A close-up look at NYC education policy, politics,and the people who have been, are now, or will be affected by these actions and programs. ATR CONNECT assists individuals who suddenly find themselves in the ATR ("Absent Teacher Reserve") pool and are the "new" rubber roomers, people who have been re-assigned from their life and career. A "Rubber Room" is not a place, but a process.
Great news for e-accountability!!! (That's the name of my Foundation, a 501 (C) 3 to hold people accountable for their actions). Send in these notes and comments!!! With names.
City Schools Chancellor Carmen Farina, right, seen here with Kamillah Hanks, Borough Hall liasion to the Panel for Education Policy, left, has visited Staten Island numerous times since she was appointed, and has heard complaints from special education parents, teachers and advocates about the system. (Staten Island Advance)
Her replacement,
announced Monday in an in-house memo from Deputy Chancellor Corinne
Rello-Anselmi -- a copy of which was obtained by the Advance -- is Christina
Foti, currently principal of PS 231 in Brooklyn.
Christina Foti
The memo did not indicate
whether Ms. Chase was leaving the DOE system, or why she was leaving her
special ed post.
Acknowledging she had
"mixed emotions" about Chase's departure, and while wishing her well,
the deputy chancellor, in her memo, also noted, "it is essential
that the new leader of the Special Education Office have a demonstrated
commitment to students with special needs and solid leadership skills."
SPECIAL ED EXPERIENCE
Ms. Foti has a bachelor's
degree from Vassar; a master's degree in special education from the City
University of New York and a postgraduate degree in education leadership from
Hunter College. She has worked as a special education teacher, assistant principal
and as a principal in District 75, which is comprised of special education
schools throughout the five boroughs.
"In these roles she
has developed skills in instruction, writing quality IEPs [individualized
education plans], and professional support, as well as a deep understanding of
the Shared Path framework," noted Ms. Rello-Anselmi, referring to the DOE's
ambitious plan to revamp the special ed system.
The special education
office is in charge of day-to-day management of the system, which serves more
than 200,000 students. It involves supervising teams at 13 sites in all five
boroughs, with more than 800 field staff; overseeing the administration of
federal and state grants, and ensuring compliance, implementing services to
children and working with parents, advocates, community members and union
officials.
A central policy shift in
the "Shared Plan for Success" reform is "home-zoning" of
special education students.
In the past, a student
with a particular special need would often be placed at a school with the
resources best suited to meet that need.
Under the reform,
the student remains at his or her zoned school and the school is now
responsible for providing the service.
PROBLEMS PERSIST
While the intended
benefit is to keep students close to home, problems frequently surface when
the school does not have the required programs or staffing in place. The reform
is aimed at "home-zoning" all students, except the most extreme
cases, which are shifted to an appropriate District 75 special education school.
But special education
staff, parents and advocates complain that resources are scarce; parents say
their children are not being served, and some say their child's individualized
education plan (IEP) isn't being followed.
Those responsible
for delivering services to students in need complain they
are mired in bureaucratic paperwork, hampering their efforts.
Describing her philosophy
of learning on her LinkedIn profile page, Ms. Foti wrote: 'It is my belief that
all children, irrespective of disability, can rise to meet expectations when
caring professionals provide high quality programs that support the academic,
physical and social development of students."
ADVOCATE LAUDS DECISION
Special education
advocates welcomed news of her appointment.
"If she can live up
to her philosophy she'll be great for the kids, the parents, teacher and
professionals. It's all about understanding the children and their needs. It
sounds really simple, but to find someone who really understands a child is not
easy," said special education advocate Laura Timoney, a member of the
Community Education Council and parent of a special-needs child.
Johanna Chase
The ouster of Ms. Chase
and appointment of Ms. Foti reportedly was endorsed by City Schools Chancellor
Carmen Farina, who has heard
complaints from all sides during her visits to Staten Island and
has made special ed reform one of her priorities since she was appointed by
Mayor Bill deBlasio in January.
Under her watch, the DOE mishandled $356
million in federal fundsmeant to cover special education
services such as speech, occupational and physical therapy, evaluation and
counseling and pupil transportation.
Her office also received
a storm of criticism from parents and special education advocates for slashing
$250,000 from a small but successful program known as the Transitional
Aspergers Program (TAP), which helps students diagnosed with Asperger's make
the transition from intermediate school to high school. Money for the program
has reportedly been restored after the
Advance reported on the cut.
CHRISTINA FOTI - LINKEDIN
It is my belief that all children, irrespective of disability, can rise to meet expectations when caring professionals provide high quality programs that support the academic, physical and social development of students. As a principal, my greatest joy comes from working with the staff, students and families of PS 231K to fulfill the mission of our school.
At PS 231K, it is our mission to create a core of learners through the collaborative efforts of the students, staff, parents and community. The role of the “teacher” is not limited to the adult, but is extended to the child. In doing so, each child discovers his/her own unique potential, talents, purpose and greatness through a differentiated, interdisciplinary approach inclusive of technological as well as social emotional learning. We strive to show our students that the biggest classroom is the world around them. We do this by using all available resources to bring the world into the classroom and the classroom into the world. PS 231K students become independent, productive, problem-solving citizens that seek challenges rather than shy away from them.
Interested in joining our team as a teacher, administrator, related service provider or paraprofessional? Contact me at cfoti@schools.nyc.gov.
The re-assignmentof six Supervisors of Psychology from the
recently disbanded Cluster 3 this summer has snowballed into an avalanche of questions about how some
“Supervisors of…” should receive new assignments.
CSA has been in weekly, sometimes daily, conversations with the
Department of Education since early August concerning Supervisors of Speech and Supervisors of
Psychologists. The number of members affected has grown as the conversation topic has expanded: Now the assignments of
about 30 Supervisors of Speech and 30 Supervisors of Psychology are at stake.
“We believe that district-like assignments make the most sense
in providing support services to schools,” said CSA President Ernest Logan.
With the current system of cluster assignments,
Supervisors of... may have schools in two or three boroughs.
“We’re wasting valuable time sitting in traffic and looking for parking
spaces,” Mr. Logan said.
Summarizing the situation is difficult because the problem has
grown – and changed – since the question of how to reassign six Supervisors of Psychology from Cluster 3
arose. Briefly here’s what happened, according to Audrey Fuentes, Executive
Director Field Services, who has spearheaded the union’s efforts to bring
member concerns to the DOE’s attention:
After the dissolution of Cluster 3 this summer, the DOE made
tentative assignments for the six Supervisors of Psychology and planned to ask
for feedback on the proposed placements in the remaining five Clusters, said
Ms. Fuentes. During an early exchange with the DOE, Ms. Fuentes asked who would
be the new rating supervisors for these members, and then opened the proverbial
can of worms by asking, “What will happen to Cluster 3’s Supervisors of
Speech?” Meanwhile, the six Supervisors of Psychology were tentatively
reassigned.
By Aug. 29, the first day back for 10-month Supervisors, the DOE
responded to Ms. Fuentes’
question with a proposal that perhaps all Supervisors of Speech should be
aligned by Districts/Boroughs; the DOE then sent a survey to about 30
Supervisors of Speech assigned to Clusters to ask them their preferences.
(Editor’s Note: Readers may be confused about the DOE asking anything about
districts since from 2003 the DOE has assiduously battled to eliminate
districts and assignments by district.)
Ms. Fuentes responded by expressing her concerns as to how
member preferences will be handled, i.e. what would happen if two people wanted
the same assignment, and what recourse members would have if they were unhappy.
(She also asked to see the assignments for the Cluster 3 Supervisors of
Psychology.) The DOE’s response was a little opaque, but ultimately said
experience andprior workin a specific district was to be thecriteria.
“Supervisors of Speechheardabout the reassignments unofficially,” said
Ms. Fuentes recently, “and there was an uproar from speech supervisors in terms
of their assignments.” At this point, Ms. Fuentes asked Johannah Chase of the
DOE’s Division of School Support and Instruction with whom she had been
dealing, for a complete list of new assignments. “Our members were asking, ‘How
come I got this district when I asked for another district?” Others felt they
had been discriminated against, orthoughtone supervisor had been ‘favored’ over
another.” Ms. Fuentes suggested these supervisors write to Ms. Chase.
“It was not clear to our members how decisions were made,” said
Ms. Fuentes; the DOE’s attempts for transparency had not only fallen flat, but
had created anger. So more meetings were held in September to discuss the
issues. “We said, ‘If you’re going to ask for preferences as you make changes,
you need to use seniority to make the decisions to be transparent and fair; you
have to use amethodthat can be easily explained to the people
involved.”
While the DOE has OK’ed assigning Supervisors of Speech in
alignment with districts/ boroughs (since their jobs are closely aligned with
schools,) it continues to say “no” to this method for placing Supervisors of
Psychologists. The explanation is that Supervisors of Psychologists are aligned
with clusters, which cross district and borough lines.
At a Sept. 26 meeting, the DOE said it was having trouble
compiling seniority lists for Supervisors of Speech. By Oct. 26, Ms. Fuentes
said, the list was to have been delivered to her but still hadn’t arrived. As
for Supervisors of Psychologists, CSA is still pushing for the DOE to assign
them by district/borough, but continues to meet resistance.
**We apologize for only sending our press release today. Unfortunately,we are not funded by secret fundersor anyone for that matter, so we do all our public relations, media outreach, communications, website etc. ourselves. We are all parent volunteers, not paid tens of thousands per month to do PR or pay for staff.**
“We Will Not Be
Bullied! Celebrity Campbell Brown Does
Not Represent Us.”
New York City
Parents Union Statement Regarding Campbell Brown's Attempts
To Sabotage
Parent-Led Lawsuit Regarding Bad Education Law
DAVIDS V. NEW
YORK: THE FACTS
On July 3, 2014, the lawsuit Davids v. New York was filed by 11 New York City students against the State of New York, the New York State Board of Regents, the New York State Education Department, the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education. An extension of the ongoing efforts by parents to improve the quality of education in New York State, this lawsuit seeks to declare as unconstitutional certain provisions within New York State’s Education Law that deny students the “sound basic education,” considered a fundamental right under Article XI, §1 of the New York State Constitution.
Davids v. New York was filed against the State of New York — not against
teachers or any union — pursuant to this State’s constitutional obligation
to ensure the availability of a sound basic education for all of its
children. Davids is about modernizing the
teaching profession and ensuring that our education system is
performance-based and not quality-blind. Above all, this lawsuit is an affirmation of the
importance of teachers to the quality of students’ education and it is a
challenge for all of us to do things differently to make sure our students
are getting all of the resources they need to succeed. New books and
desks are not enough; there must be a highly motivated, highly effective
teacher in each classroom every day.
Unlike California -- where Vergara v. California challenged that state’s “Last In
First Out” (LIFO) provisions, dismissal provisions and tenure provisions -- we are
challenging only New York’s state’s LIFO and dismissal
statutes. Davids v. New York will force
essential changes in bad law. We are not challenging the tenure
law in New York due to the recent amendments of the law that require school
districts to consider classroom performance as a factor in granting
permanent employment. The fact that New York State now considers
“teacher quality” as a component of its tenure decisions is a critical
distinction when comparing New York’s education laws with California’s.
New York City’s parents chose to take action on behalf of their children
and on their own terms, independent of other organizations and
agendas. During a similar period of time, Ms. Campbell Brown, a media
celebrity involved specifically with anti-union crusades also decided to
pursue legal action. Her case is titled Wright v. New
York. Ms. Brown’s
primary interest was and remains the elimination of tenure for
teachers. The New York City Parents Union’s lawsuit,Davids v. New
York, was
announced, filed with the court and served prior to Ms. Brown’s filing of
her lawsuit and the announcement thereof.
On August 7, 2014, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman,
representing all government agency defendants, filed a motion to
consolidate Wright v. New York with Davids v. New York, resulting in a single case.
Mr. Schneiderman also requested that the case be tried in Richmond County
-- the Borough of Staten Island -- and that the consolidated case remain
titled as Davids v. New York. Despite the different focus of Brown’s case,
the Davids plaintiffs agreed to the consolidation and also agreed
to the United Federation of Teachers' motion to intervene on behalf of
their union’s members.
CELEBRITY CAMPBELL BROWN: THE OUTRAGE
In contrast to the Davids plaintiffs spirit
of cooperation, however, celebrity Campbell Brown has engaged in a deliberate
and methodical effort to undermine the strength ofDavids v. New York and
sabotage the efforts of real parents to improve their children’s
education. Ms. Brown has decided that having her name in the
headlines is a top priority and, aided and abetted by others, she has used
the threat of “economic sanctions” in an attempt to reduce financial
support for Davids v. New York and the efforts of the New
York City Parents Union.
On August 14, the NYCPU met with Randy Mastro, Esq., a partner with
the law firm Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, which was providing legal
representation to the Davids v. New York plaintiffs. At this meeting,
the plaintiffs were advised by Mr. Mastro that Campbell Brown and her
supporters were waging a bullying campaign behind the scenes to undermine
and sabotage Davids v. New York, including the threat of clients leaving Gibson Dunn as
well as threats to funders of Students Matter, an education advocacy
organization that organized the Vergara lawsuit, and threats conveyed to
RALLY, a public relations company working with theDavids plaintiffs. The appalling
extreme and sensitive nature of this situation has led involved parties to
deny the threats and generate creative reasons for changing their
relationships withDavids v. New York.
After refusing to go “on the record” addressing or denying these
allegations to reporters, and only after agreeing to deny our allegations
“off the record,” Ms. Brown finally responded “on the record” in
an email to former California State Senator Gloria Romero, the sponsor of
the California Parent Empowerment Law and also a columnist for the Orange
County Register.
On August 28, 2014, after learning that Ms. Romero had confirmation of Ms.
Brown's bullying from a credible Students Matter source, Campbell Brown
denied our allegations in an email to Ms. Romero and proceeded to instruct
Gibson Dunn, our attorneys, to respond to Ms. Romero with a statement.
A mere 12 minutes later, Gibson Dunn
-- our law firm with whom we had a retainer agreement – proceeded to
violate attorney-client privilege by following Ms. Brown's instructions and
sending Gloria Romero an email that called our allegations absurd included
a statement that Gibson Dunn would no longer be representing the student
and parent plaintiffs in Davids v. New York. This email and statement was sent
hours before attorney Randy Mastro actually notified us – his
clients -- in a short email that Gibson Dunn would no longer be
representing us.
CELEBRITY CAMPBELL BROWN: THE VERY INCONVENIENT TRUTH It was beyond disappointing to be confronted by a bully
posing as an ally. In New York City, we say “No” to bullies. As
real parents with our children’s futures on the line, we will not be
bullied! Celebrity Campbell Brown has chosen to use intimidation as
hermodus operandi. Celebrity Campbell Brown’s ego does
not deserve our praise, nor does her obsession with teacher tenure.
Celebrity Campbell Brown does not represent us parents – and she will not
stop our children and us from proceeding with Davids v. New
York. Celebrity Campbell Brown is not the saviour of New
York’s children from low-income families or black and brown children … and
she has no right to represent herself as such when she chooses to use money
and connections to trample on the rights of those children and their
families.
Unlike Ms. Brown's lawsuit, Davids v. New York has been organized by
independent, grassroots parents with a long history of advocating on both a
legislative and judicial level for our children. The parents of the
student plaintiffs are members of the New York City Parents Union, a
parent-led organization dedicated to ensuring that every child receives
equal access to a high-quality and affordable public education. The
New York City Parents Union and its members are also plaintiffs in two
ongoing school funding lawsuits – actions pursued to ensure that New York's
public school children receive all the school funding they are entitled to
under the law per the important Campaign for Fiscal Equity court decision.
Through this lawsuit, we seek to create an opportunity for education
stakeholders — students, parents, teachers, legislators, and organized
labor — to create a better review system that elevates teacher quality,
raises the prestige of the teaching profession as a whole, and promotes
access to a sound education for all students.
# # #
September 11,
2014 Press Conference videos of Davids v. New York parent plaintiffs
speaking out against Campbell Brown's bullying, undermining and attempted
hijacking of our independent, grassroots, parent led lawsuit.
Whoopi Goldberg is the latest celebrity to weigh in on the topic of teacher tenure, fueling what seems to be increasing national attention to the topic.
Her comments appear to be prompted by a lawsuit organized by former news anchorCampbell Brownagainst New York state's tenure and dismissal rules. Fresh off herappearance on "The Colbert Report," Brown has been making the early-morning talk-show rounds. (Not to be outdone, the American Federation of Teachers' Randi Weingarten fought back Tuesday on the MSNBC program "Morning Joe.")
At this rate, teacher tenure may exceed the Common Core State Standards as an education policy lightning rod, even as a possible wedge issue in the midterm and 2016 elections.
One thing's for sure: There's a war out there to win public opinion on the merits, or demerits, of tenure laws. Advocates like Brown are focusing on broad-brush arguments that tenure rules make it too difficult to get rid of poor teachers. Unions, alternatively, posit that tenure protects teachers from reprisals, and that attacks on tenure are really attacks onorganized laborand public education. (The AFT sent back-to-back missives this week urging itsalliesto tweet and post to Facebook stories to that effect.)
Given the conventional wisdom that perception is nine-tenths of the reality in political warfare, this back and forth makes sense. But it's worth taking the time to remember that tenure laws—which prevent teachers from being dismissed without cause, typically established in a hearing—are actually complex, obscure, and context-specific. State legal codes on tenure go on for pages and pages, spelling out in detail such matters as the reasons constituting just cause for firing, the timeline for filing charges and hearing cases, the type of evidence that can be presented at hearings, the appeals process, and so on and so forth.
For cases of dismissal for incompetence, the picture is further complicated bydisagreementsabout what constitutes an effective teacher and how to measure one. And, as with all laws, they can be implemented well or poorly.
My point is that there's a lot here in the weeds to examine. We'll do our best here atEducation Weekto keep you above the fray and understanding these nuances.
