Bill Gates has spent hundreds of millions of dollars in search of an answer to the question: "What makes a good teacher?"
Arne Duncan, building on his record in Chicago, knows what makes a good teacher: It is the teacher who raises test scores, and he has spent billions of dollars to induce every state to agree with him.
Here, the students of Madison, Connecticut explain what makes a good teacher.
What do they look for? Someone who is kind and patient. Someone who helps hem. Someone who encourages them.
There, that was easy, and it didn't cost billions of dollars.
|
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Diana Ravitch: Students and "Good Teachers"
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Diane Ravitch on Calhoun Headmaster Steve Nelson's Dislike of Common Core
What does it take to be a hero educator? It takes brains, courage, integrity, and a deep understanding of education and children.
Steve Nelson, headmaster of the Calhoun School in Manhattan, is a hero educator because he has all these qualities. He wrote a brilliant article about why the Common Core won't work.
He knows that David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core, now heads the College Board. He knows that Coleman wants to align the SAT to the Common Core, so no one can escape his handiwork, not even students in prestigious private schools.
Here is a sample of Nelson's article.
"Actual children, as opposed to the abstraction of children as seen in policy debate, are not "standard." Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of child development knows that children learn in different ways and different times. Some children "read" (meaning a very limited ability to recognize symbols) at age 3 or 4. I have known many students who did not read well until 8, 9 or, rarely, later. The potential (or ultimate achievement levels) of these children does not correlate with the date of reading onset.
"It is rather like walking. Children who walk at 9 months do not become better runners than children who walk at 15 months. "Standardizing" the expectation of reading, and setting curricula and tests around this expectation, is like expecting a child to walk on her first birthday. If she doesn't, shall we get our national knickers in a knot, develop a set of walking tests, prescribe walking remediation, and, perhaps inadvertently, make her feel desperately inadequate? In the current climate, Pearson is ready to design walking curriculum and its companion tests. The Gates and Broad Foundations will create complementary instructional videos."
And he also writes:
"If policy makers and test writers had even rudimentary knowledge of rich individual differences, they would know that any standard test is unfair and, ultimately, useless. Just as children learn in very different ways, they express mastery in many different ways. The Common Core tests (and I've suffered the experience of wading through the many samples provided in the media) assume that all its takers process information in the same way, have the identical mix of cognitive and sensory abilities, and can, therefore, "compete" on level ground. This is nonsensical and damaging. Some of the most brilliant people I know would grind to a suffocating halt after trying to parse the arcane nonsense in a small handful of these questions. Even the math questions assume a homogeneous ability to understand the questions and a precisely common capacity for reasoning and concluding.
"I could go on: Stress inhibits learning, so we design stressful expectations; dopamine (from pleasurable activities) enhances learning, so we remove joy from schools; homework has very limited usefulness with negative returns after an hour or so (for elementary age kids), so we demand more hours of work; the importance of exercise in brain development is inarguable, so we eliminate recess and gym; the arts are central to human understanding, but we don't have time.
"I have been accused of complaining but not offering solutions, so here's a solution: Properly fund schools and allow good teachers to select the materials and pedagogy that serve the actual students in their care. The rest will take care of itself.
"And we can take the billions we're wasting on NCLB, RTTT, Common Core and other nonsense and spend it to improve the lives of the shameful number of children who live in poverty in the "richest nation on Earth."
Steve Nelson, welcome to the honor roll as a hero of American education.
Please someone, anyone: send this article to Bill Keller and Paul Krugman at the New York Times.
|
Monday, August 19, 2013
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, Revives the Speech-retaliation Lawsuit of a Mississippi School Administrator
A federal appeals court has revived the speech-retaliation lawsuit of a Mississippi school administrator who was dismissed after she declined to support the district superintendent in his successful re-election bid. Calling it a "close question," a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled unanimously that assistant principal Lisa Carpenter Mooney's suit should be allowed to proceed despite evidence that the Lafayette County school district had other, potentially legitimate reasons for not renewing her position and that it came nearly three years after the election.
Court Revives Administrator's Speech-Retaliation Suit
By Mark Walsh on August 16, 2013 6:36 PM
LINK
A federal appeals court has revived the speech-retaliation lawsuit of a Mississippi school administrator who was dismissed after she declined to support the district superintendent in his successful re-election bid.
Calling it a "close question," a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled unanimously that assistant principal Lisa Carpenter Mooney's suit should be allowed to proceed despite evidence that the Lafayette County school district had other, potentially legitimate reasons for not renewing her position and that it came nearly three years after the election.
"We hold that Mooney has introduced sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment on her First Amendment claim that her political choice was a motivating factor in (the school district)'s decision to not renew her contract," the 5th Circuit said in its Aug. 8 decision in Mooney v. Lafayette County School District.
In 2007, Mooney decided to voice her support a challenger to Lafayette County Superintendent Mike Foster in his re-election bid. Her suit alleges that an assistant superintendent approached her to donate money for newspaper ads in support of the incumbent superintendent. Mooney declined, telling the assistant superintendent that she did not believe Foster "was best suited for the position."
Mooney supported Carolyn Davis, a special education teacher who was challenging Foster. At another point, Mooney's suit alleges, the same assistant superintendent loyal to the incumbent approached her for potential adverse information about Davis. Mooney refused to provide any.
After the election, in which Foster won re-election, Mooney alleges that her superiors found problems with her job performance, such as with her punctuality and in dealing with parents.
In early 2010, Mooney was informed her contract would not be renewed as part of a reduction in force. She contends it was a pretext, though evidence described in the district court's opinion indicates that 23 or 24 other positions were eliminated for a cost savings of $400,000.
Mooney sued, alleging First Amendment retaliation and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A federal district judge issued summary judgment to the school district on both counts.
The 5th Circuit court affirmed the ruling on the gender-bias claim, but revived Mooney's First Amendment claim. The court said it was clear Mooney's support for the challenger to the superintendent was protected speech on a matter of public concern.
Whether the protected speech was a motivating factor in her nonrenewal was a more difficult question, the court said. Although three years passed between the election and Mooney's nonrenewal, there is a plausible case that the district began its retaliation against her soon after the election, the court said.
Finally, the court said the district's reasons that Mooney would have been dismissed anyway may have been pretextual.
"In sum, we hold that Mooney has put forth sufficient evidence that her
political views were a motivating factor in (the district's) decision to non-renew her employment contract to survive summary judgment," the court said.
The decision allows Mooney's First Amendment claim to proceed to trial.
COMMENTS
lbkoz58
2:17 PM on August 19, 2013
Reformation of our nation's school system will come about with a continued effort of new initiatives. Without
acceptance of "dissent" from our school leaders, how will we achieve such gains. I commend the courts for allowing
Mooney's first amendment claim to proceed to trial. Unfortunately this problem exist at all levels of the public school system. If you are a teacher, parent, student, or administrator and differ in your sentiment or opinion from the majority you will be targeted and chastised in one way or another. Similar to the above incident that can mean losing your job. Don't expect people to sit idle and have their rights taken away from them. We are a nation of strong people and if we have the means to fight for our rights, ethical behavior and integrity we will. Educators are in the business to service children and act as role models, so act appropriately and teach our children well. Dissent can be a good thing!
Court Revives Administrator's Speech-Retaliation Suit
By Mark Walsh on August 16, 2013 6:36 PM
LINK
A federal appeals court has revived the speech-retaliation lawsuit of a Mississippi school administrator who was dismissed after she declined to support the district superintendent in his successful re-election bid.
Calling it a "close question," a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled unanimously that assistant principal Lisa Carpenter Mooney's suit should be allowed to proceed despite evidence that the Lafayette County school district had other, potentially legitimate reasons for not renewing her position and that it came nearly three years after the election.
"We hold that Mooney has introduced sufficient evidence to overcome summary judgment on her First Amendment claim that her political choice was a motivating factor in (the school district)'s decision to not renew her contract," the 5th Circuit said in its Aug. 8 decision in Mooney v. Lafayette County School District.
In 2007, Mooney decided to voice her support a challenger to Lafayette County Superintendent Mike Foster in his re-election bid. Her suit alleges that an assistant superintendent approached her to donate money for newspaper ads in support of the incumbent superintendent. Mooney declined, telling the assistant superintendent that she did not believe Foster "was best suited for the position."
Mooney supported Carolyn Davis, a special education teacher who was challenging Foster. At another point, Mooney's suit alleges, the same assistant superintendent loyal to the incumbent approached her for potential adverse information about Davis. Mooney refused to provide any.
After the election, in which Foster won re-election, Mooney alleges that her superiors found problems with her job performance, such as with her punctuality and in dealing with parents.
In early 2010, Mooney was informed her contract would not be renewed as part of a reduction in force. She contends it was a pretext, though evidence described in the district court's opinion indicates that 23 or 24 other positions were eliminated for a cost savings of $400,000.
Mooney sued, alleging First Amendment retaliation and gender discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A federal district judge issued summary judgment to the school district on both counts.
The 5th Circuit court affirmed the ruling on the gender-bias claim, but revived Mooney's First Amendment claim. The court said it was clear Mooney's support for the challenger to the superintendent was protected speech on a matter of public concern.
Whether the protected speech was a motivating factor in her nonrenewal was a more difficult question, the court said. Although three years passed between the election and Mooney's nonrenewal, there is a plausible case that the district began its retaliation against her soon after the election, the court said.
Finally, the court said the district's reasons that Mooney would have been dismissed anyway may have been pretextual.
"In sum, we hold that Mooney has put forth sufficient evidence that her
political views were a motivating factor in (the district's) decision to non-renew her employment contract to survive summary judgment," the court said.
The decision allows Mooney's First Amendment claim to proceed to trial.
COMMENTS
lbkoz58
2:17 PM on August 19, 2013
Reformation of our nation's school system will come about with a continued effort of new initiatives. Without
acceptance of "dissent" from our school leaders, how will we achieve such gains. I commend the courts for allowing
Mooney's first amendment claim to proceed to trial. Unfortunately this problem exist at all levels of the public school system. If you are a teacher, parent, student, or administrator and differ in your sentiment or opinion from the majority you will be targeted and chastised in one way or another. Similar to the above incident that can mean losing your job. Don't expect people to sit idle and have their rights taken away from them. We are a nation of strong people and if we have the means to fight for our rights, ethical behavior and integrity we will. Educators are in the business to service children and act as role models, so act appropriately and teach our children well. Dissent can be a good thing!
Sunday, August 18, 2013
The Educators 4 Excellence (E4E) Tumor
Chaz reveals the true E4E:
Saturday, August 17, 2013
My Interview With A Disgruntled Education 4 Excellence Member.
LINK
During the summer I was contacted by a teacher who wanted me to hear his story about joining and eventually leaving Educators 4 Excellence (E4E). I suspect his story is similar to many other disgruntled teachers who have joined E4E only to realize that this organization is a tool for education reform organizations and not what's best for the schools and the students. To protect him I will call him "David".
David was graduating from a Midwest college when he was recruited by "Teach For America" (TFA) to teach in a low income urban school. He always wanted to go to New York City and got his wish. After receiving his five week training he was assigned to a school in the South Bronx in District 7 where he was greeted by the Principal. The Principal explained to David and the seven other TFA teachers that his school is the "proving ground" to see if you have the ability to survive the demands of teaching in New York City. On the first day, I was introduced to the "Chapter Leader" who told the staff that over 40% of the teachers we had last year are gone from the school. At the time I didn't understand why there was such a turnover of staff. However, I soon found out why. Many of the teachers left because of the challenging student population, lax discipline, and Administrative demands that required teachers to take up extra duties on an unpaid basis. Many teachers stayed to 6pm just to complete the paperwork and prepare for the next day, all for $46,000.
Within the first week, I received a flyer in my mailbox that invited me to join an organization that represents the views of the teachers who are new to the school system. At the time I thought this was simply part of the union and I eagerly joined this organization (E4E) since they claimed to want more pay, better working conditions, and a say in education policy. It was easy to convince me after E4E plied me with booze and food while pitching their program at a get-together at a local bar..
During the first semester, I was contacted weekly by E4E to volunteer my time to convince other teachers to join the organization and to come to meetings about supporting the Bloomberg Administration's policy on eliminating seniority rights, and the evolving teacher evaluation system. At first, I believed everything E4E was advocating and it helped that my school had many E4E members and the Principal actually supported the organization by giving them access to the school. It was only near the end of my first year did I slowly realize that E4E was a small group, even a cult, that had only a handful of schools represented and these schools were staffed by TFA teachers and experienced high turnover rates, just like my school.
With the summer off and time on my hands, I started to read the education blogs and blogger posts about E4E and was shocked and disappointed how the bloggers felt about E4E. They called them tools for Bill Gates, and Eli Broad, a fifth column, and how many of the E4E leaders were not even classroom teachers! I decided to start asking questions to my E4E coordinator once I started my second year and quickly realized that they were uncomfortable with me questioning them. At the first meeting in my school where E4E welcomed the next batch of TFA teachers the Principal had recruited (we had a 30% turnover rate, less left because of the recession). At the meeting I asked why E4E is not working with the union on common issues of interest? You would have thought I asked them to commit suicide. Their response was hostile that E4E represents the views of the 21st century teacher and not the old and stringent contract requirements that the union represented. I stayed as a E4E member but did very little work on behalf of the organization. The more I knew about E4E, the less I wanted to be part of the group.
By the end of my second year, I became so disillusioned with E4E's increasing demands and rhetoric for its members, that I quit the organization. However, I found out "that once you're in, you can't get out". They wanted us to go to other schools and network with new teachers to invite them for food and drinks to encourage them to join. I was unwilling to waste my time doing that and I noticed that many of the E4E leaders were no longer classroom teachers and had no classroom assignments. When I asked one who I was particularly close to in my school how did he get out of the classroom and into a job as a"coach" in his third year of teaching. He smiled and said that the E4E leadership encouraged the Principal to make him a "coach" to reward him for his loyalty and recruitment success to the organization. Yes, it seems my Principal not only hired TFA teachers but was one of the select schools that encouraged teachers to join E4E and rewarded them for doing so.
In my third year, I went on the Open Market Transfer System and received many job offers, since I
was inexpensive and not tenured. I took a position in Manhattan and decided to no longer be an active participant in E4E. This did not stop E4E from contacting me repeatedly to help them recruit and keep including me as a member. I finally, cut all ties with them when they refused to run a slate in last year's UFT elections and I soon realized that they were a fringe group that is not supported by teachers but is propped up by outside education reform groups that want to deprofessionalize teaching and make it a temporary stopover on one's path to a real professional job that can support a family.
I will be starting my fourth year in teaching and hopefully receive tenure as I now realize what a dope I was in thinking E4E cares about the teachers in the trenches (classroom). Rather they are a tool for outside interests that want to destroy the power of the teacher unions and make the teaching profession a low wage, temporary job. Finally, I have realized that the goal for many of the mid-level E4E members is not what is best for the students but the quickest path to achieve an education policy position and leaving the classroom as fast as possible.
Posted by Chaz at 9:15 AM
1 comment:
Anonymous said...
Just as we all knew. Good job with the interview. I hope these misguided teachers realize E4E is a sock puppet for the outside interests.11:51 AM
My goal is to outlast Mayor Bloomberg & Chancellor Walcott in their "children last" program.
My Interview With A Disgruntled Education 4 Excellence Member.
LINK
During the summer I was contacted by a teacher who wanted me to hear his story about joining and eventually leaving Educators 4 Excellence (E4E). I suspect his story is similar to many other disgruntled teachers who have joined E4E only to realize that this organization is a tool for education reform organizations and not what's best for the schools and the students. To protect him I will call him "David".David was graduating from a Midwest college when he was recruited by "Teach For America" (TFA) to teach in a low income urban school. He always wanted to go to New York City and got his wish. After receiving his five week training he was assigned to a school in the South Bronx in District 7 where he was greeted by the Principal. The Principal explained to David and the seven other TFA teachers that his school is the "proving ground" to see if you have the ability to survive the demands of teaching in New York City. On the first day, I was introduced to the "Chapter Leader" who told the staff that over 40% of the teachers we had last year are gone from the school. At the time I didn't understand why there was such a turnover of staff. However, I soon found out why. Many of the teachers left because of the challenging student population, lax discipline, and Administrative demands that required teachers to take up extra duties on an unpaid basis. Many teachers stayed to 6pm just to complete the paperwork and prepare for the next day, all for $46,000.
Within the first week, I received a flyer in my mailbox that invited me to join an organization that represents the views of the teachers who are new to the school system. At the time I thought this was simply part of the union and I eagerly joined this organization (E4E) since they claimed to want more pay, better working conditions, and a say in education policy. It was easy to convince me after E4E plied me with booze and food while pitching their program at a get-together at a local bar..
During the first semester, I was contacted weekly by E4E to volunteer my time to convince other teachers to join the organization and to come to meetings about supporting the Bloomberg Administration's policy on eliminating seniority rights, and the evolving teacher evaluation system. At first, I believed everything E4E was advocating and it helped that my school had many E4E members and the Principal actually supported the organization by giving them access to the school. It was only near the end of my first year did I slowly realize that E4E was a small group, even a cult, that had only a handful of schools represented and these schools were staffed by TFA teachers and experienced high turnover rates, just like my school.
With the summer off and time on my hands, I started to read the education blogs and blogger posts about E4E and was shocked and disappointed how the bloggers felt about E4E. They called them tools for Bill Gates, and Eli Broad, a fifth column, and how many of the E4E leaders were not even classroom teachers! I decided to start asking questions to my E4E coordinator once I started my second year and quickly realized that they were uncomfortable with me questioning them. At the first meeting in my school where E4E welcomed the next batch of TFA teachers the Principal had recruited (we had a 30% turnover rate, less left because of the recession). At the meeting I asked why E4E is not working with the union on common issues of interest? You would have thought I asked them to commit suicide. Their response was hostile that E4E represents the views of the 21st century teacher and not the old and stringent contract requirements that the union represented. I stayed as a E4E member but did very little work on behalf of the organization. The more I knew about E4E, the less I wanted to be part of the group.
By the end of my second year, I became so disillusioned with E4E's increasing demands and rhetoric for its members, that I quit the organization. However, I found out "that once you're in, you can't get out". They wanted us to go to other schools and network with new teachers to invite them for food and drinks to encourage them to join. I was unwilling to waste my time doing that and I noticed that many of the E4E leaders were no longer classroom teachers and had no classroom assignments. When I asked one who I was particularly close to in my school how did he get out of the classroom and into a job as a"coach" in his third year of teaching. He smiled and said that the E4E leadership encouraged the Principal to make him a "coach" to reward him for his loyalty and recruitment success to the organization. Yes, it seems my Principal not only hired TFA teachers but was one of the select schools that encouraged teachers to join E4E and rewarded them for doing so.
In my third year, I went on the Open Market Transfer System and received many job offers, since I
was inexpensive and not tenured. I took a position in Manhattan and decided to no longer be an active participant in E4E. This did not stop E4E from contacting me repeatedly to help them recruit and keep including me as a member. I finally, cut all ties with them when they refused to run a slate in last year's UFT elections and I soon realized that they were a fringe group that is not supported by teachers but is propped up by outside education reform groups that want to deprofessionalize teaching and make it a temporary stopover on one's path to a real professional job that can support a family.I will be starting my fourth year in teaching and hopefully receive tenure as I now realize what a dope I was in thinking E4E cares about the teachers in the trenches (classroom). Rather they are a tool for outside interests that want to destroy the power of the teacher unions and make the teaching profession a low wage, temporary job. Finally, I have realized that the goal for many of the mid-level E4E members is not what is best for the students but the quickest path to achieve an education policy position and leaving the classroom as fast as possible.
Posted by Chaz at 9:15 AM
1 comment:
Anonymous said...Just as we all knew. Good job with the interview. I hope these misguided teachers realize E4E is a sock puppet for the outside interests.11:51 AM
Saturday, August 17, 2013
NYC DOE Knowingly and Recklessly Violate Open Meetings Law on August 21, 2013
The Agenda below for the Panel For Educational Policy (PEP) shows how the NYC DOE has disdain for NYS Committee on Open Government and Section 105 of the Open Meetings Law. The relevant part of Section 105 is the part about the scheduling of the Executive Session (emphasis added by me):
§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.
2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
In other words, the members of the PEP are liable for violating NY State Law by agreeing to meet in an Executive Session before the regular public meeting begins, as stated in the Agenda.
We have stated since 2002 that all members of the PEP should be removed, should resign, or be sued, for violating the rights of parents teachers and children to information about public money and other data affecting the public.
And, we also filed a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of the PEP meetings, and you know what we got? The Agenda.
Betsy Combier
§105. Conduct of executive sessions.
1. Upon a majority vote of its total membership, taken in an open meeting pursuant to a motion identifying the general area or areas of the subject or subjects to be considered, a public body may conduct an executive session for the below enumerated purposes only, provided, however, that no action by formal vote shall be taken to appropriate public moneys:
a. matters which will imperil the public safety if disclosed;
b. any matter which may disclose the identity of a law enforcement agent or informer;
c. information relating to current or future investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense which would imperil effective law enforcement if disclosed;
d. discussions regarding proposed, pending or current litigation;
e. collective negotiations pursuant to article fourteen of the civil service law;
f. the medical, financial, credit or employment history of a particular person or corporation, or matters leading to the appointment, employment, promotion, demotion, discipline, suspension, dismissal or removal of a particular person or corporation;
g. the preparation, grading or administration of examinations; and
h. the proposed acquisition, sale or lease of real property or the proposed acquisition of securities, or sale or exchange of securities held by such public body, but only when publicity would substantially affect the value thereof.
2. Attendance at an executive session shall be permitted to any member of the public body and any other persons authorized by the public body.
In other words, the members of the PEP are liable for violating NY State Law by agreeing to meet in an Executive Session before the regular public meeting begins, as stated in the Agenda.
We have stated since 2002 that all members of the PEP should be removed, should resign, or be sued, for violating the rights of parents teachers and children to information about public money and other data affecting the public.
And, we also filed a Freedom of Information request for the minutes of the PEP meetings, and you know what we got? The Agenda.
Betsy Combier
MEDIA ADVISORY
For Planning Purposes Only
August 14, 2013
|
|
PUBLIC MEETING OF THE PANEL FOR
EDUCATIONAL POLICY
Murry Bergtraum High School for
Business Careers
411 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10038
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
6:00 P.M.
AGENDA
I. Executive
Session
A. Executive Session regarding Matter Pertaining to Employee
Discipline:
Inquest on Employee Termination [NOTE: This is closed to the public and will take place prior to the 6:00PM public meeting start time.]
II. Regular Public
Meeting
A. Chancellor’s Update
B. Approval of Annual Estimate of the Total Sum of Money
Available to
Support DOE Operations (see here)
The Panel will vote on the
attached total sum of money necessary to support DOE
operations. Public comment on this item will take place before the Panel votes.
C. Approval of Revised Formulas Used to Allocate Revenue
Among Community
School Districts and Schools (see here)
The Panel will vote on the
attached revised formulas used to allocate revenue among
community school districts and schools. Public comment on this item will take place before the Panel votes.
The Panel will vote on the
attached amendments to Chancellor’s Regulations. Public
comment on items being considered by the Panel will take place before the Panel
votes.
The Panel will vote on the
attached list of contracts. Public comment on contracts
being considered by the Panel will take place before the Panel votes.
F. General Public Comment
Sign Up For Public Comment
Speaker sign-up for agenda items
II.B through II.E will begin at 5:30PM at the door
and will close at 6:30PM Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak during the public comment portions of the meeting.
Interpretation services will be
provided in Spanish. American Sign Language will
be provided through reservation only: (212) 374-4946 or panel@schools.nyc.gov |
|
Freedom of Information Requests: Explanation of Time Limits for Response (June 2005)
The Freedom of Information Law provides direction concerning the time and manner in which agencies must respond to requests. Specifically, §89(3) of the Freedom of Information Law states in part that:
"Each entity subject to the provisions of this article, within five business days of the receipt of a written request for a record reasonably described, shall make such record available to the person requesting it, deny such request in writing or furnish a written acknowledgement of the receipt of such request and a statement of the approximate date, which shall be reasonable under the circumstances of the request, when such request will be granted or denied..."
It is noted that new language was added to that provision on May 3 (Chapter 22, Laws of 2005) stating that:
"If circumstances prevent disclosure to the person requesting the record or records within twenty business days from the date of the acknowledgement of the receipt of the request, the agency shall state, in writing, both the reason for the inability to grant the request within twenty business days and a date certain within a reasonable period, depending on the circumstances, when the request will be granted in whole or in part."
Based on the foregoing, an agency must grant access to records, deny access in writing, or acknowledge the receipt of a request within five business days of receipt of a request. When an acknowledgement is given, it must include an approximate date within twenty business days indicating when it can be anticipated that a request will be granted or denied. However, if it is known that circumstances prevent the agency from granting access within twenty business days, or if the agency cannot grant access by the approximate date given and needs more than twenty business days to grant access, it must provide a written explanation of its inability to do so and a specific date by which it will grant access. That date must be reasonable in consideration of the circumstances of the request.
The amendments clearly are intended to prohibit agencies from unnecessarily delaying disclosure. They are not intended to permit agencies to wait until the fifth business day following the receipt of a request and then twenty additional business days to determine rights of access, unless it is reasonable to do so based upon "the circumstances of the request." From my perspective, every law must be implemented in a manner that gives reasonable effect to its intent, and I point out that in its statement of legislative intent, §84 of the Freedom of Information Law states that "it is incumbent upon the state and its localities to extend public accountability wherever and whenever feasible." Therefore, when records are clearly available to the public under the Freedom of Information Law, or if they are readily retrievable, there may be no basis for a delay in disclosure. As the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, has asserted:
"...the successful implementation of the policies motivating the enactment of the Freedom of Information Law centers on goals as broad as the achievement of a more informed electorate and a more responsible and responsive officialdom. By their very nature such objectives cannot hope to be attained unless the measures taken to bring them about permeate the body politic to a point where they become the rule rather than the exception. The phrase 'public accountability wherever and whenever feasible' therefore merely punctuates with explicitness what in any event is implicit" [Westchester News v. Kimball, 50 NY 2d 575, 579 (1980)].
In a judicial decision concerning the reasonableness of a delay in disclosure that cited and confirmed the advice rendered by this office concerning reasonable grounds for delaying disclosure, it was held that:
"The determination of whether a period is reasonable must be made on a case by case basis taking into account the volume of documents requested, the time involved in locating the material, and the complexity of the issues involved in determining whether the materials fall within one of the exceptions to disclosure. Such a standard is consistent with some of the language in the opinions, submitted by petitioners in this case, of the Committee on Open Government, the agency charged with issuing advisory opinions on FOIL"(Linz v. The Police Department of the City of New York, Supreme Court, New York County, NYLJ, December 17, 2001).
If neither a response to a request nor an acknowledgement of the receipt of a request is given within five business days, if an agency delays responding for an unreasonable time beyond the approximate date of less than twenty business days given in its acknowledgement, if it acknowledges that a request has been received, but has failed to grant access by the specific date given beyond twenty business days, or if the specific date given is unreasonable, a request may be considered to have been constructively denied [see §89(4)(a)]. In such a circumstance, the denial may be appealed in accordance with §89(4)(a), which states in relevant part that:
"...any person denied access to a record may within thirty days appeal in writing such denial to the head, chief executive, or governing body, who shall within ten business days of the receipt of such appeal fully explain in writing to the person requesting the record the reasons for further denial, or provide access to the record sought."
Section 89(4)(b) was also amended, and it states that a failure to determine an appeal within ten business days of the receipt of an appeal constitutes a denial of the appeal. In that circumstance, the appellant has exhausted his or her administrative remedies and may initiate a challenge to a constructive denial of access under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Rules.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
Teacher Ben Friedman Wins His Appeal to Overturn His U Rating
Mr. Friedman overturns the dismissal of his Petition by New York State Supreme Court Judge Michael Stallman, a very biased and unfair judge. Maybe he will reform his attacks on teachers with this decision by his Supervisors.
Betsy Combier
Decided on August 13, 2013
Tom, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, DeGrasse, Richter, JJ.
10155 113309/11
Offices of Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Maria-Elena
Gonzalez of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana
Lawless of counsel), for respondents.
Betsy Combier
| Matter of Friedman v Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05598 |
| Decided on August 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on August 13, 2013
Tom, J.P., Acosta, Renwick, DeGrasse, Richter, JJ.
10155 113309/11
[*1]In re Ben Friedman, Petitioner-Appellant, The
v
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
v
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Offices of Richard E. Casagrande, New York (Maria-Elena
Gonzalez of counsel), for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Diana
Lawless of counsel), for respondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stallman, J.), entered April 6, 2012, which denied the petition to annul petitioner teacher's unsatisfactory rating for the 2007-2008 school year, and dismissed the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the petition granted, and the unsatisfactory rating annulled.
Respondents' determination to sustain the unsatisfactory performance evaluation was not rationally based on administrative findings that petitioner engaged in corporal punishment of students during the 2007-2008 school year (see Matter of Pell v Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222, 231 [1974]). There was no longer any documentation substantiating an instance of corporal punishment in petitioner's personnel file after the parties stipulated to the removal of two disciplinary letters from the file.
It is undisputed that Part 2(I) of DOE's Human Resources Handbook "Rating Pedagogical Staff Members" provides (1) that a teacher's evaluation must be supported by documentation in his/her personnel file; (2) that documentation removed from a file through grievance procedures is inadmissible in performance reviews; and (3) that documentation not addressed directly to a teacher is inadmissible in performance reviews, unless it is attached to and part of another document appropriately placed in the teacher's file. Moreover, materials placed in a teacher's personnel file must include a signature and date line for the teacher, evidencing that she has read the material and understands that it will be placed in the file, as well as a signature and date line for a witness; unsigned documents are inadmissible in evaluation reviews.
Here, there were two disciplinary letters addressing separate instances of corporal punishment. One of the requirements of the letter is to have an Office of Special Investigation (OSI) report attached in order to confirm legitimacy of the incident. The January 28, 2007 letter, which addressed a November 9, 2007 incident, did not have as an attachment the OSI report concluding that the allegation of corporal punishment on November 9, 2007 was substantiated. [*2]Moreover, the OSI report for this incident was not signed and dated by the teacher. The second disciplinary letter, dated May 21, 2009, attached the OSI report, which concluded that the November 29, 2007 incident was substantiated. However, both letters were removed from petitioner's file by stipulation, and the OSI report for the first incident, standing alone, was inadmissible. Thus, there remained no documentation in the record to support the unsatisfactory finding (see Appeal of Naomi Dowrie [46 Ed Dept Rep 273, Decision No. 15,506, Dec. 22, 2006], in which the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Education upheld the petitioner's appeal from an unsatisfactory rating on the ground that respondents had failed to follow their own procedures and had considered material that had been removed from her file through the grievance process, i.e., "materials not properly placed in [the] teacher's personal [sic] file"; Mangone v Klein, 2007 NY Slip Op 32475[u] [Sup Ct NY County 2007] [relying on Dowrie and denying DOE's motion to dismiss petition to set aside unsatisfactory rating upon finding that the petitioner's had nothing in her file other than a disciplinary letter that had been ordered to be removed following arbitration related to the allegations against him]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: AUGUST 13, 2013
CLERK
Saturday, August 10, 2013
Principal fires security guards to hire art teachers — and transforms elementary school
 |
| Orchard Gardens |
By Katy Tur, Correspondent, NBC News
ROXBURY, Mass. — The community of Roxbury had high hopes for its newest public school back in 2003. There were art studios, a dance room, even a theater equipped with cushy seating.
A pilot school for grades K-8, Orchard Gardens was built on grand expectations.
But the dream of a school founded in the arts, a school that would give back to the community as it bettered its children, never materialized.
Instead, the dance studio was used for storage and the orchestra's instruments were locked up and barely touched.
The school was plagued by violence and disorder from the start, and by 2010 it was rank in the bottom five of all public schools in the state of Massachusetts.
That was when Andrew Bott — the sixth principal in seven years — showed up, and everything started to change.
“We got rid of the security guards,” said Bott, who reinvested all the money used for security infrastructure into the arts.
Orchard Gardens a one-time 'career killer'In a school notorious for its lack of discipline, where backpacks were prohibited for fear the students would use them to carry weapons, Bott’s bold decision to replace the security guards with art teachers was met with skepticism by those who also questioned why he would choose to lead the troubled school.
“A lot of my colleagues really questioned the decision,” he said. “A lot of people actually would say to me, ‘You realize that Orchard Gardens is a career killer? You know, you don't want to go to Orchard Gardens.’”
But now, three years later, the school is almost unrecognizable. Brightly colored paintings, essays of achievement, and motivational posters line the halls. The dance studio has been resurrected, along with the band room, and an artists’ studio.
The end result? Orchard Gardens has one of the fastest student improvement rates statewide. And the students — once described as loud and unruly, have found their focus.
“We have our occasional, typical adolescent ... problems,” Bott said. “But nothing that is out of the normal for any school.”
The school is far from perfect. Test scores are better, but still below average in many areas. Bott says they’re “far from done, but definitely on the right path.”
The students, he says, are evidence of that.
‘I can really have a future in this’
Eighth grader Keyvaughn Little said he’s come out of his shell since the school’s turnaround.
“I've been more open, and I've expressed myself more than I would have before the arts have came.”
His grades have improved, too. Keyvaughn says it’s because of the teachers — and new confidence stemming from art class.
“There's no one particular way of doing something,” he said. “And art helps you like see that. So if you take that with you, and bring it on, it will actually help you see that in academics or anything else, there's not one specific way you have to do something.”
Keyvaughn has now been accepted to the competitive Boston Arts Academy, the city’s only public high school specializing in visual and performing arts.
“All of the extra classes and the extra focus on it and the extra attention make you think that, ‘Hey, oh my gosh, I can really have a future in this, I don't have to go to a regular high school — I can go to art school,'” he said.
Chris Plunkett, a visual arts teacher at Orchard Gardens school in Roxbury, Mass., spoke with NBC's Katy Tur about the success of the arts program that led to an inspiring turnaround for students.
Chris Plunkett, who has taught visual arts at Orchard Gardens for the past three years, said the classes help develop trust between the faculty and students. During one particularly memorable project, he asked his eighth graders to write a memoir about a life experience and what they learned from it and then create a self-portrait.
“I couldn't believe how honest and candid they were, and how much I learned about them,” Plunkett said. “I mean it was really, it was one of the most incredible things I've seen in eighth graders.”
Noting that kids need more than test prep, he added, it may have seemed “a little crazy” to get rid of the security guards to hire art teachers but “I definitely feel it was the right move in the end.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)