policy

Yes!!!!! Senator Tony Avella, at the Panel For Educational Policy (PEP) meeting last week, says it is time for a revolution.

NYC must end the PEP now.

In 2006 teacher Polo Colon sued the PEP for almost voting behind closed doors to terminate him and end his 30-year career. I am re-posting the 2006 article I wrote on his case, from my website, Parentadvocates.org, so that everyone can see the most disastrous error that we, the general public made, in creating the current situation: going along with the setting up of the PEP as the "new school board". The appointed status of each member of the PEP means that parents, students, teachers, employees and supporters of due process and democracy are out of luck. We dont vote for these people, so they dont care what we say.

 I have made it clear that I am advocating for Scott Stringer, Manhattan Borough President - who appointed Patrick Sullivan to the PEP - to rescind Patrick's appointment solely on the grounds that the PEP is irresponsibly acting "under color of law" to deny NYC parents, teachers, children, and friends of public education, their rights to a fair representation, and their right to be heard on all issues brought to the PEP. So much for agreeing to disagree, freedom of the press, etc. If Mr. Stringer had pulled out his support of the PEP in 2003, 2004, 2005, the Tweed gang would be hard pressed to continue as the outlaw group that they are now. ALL Borough Presidents, the UFT, and the State legislature could have prevented the past nine years of harm. What they needed to do was to require a vote for all members of the school board, CECs, consultants, and yes, even the Chancellor search committee,  then listen to what parents and teachers said about the wrong-doing going on inside our public schools.

It is also possible that a former Stuyvesant High School parent, Paola De Kock, who posts all the time to nyceducationnews and to Leonie's blog, is still trying to silence me from writing her story, and the story of her hiding theft from the Stuyvesant PA bank account, as well as the throwing out a parent named Mary Lok from the PA Executive Board. Soon after the chinese parents at Stuyvesant asked for my help in finding out where $380,000+ money was that had been supposedly raised for the Parents Association, the Chinese parents' outreach committee was removed from a voting position on the Executive Board.

But the point that I want to make here, is the "illegality" of the PEP. This entity, whatever it is, must end. We need a school board that has members who are voted into office, and can be voted out of office. Then, we, the public, will have a voice in what is voted on at the PEP, not before. Below is Polo's story, which shows how the public revolution seen last week is a little late, but totally correct in the assessment of the Bloomberg mess in education in NYC. Part of the solution is to end the PEP, throw Cathie Black out, and/or get Mike Bloomberg to resign, and Ms. Black as well. Mr. Stringer, pull out of the PEP, have Patrick Sullivan resign in solidarity with the people opposing the destruction that is going that will ruin the lives of many students and teachers. I live in Manhattan, you are Manhattan Borough President. Speak with your Counsel Jimmy Yan about the meetings we, parents at Stuyvesant, had with him about Paola and the PA crew.

Betsy Combier

NYC Teacher Hipolito Colon Makes History and Sues the NYC BOE, The Panel For Educational Policy, and NYSUT For Violating His Rights

The NYC BOE has systematically thrown teachers, who whistleblow crimes in their schools, into the garbage, by "re-assigning" them to "rubber rooms" without telling them what the charges are, and then terminating them at an Executive Meeting of the PEP that is an illegal entity. Mr. Colon wins an A For Accountability Award for his courage and his determination to change this unfair process.
LINK

Hipolito, or "Polo" as his friends call him, is dedicated to the implementation of fair and just education policies which give all children an opportunity to achieve. He is nearly 57, and began teaching at the age of 15 in a summer school job as a Teacher's Aide. At age 16 he worked as a Recreational Supervisor, followed by 16 years in Day Care as an Assistant Teacher and Group Teacher and 20 years in the Board of Education of the City of New York, for a total of more than 36 years. In his early adult years, he attended many pro-union, anti-nuclear, and anti-racism demonstrations around the country, and he was one of the participants in Woodstock Nation at the original Woodstock Music Festival. Years later, he sang with a top-flight recording group.

A problem arose when he, a tenured teacher at PS 120 in Brooklyn, saw that the Principal, Liza Caraballo, was not complying with the No Child Left Behind Legislation. Polo believed that as a mandated reporter he was required to expose wrongdoing whenever and wherever it occurred, and he thought that NYC had whistleblower laws that protected him. He also believed that by contacting the Special Commissioner’s Office, and asking for an investigation of Principal Caraballo, he would put an end to what he considered violations of law. He was very wrong.

Parentadvocates has found that the Special Commissioner’s Office is set up to investigate the reporter, not the perpetrator, of wrongdoing. If a parent of a child in any school calls SCI or the Office of Special Investigations and reports anything, from corporal punishment to verbal abuse in the school, by a Principal, the parent will be retaliated against and the child of this parent harmed.

A teacher who reports wrongdoing by the school Principal is almost always the person investigated. Once a teacher speaks out, if there are no uncles, fathers or relatives who work for the BOE to make “a call”, he or she is immediately harassed, given a U-rating, or forced to resign. SCI and the Office of Special Investigations are two organizations that laugh at innocence. The “detectives” are, for the most part, retired cops who have been able to obtain positions through personal contacts with those who do the hiring, or by connection to an important relative in the Education ‘Family’.

Once a teacher whistleblows anything, the BOE immediately takes action. An example of this is the case of Ronald, a teacher thrown out of his school on false charges of corporal punishment that did not happen, then coerced into signing a stipulation that he would be 'punished' for his 'crime' by losing two months of his salary.

The first step in whistleblower retaliation against a teacher is to remove the teacher as quickly as possible from his/her class or school. The speed of removal is a factor of how verbal the teacher is; how "influential" he/she is within the school or among the students/parents; or, how serious the crimes being exposed are. Sometimes a teacher is harassed out of the system after being given: (1) a class that he/she cannot teach; (2) a class full of the most difficult children, most of whom have special needs that have never been met (the parents are not informed about obtaining services, approving an Individualized Education Plan, etc), (3) a class where there are 40+ kids - many more than the UFT allows, and many are "shadow" students not on the roster for the school, or not listed as attending the class; (4) U-ratings that are not for substandard performance, but are written to get the teacher out of the school.

In other cases, an outspoken teacher must be removed quickly, to keep the school 'safe' from exposure of the wrongdoing.
We met with Polo in September 2006 at an Upper East Side coffee shop, and saw immediately that he was not only being railroaded by the BOE, but that he would be terminated by the illegal entity known as The Panel For Educational Policy (“PEP”). We have written before about the PEP and, for that matter, the Community Education Councils (CEC) being illegal pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kramer v Union Free School District, and discussed with Mr. Colon (“Polo”) the Executive Sessions of the PEP and the process that was throwing him into the garbage without his participation. (The Press Notice of the November 27, 2006 PEP meeting is hyperlinked to show the disdain that Joel Klein has for due process, as he scheduled a secret 'Executive Session' in spite of being sued for doing this - Ed).

Polo asked us to help him stop the termination that would take place on September 19 at the PEP meeting. We provided service of the Affidavit with the Exhibits on Michael Best at approximately 4PM on September 18, 2006. In the AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO HAVE A FAIR HEARING, make note of Mr. Best's letter in the exhibits.

On September 19, 2006 there was an Executive Session held before the PEP meeting began, which is a violation of the New York State Open Meetings Law, Section 105, but Polo was not terminated. He read a statement at the meeting:

"I am here representing myself, as well as the many employees of the New York City Department of Education, who have been unfairly, arbitrarily and capriciously deemed disposable, routinely relegated to the designation of incompetent and/or insubordinate and regularly deprived of their procedural due process rights, with impunity, in deliberate violation of their constitutionally protected civil rights.

There is a flagrant rubber-stamping of people's cases and lives in and out of "rubber rooms", in order to attempt to intimidate them and to break their will and spirit, in order to silence those that may dare to speak out.

It is fairly disgusting that a POW in a foreign land may actually have more quality due process protection than an employee of the DOE, and that the rules of engagement protect the wrong-doer over the whistle-blower, as evidenced by the lack of action taken against the law breaker.

Rather than applauding and appreciating those brave enough to expose nepotism and corruption, the DOE proves itself to be insubordinate itself to the rule of constitutional rights of its employees, citizens of these United States of America, and it is blatantly incompetent, as obviously displayed in its-well known and documented failures to the students, parents and teachers of the entire school system."

and Chancellor Joel Klein said,

“ I am an Attorney, so I know all there is to know about due process…you will get your charges and your hearing.”

Immediately following this meeting, Polo met with well-known lawyer Julia Cohen, who told him that there was nothing he could do until he received his charges. Polo decided he had to file a lawsuit and stop the process that found him guilty before he knew what he had done, a violation of his procedural due process rights.

Mr. Colon filed a lawsuit in the New York State Supreme Court on October 13, 2006, and an Amended Complaint on November 9, 2006:

Hipolito Colon, Plaintiff, v New York City Board of Education, Joel Klein, Chancellor; Michael Best, General Counsel for the NYCBOE; The Members of The Panel For Educational Policy, all In Their Individual and Official Capacities; PS 120 Principal Liza Caraballo; James R. Sandner, Esq., General Counsel. NYSUT, and Claude I. Hersh, Assistant General Counsel, Defendants.

Below is his story, in his own words. We give Polo Colon an “A For Accountability” Award for his amazing courage.

What he would like people to know is that: "this lawsuit is more than just about me; I am a people-person who loves children...I was blessed to be there at times when I was able to save the lives of 5 individuals; among my greatest accomplishments has been to make my students into lifelong learners by helping them to really love to learn; one of my proudest accomplishments has been to raise my daughters as a single custodial parent for the past 12 years and among my happiest accomplishments, to have made my family proud of me, as well as to have tried my best."

Hipolito Colon wrote the following letter on October 25, 2005:

To those whom it may concern,

I am a New York State certified, tenured and senior teacher at P.S. 120, 18 Beaver Street, Brooklyn, New York, 11206 in District 14, Region 8. I have been employed there since 1989. I served as Teacher of Pre-K 102 for the school year, September, 2004 through June, 2005. I am reporting the illegal actions of Ms. Liza Caraballo, Principal of P.S. 120.

Ms. Caraballo deliberately and illegally placed an educational assistant in the position of a state certified and licensed teacher for a period of an entire year without license.

Ms. Caraballo thereby violated federal, state and city requirements that a fully licensed teacher be appointed in such a position when she placed Ms. Lydia Arnold***, Educational Assistant, in the position of Pre-Kindergarten Teacher, heading the class known as Pre-K 104 for the school term, September, 2004 through June, 2005. ***(This is not to be construed as a negative reflection upon Ms. Arnold or her character, as she was simply serving in such capacity as directed by her supervisor.)

Ms. Caraballo announced this appointment to the school staff in its first meeting of the new term and the staff thereon recognized that Ms. Arnold had been appointed head teacher and worked in such capacity the whole school term.

Ms. Caraballo placed Ms. Arnold on the organization sheet for the school term of 2004-2005 and it was circulated.

.Ms. Caraballo had Ms. Arnold conducting the Pre-K class on a daily basis, teaching, in loco parentis, including the daily supervision of outdoor play.

Ms. Caraballo presented Ms. Arnold to the Pre-K parents of P.S. 120 as a new Pre-K teacher in charge of Pre-K 104.

Ms. Caraballo scheduled Ms. Arnold in the formal observation schedule for the school’s head teachers.

Ms. Caraballo had Ms. Arnold meet with the head Pre-K Teachers on all Pre-k weekly planning sessions, of which I was a participant.

Ms. Caraballo sent Ms. Arnold to all of the region-conducted workshops as head teacher of one of our Pre-K classes, and Region 8 recognized her as a head teacher.

Ms. Caraballo had Ms. Arnold sign requisitions and arrival orders of supplies as a licensed teacher of authority.

Ms. Caraballo had Ms. Arnold plan and supervise curricular and educational plans, including field trips, community-walk trips and all fire drills, etc.

Ms. Caraballo gave Ms. Arnold daily preparation periods afforded to head teachers.

Ms. Caraballo had Ms. Arnold attend all of the bi-weekly staff development meetings as head Pre-K teacher.

Ms. Caraballo had Ms. Arnold accept at least one Pre-K child that was not old enough to be admitted into the Pre-K classes.

Ms. Caraballo had Ms. Arnold pose as head teacher in all parent-teacher conferences, meetings and events and the children did recognize Ms. Arnold as their teacher. In such capacity, under the aegis of Ms. Caraballo’s directive, Ms. Arnold executed such additional legal documents as student assessments, student profiles, cumulative files and daily attendance and lateness recorded on the ATS forms, where Ms. Arnold was indicated to be the teacher in charge. (*Please see attached supporting documents.)

Therefore, I, Hipolito Colon, affirm that Ms. Caraballo knowingly and certainly violated federal, state and city ordinances, as well as those of the United Federation of Teachers, especially and specifically with regard to the use of unlicensed teachers in place of licensed teachers, which were available.

Sincerely,

Hipolito Colon
October 25, 2005

As a result of my whistle-blowing, I was summarily assigned/reassigned to a regional office in retaliation, and without due process. There has been harassment and intimidation before , during and following my report.. The Deputy Superintendent, Mr. James Quail, met with me at the school during a workday, in which I was relieved of my class by the principal, Ms. Caraballo. Mr. Quail asked my union chapter leader, Dr. Lenora Owens, (whom I had summoned as a witness) to leave, so that he could speak with me privately and confirm the charges that I had made in the report. He told me that he was given the assignment of investigating the charges I made and thus, wanted to confirm, item by item, what I had reported. He did so asking me many questions and I did confirm them.

About 2 months later, without conference or explanation at the end of my workday, I was ordered to immediately report to the regional office the very next morning. Since my assignment/reassignment I have neither received any report of the status of the investigation, nor have I been asked to come forth as a witness to support the facts, nor have I received any indication as to a specific reason for my assignment/reassignment to the regional office.

Eleven months have elapsed since my initial report was made, and I have not heard an iota concerning my status and the status of the investigation, and I suspect that a cover-up has been taking place. Please also investigate the continuation and expansion of admitting and promoting underage children for this school year (2005-2006) as well as last year, misuse of Magnet School Program funds, and the misadministration of the mandated bilingual education program. I would greatly appreciate hearing from your office, as I have once again stepped out to make this report and imperiled my career and livelihood in order to protect the integrity of sound school administration and supervision against the renegade recklessness of actions taken by this principal that endangered the young children of our school.

As I was undergoing the harassment by this incompetent principal, she violated the law, demonstrating that she was the incompetent and any reasonable person would conclude: how can an incompetent rightly determine that an employee of many years (in good standing) is an incompetent? Her harassment began, I recall, immediately after I received my Supervisory certification, and I believe that she was worried I would apply for the Assistant Principal position open at the school.

I have not been given any due process, as I was sent a packet from the NYC Board of Education after the 2005 school year ended and I had left the state on vacation. When I returned, I tried to get the certified mail, but the post office told me the package had been sent back to the sender. Then, at the end of August 2006, Michael Best, General Counsel for the BOE, sent me a letter telling me that I had waived my right to a hearing, and that The Panel For Educational Policy would be conducting a hearing and would be probably terminating me on September 19, 2006!!

The 3020-a rules state that teachers being “disciplined” (is this what is happening?) must be served the charges during the school year, not during summer vacation. I never received the charges.

Additionally, shouldn’t I, and all teachers similarly situated, be served charges personally before being reassigned, and shouldn’t there be an assumption of innocence, rather than an assumption of guilt until proven innocent?

I want to contend for the removal of that self-serving loophole which the DOE one-sidedly benefits from, when teachers are "afforded" a mere 10 days to respond and ask for a hearing, or they will lose their right to a fair hearing by default. This needs to be challenged constitutionally, and I am willing to be used to change 3020a in that regard.

The absurd assumption on the DOE's part is very troubling, namely that an employee might be willing to waive their right to a fair hearing! The obvious assumption must be that any employee would want to have his or her day in court.

On October 16 I told the Panel For Educational Policy:

Good evening, distinguished members of the Panel and audience. I am here, because as you may recall, at the Sept. 19th meeting at the Tweed Courthouse, Chancellor Klein said that he would assure me of a proper hearing and that my situation was postponed for a month, and once again I have not received any information at all.

I am also here to protest that I have been reassigned, rather than the principal that I reported for violating the “No Child Left Behind Act”. It has been an entire year and I have heard from no one about this. Has there been a cover-up as well as an attempt made in retaliation to silence me?

I want to bring to your attention the declaration that this Panel is illegal and in direct violation of a Supreme Court decision made by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1969, Kramer v Union Free School District; since you’re all appointed , rather than elected, therefore, this panel must be disbanded!

In sum, the real issue and the most important one is due process: knowing why you are being threatened with termination before being removed from your employment, (except for the case of a clear and present danger), so you, or I, or any good teacher with tenure can defend ourselves against false claims ."

Michael Winerip in the NY Times: As Far as Changing the Script On Closing Schools, Forget It

Cathie Black

February 4, 2011

In Panel’s Votes to Close Low-Performing Schools, Rage and Foregone Decisions
By MICHAEL WINERIP, NY TIMES, February 4, 2011
LINK

They knew how the script was going to end. Still, on Thursday night, 2,000 students, parents, teachers and union officials filed into Brooklyn Technical High School, voicing their frustration for five hours.

When the schools chancellor, Cathleen P. Black, opened her mouth, she was drowned out by people yelling (“Cathie’s gotta go” and “Black is wack”); ringing cowbells; blowing whistles; and in the case of one woman, M. Ndigo Washington, pounding a drum.

It was the second long night of hearings this week to decide whether 25 low-performing New York City public schools would be closed.

The outcome was never in doubt. The decisions on school closings are recommended by the chancellor and voted on by the Panel for Educational Policy. Under mayoral control of the schools, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appoints the chancellor and a majority of the 13-member educational panel: eight people who never fail to deliver for him.

So why did the 2,000 bother to attend? Why did 350 sign up for the privilege of waiting up to five hours for the chance to speak for two minutes? As Charles Barron, a city councilman, said during his two, “You will let us scream until we get hoarse, and then we know what will happen — you’ll shut all our schools down.”

Why bother? The closing of struggling schools has been a key piece of Mr. Bloomberg’s agenda, and his eight-person majority has stood behind him, phasing out more than 100 schools, often replacing them with small schools and charter schools.

Why did Tyrek Greene, a senior at University Heights High School in the Bronx, bother protesting?

“Even though we know the D.O.E. is going to close the schools no matter what,” he said, “we’re here to enter their consciences until they can’t sleep at night.”

Stephanie Campbell of Brooklyn came to praise her son’s school, Explore Charter. And yet, she said, the decision-making process bothered her.

“I’m not pleased with the closings,” she said. “They should fix those schools instead. I wish they would let us feel what we say means something.”

Thursday night, after 12 hours of being pounded over two days, Ms. Black and her deputies did not appear happy. As Jose Herrera, a parent who spoke in support of Coney Island Prep charter school, said, “You look like you’re all in detention right now.”

On the other hand, 12 hours of pounding is easier to take when you know you’re going to win.

In an editorial this week, The Daily News focused its wrath on the audience’s behavior, calling the meetings a “disgraceful, rowdy, shoutfest.”

“These meetings cannot continue to resemble World Wrestling Entertainment throwdowns,” the editorial said. But the paper’s comparison was incomplete. Like a professional wrestling promoter, the education panel knows in advance who will win.

The illusion of having a say, when they have none, may help explain audience members’ rage.

On the surface, it seems to make no sense: Why would people fight for the right to go to low-performing schools, when the city is promising better schools to replace them?

The city has documented the below-average performance of the schools it plans to close. City officials point out that Jamaica High School, in Queens, has received D grades the last two years and has been labeled persistently dangerous by the state. They say Jamaica High is already occupied by three small schools that are doing better.

And yet, on Thursday, there was Charm Rhoomes, president of the Jamaica High PTA, arguing that instead of closing the school, the Education Department should finance it better. She described how her son Shawn started in an honors math class last fall, but after one day, the teaching position was eliminated and Shawn was switched to a standard math class.

Ms. Rhoomes argued that Jamaica High had a disproportionate share of children with challenges, skewing test results. The high school has 23 percent English language learners, much higher than the three small schools in the building. The High School for Community Leadership and Hillside Arts and Letters each have 12 percent English language learners; Queens Collegiate has 6 percent.

Thursday night’s meeting had that Shakespearean feel of fates sealed long ago. In the center of Brooklyn Tech’s stage sat Ms. Black, who said little and deferred to her deputies.

Those deputies — Shael Polakow-Suransky and Marc Sternberg — had facts and figures to support every closing. Meanwhile, standing behind the stage curtain was Deputy Mayor Dennis M. Walcott, Mr. Bloomberg’s educational liaison to the schools, emerging occasionally to whisper into a panel member’s ear, then disappearing behind the curtain again.

If there’s one thing the chancellor, the deputies, the deputy mayor and mayor share — they do not appear to be slowed by second thoughts. They seem to share a sureness they are right.

But what if they aren’t?

The schools scheduled for closing are evaluated in good part by test scores. How dependable are the scores? In 2009, when the mayor was running for re-election, he cited skyrocketing scores as one of his most important achievements: 69 percent of city students scored proficient in English, 82 percent in math. And then, last summer, the state announced the tests were too easy and the results needed to be rescaled. Suddenly, 54 percent of city students were proficient in math and 42 percent in English.

Many of the big high schools to be closed will be replaced by small schools. Yet studies indicate the size of a school is no guarantee of quality. Indeed, of the two dozen schools chosen this week to be closed for low performance, 8 are small schools.

Seven of the schools replacing the closed schools are charters. But a national study on charters indicates that 17 percent are superior to traditional public schools; 37 percent are worse; and the balance, 46 percent, are of similar quality.

These facts, however, were just notes in the margin. The script was written, and was not to change.

E-mail: oneducation@nytimes.com