Sunday, September 30, 2007

Broad Jumping II - From The Wave


by Norm Scott

The following article appeared in The School Scope column in The Wave, September 21, 2007 and summarizes some of the previous pieces on Eli Broad on this blog.

BloomKlein Win! BloomKlein Win!!
Shout it from the rooftops. Toss the confetti in the air. Have a party.
The BloomKlein gang at Tweed are suffering rotator cuff damage – in both arms– from patting themselves on the back for their victory, announced on Tuesday, in winning the Broad [pronounced Brood] prize.
Who is Eli Broad and why is he using his billions to help destroy public education in the major urban school systems?
Therein lies a long tale and I’ve elucidated much of it on my ednotesonline.com/ blog.

Broad has simple answers to complex questions. Nationally recognized educational historian Diane Ravitch sums it up:
“About 18 months ago, I was invited to meet Eli Broad in his gorgeous penthouse in NYC, overlooking Central Park. I hear that he made his billions in the insurance and real estate businesses. I am not sure when he became an education expert. We talked about school reform for an hour or more, and he told me that what was needed to fix the schools was not all that complicated: A tough manager surrounded by smart graduates of business schools and law schools. Accountability. Tight controls. Results. In fact, NYC is the perfect model of school reform from his point of view. Indeed, this version of school reform deserves the Broad Prize, a prize conferred by one billionaire on another.”

Deborah Meier, a nationally respected progressive educator for the past 40 years says:
“I am afraid. Truly. I think the mayor of NYC, and Eli Broad, are perfectly happy about a future in which most teachers come and go every five or so years. Temps. Easier to manage and harder to organize. A few will rise to leadership positions after a few years of teaching—after getting MBAs?—and the rest of the leaders will come from other fields like law, business, and the military.”

Leonie Haimson and a number of other parents sent a letter to the Broad Foundation:
“We urge you not to award the Broad prize to NYC this year. As parents and teachers, we have witnessed one incoherent wave of reorganization after another over the last five years, leading to unnecessary chaos and in many cases, disruption of educational services. None of these changes have been planned or undertaken with any consultation of the stakeholders in the system. “Instead of transparency and accurate information, we get spin and PR. Though overall, the amount spent on education has risen, there is no evidence that a larger percentage of resources has gone to the classroom, despite repeated claims by DOE. Instead, each year the headcount grows of highly paid officials at Tweed, as well as the number of multi-million dollar consultants. “…as recent news reports have revealed, the 4th grade exams in both ELA and math were much easier in 2005, when the largest gains in NYC performance occurred, putting into doubt their validity.”

The full text is available at nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/

David M. Quintana, a parent active in District 27 wrote:
“As one of the four (4) parent participants in a focus group held at Tweed for researchers from the Broad Foundation, I am disappointed in the fact that NYC received the Broad Foundation prize today. “This group of parents, handpicked by Martine Guerrier of the Department of Education (DOE), expressed uniform disappointment with the various changes put into place by DOE, the lack of transparency and accountability, and the lack of consideration given the views of parents about what their children really need to succeed. “Clearly the Broad Foundation did not take parents views into consideration when awarding this prize to NYC today. “I feel that the DOE is totally dismissive of parents views and makes short shrift of our concerns for our children (i.e. - class size reduction, cell phone ban, school bus fiasco, numerous reorganizations of the DOE, et al).”

Quintana’s resume is not a light one:
District 27 Presidents Council - Recording Secretary
District 27 Representative to Chancellors Parents Advisory Council, Queens Community Board 10 - Education Committee and Queens Borough President's Parents Advisory Council member

And the reaction of teachers on the front line to the national recognition of BloomKlein for doing wonderful things in “reforming” the NYC school system? I would bet my pension that 95% of them are laughing (or crying) themselves silly. And they would be joined by a hell of a lot of supervisors too.
I wonder what kind of prize is given to the CEO’s of corporations that have absolutely no respect from the bulk of the people that work for them? Oh, I know. The Broad prize.

Et tu Randi?
It should be clear to teachers in the trenches that they are fighting a 2-front war -– against BloomKlein and their own collaborationist union.
There was a picture of UFT president Randi Weingarten with Joel Klein giving her a big hug and kiss at the Broad Prize Awards ceremony in Washington. (It would not be impossibility for both Klein and Weingarten to end up in a Hillary Clinton cabinet, though I am betting Randi goes to the AFT presidency in July, tries to become the head of a united NEA and AFT and then moves on to John Sweeny’s job as AFL-CIO head.)
Boy, for someone who regularly charges the UFT collaborates with the forces looking to destroy public education, it doesn't get any better than this.
Last year, Broad gave the UFT Charter schools one million dollars.
Of course the UFT is saying the Broad prize is deserved, due to the teaching corps, "the best ever" in their words. Funny how they can argue that experience counts for teachers and then negate that argument by saying a system that has an enormous influx of inexperienced teachers, 50% of whom leave after 5 years, is the best ever. See Debbie Meier’s quote above.
Then they validate high stakes testing, which is the instrument by which the Broad prize is given, negating so much of what their own task force on testing reported last year.
And to further seal my contention that the UFT leadership are collaborators (I compare them to the French Vichy in WWII) against the interests of their own members –
The UFT commissioned a study of whether the ELA tests were easier in 2005 (teachers marking the exam at IS 180 at that time confirmed it at the time), thus enabling Bloomberg to use the “wonderful” results as part of his election bid and as a means to springboard him on the national stage as an masterly (funny that my spell checker first came up with “miserly”) educational reformer. When the study showed that this is exactly what occurred, Randi Weingarten ordered the results to be hushed up. Were it not for a leak to NY Sun reporter Elizabeth Green she would have gotten away with it.
Confused? Did the UFT PR machine lead you to think Weingarten and Klein are enemies?
Let Uncle Normie untangle it for you.
Both Democrats and Republicans are pushing the business/factory model of education that has caused so much misery to so many teachers, students and parents, albeit with slightly different twists. And the Clintons are in it right up to their necks. Now follow the bouncing ball.
Eli Broad, when attacked as a right-winger, responds that he is a Democrat.
Who is Hillary Clinton’s main supporter in the labor movement? Someone who is dedicating all her resources to getting Hillary elected? You guessed it. Our girl Randi.
Who worked for Clinton before he became NYC chancellor?
Bingo!

Want to do some more surf Broading? Check the ednotesonline.com blog.

More next time with a few words on Howie Schwach’s praise for Al Shanker. Needless to say, I have another view.

3 comments:

  1. It's pronounced Brood? Here in Dallas, the slogan is "On the Road to Broad" (it rhymes, at least the way THEY say it). Interesting points you make against it...

    ReplyDelete
  2. From: Wilbert Moore

    I've enclosed a copy of the letter I sent to Federal Judge Loretta Preska. The
    UFT is aware of my situation. I've also posted a copy of this letter on my web
    page. My web page address is: http://nycdoeuft.com.
    February 20, 2007

    Re: Docket number 03 Cv 2034(LAP)

    To:
    Judge Loretta Preska / SDNY
    500 Pearl St. 12th Floor
    New York, New York 10007

    Dear Judge Preska,

    I'm alleging the following; this affirmed letter is my official notification and
    protest of the alleged recently discovered installment of an ongoing
    conspiratorial pattern of misconduct being perpetrated by the NYC Department
    of Education (DOE). I was informed by the Pro Se Clerk's Office that on or
    around February 6, 2007, the DOE's Attorney, Mr. Andrez Shumree Carberry,
    Esq. submitted and docketed an official "Notice of Appearance" which
    allegedly still listed the DOE's co-defendants as Student A, B, C, and D, without
    presenting proof of the anonymous Students existence.

    2. Normally the filing of a "Notice of Appearance" is a routine process
    that was designed to formally inform the Court and the opposing party of the fact
    that a new or additional attorney will be introduced. However, I did not receive a
    copy of Mr. Carberry's February 6, 2007, "Notice of Appearance". I called the
    DOE's Attorney Carberry at (212) 788-0924 and spoke to him once. I've
    subsequently placed several follow-up telephone calls to him requesting a formal
    copy of the missing Notice of Appearance document but I was unable to reach
    him. I've left several messages on his answering machine in which I've
    requested a copy of the above-mentioned Notice of Appearance, but to no
    avail. I've also placed several phone calls to your office requesting a courtesy
    copy of the DOE's Notice, but to no avail.

    3. The reason I'm deeply concerned about this missing "Notice of
    Appearance" document is because, I'm alleging that this recent missing
    document incident is a part of a much larger on going conspiracy being
    perpetrated by the DOE. I'm alleging that, by not proving to the Court the
    existence of Students A, B, C, and D, Attorney Carberry is committing "Fraud
    upon the court" and is still using Laches to obstruct justice. In my opinion, the
    DOE and or the Clerks Office allegedly mistakenly violated the SDNY's Local
    Rule 50.3 by concealing an affirmed incomplete "Civil Cover Sheet" information
    document that failed to prove the existence of the Students that allegedly
    accused me of abusing them. I'm alleging that had I known about the existence
    of the incomplete "Civil Cover Sheet" I would have filed a Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure's (FRCP) Rule 1447 (c) Motion that could have prevented my
    case from being removed from the NY State Supreme Court and could have
    allowed Judge Renwick to award to me the default judgment I requested.

    4. Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (FRCP) states,
    and I quote; "Rule 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER (a) Clerical
    Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments orders or other parts of the
    record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be
    corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of
    any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders." End quote. I'm
    respectfully submitting this instant letter to you Pursuant to the FRCP's Rule 60
    hoping that you will make the following necessary corrections as soon as
    possible.

    5. In my opinion, according to USC Title 9 of the Federal Arbitration
    Act (FAA), the February 23, 2004, Award of Arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman, Esq.
    should have superceded your adverse order of March 31, 2004. However, in
    alleged violation of USC Title 9, you mistakenly failed to acknowledge and
    confirm Arbitrator Scheinman's Award. In my opinion, the only explanation You
    gave for not complying with the FAA's USC Title 9 was, stated in your June 29,
    2005, "Endorsement" where you stated, and I quote; "ENDORSEMENT
    Having reviewed Plaintiff's successive motions for relief from judgment
    [Docket nos. 39 and 41], I find there is no basis for the relief sought by
    Plaintiff. Any future motions brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) that allege the
    facts set forth in the above-referenced motions will also be denied." End
    quote.

    6. I'm alleging that You made a clerical mistake when you assumed and
    stated in your above-mentioned "June 29, 2005, Endorsement" that I was
    seeking "Relief from judgment" when in fact I was actually trying to exercise my
    constitutional right to have the Arbitrators favorable Award confirmed and
    respected by the Court. I'm alleging that had you complied with the FAA's USC
    Title 9, there would not have been a need for your March 31. 2004, adverse
    judgment. In my opinion, had you confirmed the Arbitrators Award, the Award
    would have had the same authority, and would have superseded and or made
    unnecessary your March 31, 2004, adverse Court Order. In my opinion, had you
    complied with USC Title 9, the NYC Department of Education (DOE) would have
    had to file an appeal in a timely fashion to overturn the Arbitrators Award.
    However, instead of complying with USC Title 9, you mistakenly submitted your
    own adverse order, in which you ruled in favor of the DOE.

    7. Arbitrator Scheinman, Esq., stated the following in his opinion and
    Award of February 23, 2004, and I quote; "After reviewing the evidence and
    argument submitted, I make the following rulings: 1. The letter of May 20,
    2002, shall be deleted from Wilbert Moore's File because it is unfair and
    inaccurate as these terms have been defined by the parties." End quote. If
    the Arbitrator concluded that Attorney Elenor Radzivilover's May 20, 2002, letter
    of termination was "unfair and inaccurate," and her letter of termination stated
    that, and I quote; "Dear Mr. Moore, The Office of Special Investigations has
    substantiated allegations of corporal punishment as follows; 1. CPU Log #
    02-0178 – You grabbed a male student causing a scratch to his arm. 2.
    CPU Log # 02-0180 – You grabbed another student by the neck, choked and
    pushed him." End quote, it's logical to assume that a clerical mistake was
    made by you when you totally ignored Arbitrator Scheinman's "Opinion and
    Award" and ruled in favor of the DOE's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and dismissed my
    complaint.

    8. I respectfully submit that you were fully aware of the fact that an
    Arbitration was forthcoming because, you stated on page 4 paragraph 9, in your
    adverse Order of March 31, 2004, the following, and I quote; "Finally, even
    plaintiffs own documents indicate that his union is in the process of
    scheduling an arbitration hearing on his claims. Exhibit 24, As such, it
    appears that Mr. Moore is receiving due process both in the courts and in
    the arbitral forum." End quote. My above-mentioned Arbitration was held on
    November 21, 2003. On or around March 9, 2004, I sent a letter to you to inform
    you of the fact that I had won the above-mentioned November 21, 2003,
    Arbitration.

    9. I formally informed You of Arbitrator Scheinman's Award in a Rule
    60(b) Motion I submitted to you on April 27, 2004, by stating the following, and I
    quote; "15. Plaintiff is presenting the following as "New Evidence;" on or
    around February 23, 2004, AAA's Arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman, Esq. ruled
    in Plaintiff's favor and officially removed the NYC Department of Education's
    defamatory letter of termination dated May 20, 2002, from Plaintiff's
    personnel file (See exhibits 23, 24 and 25). End quote. In my opinion, the
    information in Attorney Radzivilover's May 20, 2002, defamatory hearsay letter of
    termination is the DOE's only evidence in the record of my using Corporal
    Punishment on Students A, B, C, and D, with the letter removed, the DOE has
    no case. This case has been dragging on for over 5 years, I'm hoping that you
    will carefully consider the above information and make the necessary corrections
    pursuant to the FRCP's Rule 60. Respectfully Submitted,
    Wilbert Moore

    ReplyDelete
  3. From: Wilbert Moore

    I've enclosed a copy of the letter I sent to Federal Judge Loretta Preska. The
    UFT is aware of my situation. I've also posted a copy of this letter on my web
    page. My web page address is: http://nycdoeuft.com.
    February 20, 2007

    Re: Docket number 03 Cv 2034(LAP)

    To:
    Judge Loretta Preska / SDNY
    500 Pearl St. 12th Floor
    New York, New York 10007

    Dear Judge Preska,

    I'm alleging the following; this affirmed letter is my official notification and
    protest of the alleged recently discovered installment of an ongoing
    conspiratorial pattern of misconduct being perpetrated by the NYC Department
    of Education (DOE). I was informed by the Pro Se Clerk's Office that on or
    around February 6, 2007, the DOE's Attorney, Mr. Andrez Shumree Carberry,
    Esq. submitted and docketed an official "Notice of Appearance" which
    allegedly still listed the DOE's co-defendants as Student A, B, C, and D, without
    presenting proof of the anonymous Students existence.

    2. Normally the filing of a "Notice of Appearance" is a routine process
    that was designed to formally inform the Court and the opposing party of the fact
    that a new or additional attorney will be introduced. However, I did not receive a
    copy of Mr. Carberry's February 6, 2007, "Notice of Appearance". I called the
    DOE's Attorney Carberry at (212) 788-0924 and spoke to him once. I've
    subsequently placed several follow-up telephone calls to him requesting a formal
    copy of the missing Notice of Appearance document but I was unable to reach
    him. I've left several messages on his answering machine in which I've
    requested a copy of the above-mentioned Notice of Appearance, but to no
    avail. I've also placed several phone calls to your office requesting a courtesy
    copy of the DOE's Notice, but to no avail.

    3. The reason I'm deeply concerned about this missing "Notice of
    Appearance" document is because, I'm alleging that this recent missing
    document incident is a part of a much larger on going conspiracy being
    perpetrated by the DOE. I'm alleging that, by not proving to the Court the
    existence of Students A, B, C, and D, Attorney Carberry is committing "Fraud
    upon the court" and is still using Laches to obstruct justice. In my opinion, the
    DOE and or the Clerks Office allegedly mistakenly violated the SDNY's Local
    Rule 50.3 by concealing an affirmed incomplete "Civil Cover Sheet" information
    document that failed to prove the existence of the Students that allegedly
    accused me of abusing them. I'm alleging that had I known about the existence
    of the incomplete "Civil Cover Sheet" I would have filed a Federal Rules of
    Civil Procedure's (FRCP) Rule 1447 (c) Motion that could have prevented my
    case from being removed from the NY State Supreme Court and could have
    allowed Judge Renwick to award to me the default judgment I requested.

    4. Rule 60(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures (FRCP) states,
    and I quote; "Rule 60. RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT OR ORDER (a) Clerical
    Mistakes. Clerical mistakes in judgments orders or other parts of the
    record and errors therein arising from oversight or omission may be
    corrected by the court at any time of its own initiative or on the motion of
    any party and after such notice, if any, as the court orders." End quote. I'm
    respectfully submitting this instant letter to you Pursuant to the FRCP's Rule 60
    hoping that you will make the following necessary corrections as soon as
    possible.

    5. In my opinion, according to USC Title 9 of the Federal Arbitration
    Act (FAA), the February 23, 2004, Award of Arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman, Esq.
    should have superceded your adverse order of March 31, 2004. However, in
    alleged violation of USC Title 9, you mistakenly failed to acknowledge and
    confirm Arbitrator Scheinman's Award. In my opinion, the only explanation You
    gave for not complying with the FAA's USC Title 9 was, stated in your June 29,
    2005, "Endorsement" where you stated, and I quote; "ENDORSEMENT
    Having reviewed Plaintiff's successive motions for relief from judgment
    [Docket nos. 39 and 41], I find there is no basis for the relief sought by
    Plaintiff. Any future motions brought pursuant to Rule 60(b) that allege the
    facts set forth in the above-referenced motions will also be denied." End
    quote.

    6. I'm alleging that You made a clerical mistake when you assumed and
    stated in your above-mentioned "June 29, 2005, Endorsement" that I was
    seeking "Relief from judgment" when in fact I was actually trying to exercise my
    constitutional right to have the Arbitrators favorable Award confirmed and
    respected by the Court. I'm alleging that had you complied with the FAA's USC
    Title 9, there would not have been a need for your March 31. 2004, adverse
    judgment. In my opinion, had you confirmed the Arbitrators Award, the Award
    would have had the same authority, and would have superseded and or made
    unnecessary your March 31, 2004, adverse Court Order. In my opinion, had you
    complied with USC Title 9, the NYC Department of Education (DOE) would have
    had to file an appeal in a timely fashion to overturn the Arbitrators Award.
    However, instead of complying with USC Title 9, you mistakenly submitted your
    own adverse order, in which you ruled in favor of the DOE.

    7. Arbitrator Scheinman, Esq., stated the following in his opinion and
    Award of February 23, 2004, and I quote; "After reviewing the evidence and
    argument submitted, I make the following rulings: 1. The letter of May 20,
    2002, shall be deleted from Wilbert Moore's File because it is unfair and
    inaccurate as these terms have been defined by the parties." End quote. If
    the Arbitrator concluded that Attorney Elenor Radzivilover's May 20, 2002, letter
    of termination was "unfair and inaccurate," and her letter of termination stated
    that, and I quote; "Dear Mr. Moore, The Office of Special Investigations has
    substantiated allegations of corporal punishment as follows; 1. CPU Log #
    02-0178 – You grabbed a male student causing a scratch to his arm. 2.
    CPU Log # 02-0180 – You grabbed another student by the neck, choked and
    pushed him." End quote, it's logical to assume that a clerical mistake was
    made by you when you totally ignored Arbitrator Scheinman's "Opinion and
    Award" and ruled in favor of the DOE's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion and dismissed my
    complaint.

    8. I respectfully submit that you were fully aware of the fact that an
    Arbitration was forthcoming because, you stated on page 4 paragraph 9, in your
    adverse Order of March 31, 2004, the following, and I quote; "Finally, even
    plaintiffs own documents indicate that his union is in the process of
    scheduling an arbitration hearing on his claims. Exhibit 24, As such, it
    appears that Mr. Moore is receiving due process both in the courts and in
    the arbitral forum." End quote. My above-mentioned Arbitration was held on
    November 21, 2003. On or around March 9, 2004, I sent a letter to you to inform
    you of the fact that I had won the above-mentioned November 21, 2003,
    Arbitration.

    9. I formally informed You of Arbitrator Scheinman's Award in a Rule
    60(b) Motion I submitted to you on April 27, 2004, by stating the following, and I
    quote; "15. Plaintiff is presenting the following as "New Evidence;" on or
    around February 23, 2004, AAA's Arbitrator Martin F. Scheinman, Esq. ruled
    in Plaintiff's favor and officially removed the NYC Department of Education's
    defamatory letter of termination dated May 20, 2002, from Plaintiff's
    personnel file (See exhibits 23, 24 and 25). End quote. In my opinion, the
    information in Attorney Radzivilover's May 20, 2002, defamatory hearsay letter of
    termination is the DOE's only evidence in the record of my using Corporal
    Punishment on Students A, B, C, and D, with the letter removed, the DOE has
    no case. This case has been dragging on for over 5 years, I'm hoping that you
    will carefully consider the above information and make the necessary corrections
    pursuant to the FRCP's Rule 60. Respectfully Submitted,
    Wilbert Moore

    ReplyDelete

Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Currently, comment moderation is on, so if your comment doesn't appear it is because I haven't gotten to it yet. (Don't know how to do that from my cell phone.)