Ed Notes Extended

Saturday, June 30, 2018

Tone Policing Used as an Anti-debate Tool by Left Right and Center

In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. condemned this type of silencing, writing that he was "gravely disappointed" with the "white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than justice."[3] ... Wikipedia
On NPR's "On the Media" this morning I heard a discussion of tone policing and how attacks on protestors who are viewed as "going too far" has been used to subvert the message. https://www.wnycstudios.org/story/problem-with-civility

The Problem with Civility

 It is worth listening to.



I'll admit I also react badly to what looks like uncivil behavior. Like I wasn't for tossing Sarah Huckabee out of the restaurant. The owner who did that also killed her business. So there are consequences.

But having just been through years of being lectured about my tone by the tone police in MORE and seeing Mike Schirtzer purged under the cover of his "tone" when in fact it was a political purge, this story struck a note. I had not heard the expression "tone policing" as a way to deflect debate and yet I saw this in action in MORE on numerous occasions, with the final straw being taking an open discussion listserve and putting it under moderation which has in essence killed all debate in MORE.

Mission accomplished.

It was funny as the same faction, all aligned politically, tried to control the listerves when we were in GEM, so I had an inkling that some form of political policing was behind the tone attacks. But this morning I heard it discussed in the main stream media for the first time. 

The wiki item below focuses on tone policing as being used against women and minorities and the left, but it also comes from the left, especially from the sectarian left which always tries to control voices that don't align with their particular sect. On the other hand, to be fair, people do have a right to complain about tone if they are offended - that is fine. But what I found is that I would put out a serious argument and the tone police would ignore the entire argument and chastise me on tone. Sure, tell me I could avoid using a certain tone -- good friends have told me that curbing my sarcasm would strengthen my arguments.

So I tried very hard to avoid giving people an excuse to avoid my political points. The result? They just ignored what I was saying altogether. Dead silence. So now I avoid commenting at all inside the MORE bubble and will use Ed Notes to make my points.
Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem and antidebate appeal based on genetic fallacy. It attempts to detract from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.

Tone policing - Wikipedia

 


In Keith Bybee's How Civility Works, he notes that feminists, Black Lives Matter protesters, and anti-war protesters have been told to "calm down and try to be more polite". He argues that tone policing is a means to deflect attention from injustice and relocate the problem in the style of the complaint, rather than address the complaint itself.[2] In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. condemned this type of silencing, writing that he was "gravely disappointed" with the "white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than justice."[3]
While ad hominem fallacies of relevance are often autologies, critics have argued that tone policing is a flawed concept simply because it is autological. As discussed by The Frisky's Rebecca Vipond Brink, the act of labeling tone policing may itself be considered tone policing:
The problem with telling someone that you have a right to express yourself as angrily as you want to without them raising an objection is that you’re also inherently telling them that they don’t have a right to be angry about the way you’re addressing them.[4]
— Rebecca Vipond Brink, Calling Out Tone-Policing Has Become Tone-Policing
Bruce Byfield has written that steering observers away from the validity of an argument is only one of many possible motivations for raising concerns about tone during a heated debate.[5] An article on The Good Men Project has argued that moderating tone, whether or not one cares about civility, is useful for increasing persuasive impact on the listener.[6]

Friday, June 29, 2018

New Jersey Protects Unions: Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act

Here is the Jersey version of the law passed in NYC.

Protecting unions with the law

The Workplace Democracy Enhancement Act that Murphy signed last month is one of those laws that could help public-sector unions. It gives them:
  • the right to meet with members on the premises of a public employer during the workday to discuss grievances and other workplace issues;
  • the right to conduct worksite meetings on premises during lunch, breaks, and before and after the workday to discuss negotiations, administration of agreements, and other union matters;
  • the right to meet with new employees for a minimum of 30 minutes within 30 calendar days from that employee’s date of hire, without the time being charged against the employee’s leave time;
  • the right to certain employee contact information and the right to use email for union matters.
http://www.njspotlight.com/stories/18/06/27/nj-public-unions-vow-to-stand-up-to-u-s-supreme-court-janus-ruling/

Thursday, June 28, 2018

The Gates Foundation’s big-data experiment wasn’t just a failure. It did real harm

Thanks to Jeff Kaufman for posting this.

Here's How Not to Improve Public Schools

The Gates Foundation’s big-data experiment wasn’t just a failure. It did real harm.
2
June 27, 2018, 9:00 AM EDT

Quality can be hard to measure.
 Photographer: Dave Einsel/Getty Images
The Gates Foundation deserves credit for hiring an independent firm to assess its $575 million program to make public-school teachers more effective. Now that the results are in, it needs to be no less open in recognizing just how wasteful — and damaging — the program has been.

School Scope: The UFT and Janus – Would a More Democratic Union Keep People from Leaving?

Union leadership will use the Janus decision to shut down internal critical voices. If we let that happen, we are abrogating our responsibility to build a better union by trying to force changes (and believe me it will take force) and we are also helping the anti-union forces who are using the impregnable union hierarchy against them. I expect the slings and arrows to come my way but I have my shield ready.

I wrote my column Monday, June 25, when we were still guessing about Janus outcome. It should be in The WAVE - on June 29, 2018, www.rockawave.com when it will be a bit outdated. It is about democracy in the UFT and whether that would be an issue in decisions to leave the UFT. Though this comment on the ICEUFT blog mentioned democracy.
Bronx ATR said...
This decision is not the end of unions. It doesn't even weaken strong unions. The strength of unions is not their bank accounts. but their willingness to fight and stand up for its members. The UFT's lack of democracy and its intentional creation of an apathetic rank and file has it rightfully concerned.
BronxATR is one of the few who mention democracy and my conclusion is that democracy is basically a non-factor for the overwhelming majority of UFT members. Democracy in the UFT only seems to be a factor to the tiny fringe opposition.

We recently watched MORE shunt internal democratic functions onto a side rail by overthrowing a steering committee a faction didn't like and violating so many by-laws we lost count. (See Why We Choose to Leave MORE)

So, even the supposed opponents to Unity (and I no longer consider MORE a serious opponent to Unity) don't seem very interested in pushing back on the issue of democracy in the UFT.

Yet, unless the ruling Unity Caucus party considers offering dissidents a role in reforming the union, Janus will make them bleed deeply unless there are some fundamental reforms. But I don't have much hope this will happen as the Unity DNA means maintain ironclad control even in a shrinking union.

THE WAVE: June 29, 2018
School Scope: The UFT and Janus – Would a More Democratic Union Keep People from Leaving?
By Norm Scott

Democratic norms seem to be slipping away all over the world. But there are alternate views as to exactly what constitutes democracy. We would have to define these norms first – which would require too much of my limited brain power. So I’ll leave it to you readers to define democracy on your own terms. Suffice it to say, I don’t take a traditional view of democracy.

Some UFT members may think the UFT is a full-fledged democratic union. So I imagine the state of democracy in the UFT won’t affect their decision on whether to keep their union membership or not when the Supreme Court most likely rules in the Janus case that no one can be forced to pay dues even though they may continue to accrue the same benefits as those who remain union members.

Without getting into the weeds let’s talk specifically about democracy in the UFT, which I have been a member of since 1967. In UFT elections the almost 60 year ruling party, Unity Caucus (a caucus is similar to a political party), always wins almost every one of the positions up for election with roughly 75% of those who vote. But almost three quarters of UFT members do not even vote and almost half of those who do are retirees, of which 85% vote for Unity. Thus, to a large majority of classroom teachers, a vote in a UFT election is basically irrelevant. Technically, this is still democracy – majority rule, even if only a relatively small minority of the total number of UFT members. Now, it may be that with a sure Unity victory, there is not much at stake, but that is the way our country seems to view democracy – a majority of a minority is still a majority -  though given the way things have been working out there are more and more calls for serious reforms.

The Unity party controls the 200,00 member UFT with a minority. Using this power base it also controls the NY State union with 600,000 members which in turn controls the national AFT union with 1.5 million members.

In the last election in 2016, a coalition of opposition groups won 7 out of the 100 Executive Board seats, none of the 12 officer positions and none of the 750 delegate positions to the New York State and national teacher conventions. That’s a worse winning percentage than even the METS. Those 7 seats were all from the high schools. In fact, various opposition parties have won the majority of high school votes in most UFT elections since the mid-1980s. Admittedly, the vote totals are low. In 2016 the opposition won the high schools with about 2350 votes while Unity received about 2150. There are almost 20,000 high school classroom teachers in the UFT. Even though our side won, we did so with less than 15% of the high school teachers voting for us. But that was the majority of those who did vote. Our side often claims that high school teachers as a whole do not get enough representation in the UFT, since a majority of those who do vote have relatively little say over UFT policy. The 7 non-Unity reps are only 7% of the Executive Board and they get voted down all the time. The argument that this disenfranchises  20,000 high school teachers, even if it makes the case for our side, is also an iffy one.

Let’s just say that the issue of a democratic UFT is a marginal one and when people chose to stay or leave the UFT post-Janus, the question of democracy will play little or no part.

Having thoroughly confused myself (and you) on the nature of democracy in the UFT, I will go back to blogging at ednotesonline.com where I may just blog about food.

Wednesday, June 27, 2018

DC 37 Sets A Pattern - And UFT Members Will Probably Be Screwed

So, Yes, Virginia, there is a pattern set for the next contract and expect things to run along fairly smoothly from now on.

DC 37 did it again. Here is the Daily News link:

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-dc37-contract-20180626-story.html

The pattern has not worked very well for teachers over the years even when we set the pattern, as we did I believe in 2014. What has happened with contract negotiations is that if we want to improve working conditions or get more benefits we have to pay for it. I don't have the brain power to do much analysis. I'm sure Eterno will take on that job on the ICEUFT blog.

The city will save money on health care changes - newbies must join HIP for the first year - also known as UGH! You see, my wife dealt with these insurance groups at Maimonides hospital for over 30 years and said HIP was the worst -- and it seems to be the cheapest for the city -- DUHHH!

And for certain illnesses - not described - you have to go to some chop shop clinic before a hospital. Minor issues like Ebola.

This response from one of the leaders of MORE gets into more depth on the effect on UFT contract negotiations.
This is very, very bad news for our contract negotiations. In exchange for raises that basically match inflation forecasts, the public sector union movement in the city has agreed to continue its strategy on giving up money in health care. The health care concessions are the same way that they funded our retro raises (and what led to our recent health care copay increases at ER's and Urgent Care facilities).  The details are not included here but I have heard they include a requirement that new employees have to join an HMO for the first year of employment - the first time we've had two-tier health care in NYC. The problem is that DC37's deal (note the family leave provision, paid for by employee contributions) sets the pattern for all other contract.  This, combined with Mulgrew's comment at the DA emphasizing that the Negotiating committee will meet over the summer, indicates to me that we are looking at an early contract settlement, wasting the 6 months that we have in the next school year that could be used for mobilizing members and seriously negotiating. The UFT is a major member of the MLC (Municipal Labor Coalition), and doubtlessly played a lead role in these negotiations.
If there is a quick contract it is also not great news for MORE, which had set its eyes on a major organizing campaign around the Contract  over the coming school year and even considered not running in the UFT elections in order to focus on that campaign. (I will be doing a deep dive on the upcoming UFT elections next year in an upcoming blog.)
Arthur Goldstein has an interesting take on the DC 37 contract at
First Day of Summer Brings Contract to DC 37 
NYC Educator rates this pattern as Not Terrible, particularly given the draconian and insulting offers de Blasio has been offering the cops. I do not wish to do better, and I'll tell you why. Historically, improving on money has entailed givebacks. I don't think we've got anything to really give back anymore. My personal contract asks are unrelated to money.
I think the UFT has the biggest gap between highest and lowest salaries so money may mean a lot to people not on the high end. I personally never worried about money in the contract (but I had no kids and my wife made good money so I am not typical). I was interested in other issues like making my work place liveable.

There are some downsides to adding percentage increases. And regressive. One percent at the top is almost 2 grand while at the bottom it might be around $5-800. (Someone check my math).

Thus, the money gap grows and that makes high end teacher un-hireable  and makes low end salaried teachers attractive. Of course ending the fair school funding formula would address this.

I maintain both the city and the UFT have a common interest in keeping fair school funding and dumping high salaried people. The DOE gets 2 for 1 and so does the UFT. One high salaried teacher pays $1400 a year to the UFT and two newbies each pay $1400. Post Janus we may see some erosion by newer members once they get the sticker shock.

Basically, UFT contracts have come down to how much of a raise you will get and nothing much else, other than some givebacks. From my first day on the job in 1967 it was clear that while the UFT at the top had influence and power (much diminished over the decades), teachers in the classrooms were fairly powerless. But we did seem to have some control over our classrooms -- though I will say that the principal who took over my school in 1978 (it was a coup) imposed her "test practice all the time" rules on most teachers. I saw the handwriting on the wall.

Under Bloomberg, principals became kings and the power of the UFT over the system was severely eroded - no longer partners. If I were teaching I would want more control and less power for the principal. But I also knew lots of teachers who preferred to be told what to do -- even work from scripted lessons -- less work in planning.

The health care squeeze is treading into dangerous areas --  like you have to go to some health chop shop for certain conditions before you to a hospital.

Yesterday morning, I had my first cataract eye surgery at Manhattan Eye, Ear, and Throat Hospital (Next one due in 2 weeks) and the level of service was wonderful - just that I am doing this blog 24 hours after eye surgery.

As it was when I had my prostate surgery at Mt. Sinai last October and my wrist surgery at Maimonides in 2011 and my hand surgery at NYU in 2015, and my pic lines from NYU when I had a bad infection last summer  -- boy just think of what I've been costing the system as I age.

But will people get a getup like the one I had yesterday before my surgery at chop shop clinics?



 


Monday, June 25, 2018

Ding Dong! Swinton is gone from Port Richmond HS

Can't believe Port Richmond did in a year what Law couldn't do in 7. Good for them.... Former teacher at Swinton's old school
Port Richmond parents, staffers and students have complained about Swinton’s management, charging that she de-funded popular programs and spent $400,000 to hire friends.... NY Post
You see, the DOE doesn't give a crap if she spent 400G to hire her friends or de-fund programs or treat teachers, kids and parents like crap. They were about to appoint her permanently.

This was sent from a contact at the school:



https://m.insurancebusinessmag.com/us/news/breaking-news/school-principal-busted-for-interstate-insurance-scam-104128.aspx

NY Post's Susan Edelman:

Alleged insurance scammer principal finally ousted from job


The Staten Island principal charged with felony insurance fraud has been bounced from her job, The Post has learned.
Oneatha Swinton, interim acting principal of Port Richmond HS, was caught registering her luxury cars at the Pennsylvania home of a city vendor she had hired — a scheme first exposed by The Post in November.
“The decision to remove Ms. Swinton was made in the best interest of the school community,” said city Department of Education spokesman Doug Cohen.
Swinton was a no-show at Monday’s commencement ceremony for 394 graduating seniors.
“She wanted today to be about you, the graduates, and didn’t want anything to take away from your special day,” Assistant Principal Andrew Greenfield told the crowd.
Swinton’s name was mentioned a few times during the ceremony, but there was little reaction, said parent Joann Nellis: “There was no cheering, there were no boos.”
Greenfield, a Port Richmond assistant principal since 2001, will take over as acting principal until a new leader is chosen, the DOE said.
Port Richmond parents, staffers and students have complained about Swinton’s management, charging that she de-funded popular programs and spent $400,000 to hire friends.
After release of criminal charges against Swinton by the Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office, a group of school leaders sent a letter to Chancellor Richard Carranza demanding her “immediate removal.”
The DOE would not say whether Swinton, who remains on the city payroll, has been assigned to a new post.

PS 25 Update: Leonie's Amazing Blog on Secret Agreement with Eva Moskowitz, her distortions, etc

[Moskowitz] put out a press release, claiming that the school was being “evicted” and that the de Blasio administration was “employing a bureaucratic paperwork loophole to block the school from opening. …. Officials could fix this problem with the stroke of a pen, yet they’ve refused to do so for purely political reasons.”

Note that word “evicted”, though these students had never been in the building in the first place..... Leonie Haimson
Remember these posts on PS 25 and the court case filed by parents with Leonie Haimson's help to keep the school open?
Also see this video of Leonie's assistant, Sebastian Spitz at the PEP - https://vimeo.com/272118347. (Sebastian will be attending Harvard Law School in the fall. Leonie attracts some talented people.)

The transcript was released of the court case.

There is so much meat in this post by Leonie that you have to read it multiple times to absorb it all. She exposes bad policy and dishonesty by the DOE -- and slimy lies by Elizabeth Rose.

Another excerpt from Leonie:
I had known that a Success elementary school, Success Bed Stuy 3, had already moved into the PS 25 building in the fall of 2016.  PS 25 was originally a K-8 school, but several DOE’s decisions had contributed to its enrollment shrinking over time. As of 2004-2005 school year, PS 25 had 773 students throughout grades K-8. In the fall of 2006, the upper grades of PS 25 were separated from the elementary school, creating the Upper School at PS 25 (IS 534), leaving PS 25 to serve only grades K-5. Then in 2016, IS 534 was moved half a mile away and merged with PS 308 Clara Cardwell, a far less successful school with an impact rating of .30, the same year that Success Bed Stuy 3 moved into the building. 

I had heard murmurings about a Success middle school, as Eva Moskowitz had been insistent that DOE had to provide her with more middle school seats, but I hadn’t paid this issue much attention as the DOE had had said that it had no plans for the space that PS 25 would vacate.  The only mention of this issue in the EIS proposing PS 25’s closure, dated January 5, 2018, was that: “Pursuant to Chancellor’s Regulation A-190, the NYCDOE may issue an EIS for the future use of space in K025, if applicable.”  
Yes, Virginia, there is duplicity at the DOE hand in hand with Evil Eva.

Here is a reason to vote for Leonie as the best person in the world and Eva Moskowitz for the worst.

Another reason to support the work Leonie does. I know that sometimes people don't click on links.
This is such a strong blog and a must read, I am including it embedded here. The details and research Leonie has done is mind-blowing.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Part II of the PS 25 saga; Eva Moskowitz steps in

Please send a letter now to Chancellor Carranza to rescind the decision to close PS 25 and allow the school to grow by putting a PreKch and a 3K class in the school for next year.




As described earlier on this blog, and in several news articles, Judge Katherine Levine of the Kings County Supreme Court blocked the DOE from closing PS 25 Eubie Blake, and on May 24 extended the temporary restraining order to allow this Bed Stuy public school to remain open at least another year. 

The DOE had proposed closing the school, ostensibly because it was “under-enrolled.” And yet by the their own admission, it was the fourth best elementary school in the entire city, according to the “impact” rating on the DOE performance dashboard, which former Chancellor Carmen Farina had boasted was the “most advanced tool of its kind.” While the school is above average on performance on raw test scores and attendance, its impact is stellar if one takes into account the socioeconomic background and need level of the students.
 
We now have a transcript of the PS 25 court hearing, in which the issue of class size repeatedly came up. The school has very small classes of 10 to 18 students, and none of the other schools that DOE allowed PS 25 parents to apply to have classes that small.  Among the questions Judge Levine asked was, “Would you concede that maybe one of the reason this school is doing so well is because it has small class sizes?”  Response from the city’s attorney, Caroline Kruk: “I can’t speak to that.”  
When asked what the downside would be if the school remain open for another year, Kruk replied that 3,000 students from all the schools DOE had proposed closing could not be re-assigned to different schools, which Judge Levine said was “ridiculous.” Only those students who currently attended PS 25 and whose parents wanted to remain there would be affected.

Judge Levine went on to ask, “The worst that happens if I keep the stay on [to keep the school open] is that the kids will have the benefit of this school for another year.  Now what are you going to tell me, financially, it helps the DOE if I close it?  What is the argument other than the fact that you think this school should be closed?  Forget about 3,000, we’re talking about 100.  What is the downside?”

Kruk had no real answer to that pivotal question.  “It’s simply …a low demand, there’s low attendance and …there is a lack of resources, you know, information –

Judge Levine:  “No.  I’m not hearing – do you have anything in your papers that say this school really stinks and there is no resources for this school so four kids are suffering?  What resources are lacking?  They are learning and they are doing well.”

Ms. Kruk: “Okay, understood, and your Honor, I would stress even if the equities don’t weigh in the Department of Education’s favor—"

Judge Levine: “They don’t.”

The Judge then asked if the DOE would agree to promise that if the school closed, its students would be able to attend a better school than PS 25.

Ms.Kruk: ”… because of the ranking of the school, it has a high ranking, its simply unrealistic to supply all the students with better schools.”
 

Because the city could not explain what damage would be done by keeping the school open for another year, and that the DOE could not agree that they would attend a better school (indeed there are only three in the entire city, and none were offered to the parents) the Judge ordered that the school stay open at least another year.  Over that time, she would carefully untangle the complicated legal issues involved, including whether a vote of the Community Education Council was required to close a zoned school.   

Since any changes in zoning lines have to be approved by the local CEC, according to NY Education law 2590-E, this was one of the plaintiffs strongest arguments as no CEC vote has yet occurred. The city’s attorney unconvincingly argued in response that the zoning lines “haven’t been amended.  They are currently in existence, there is just no school within it.”

In the end, what was evident from the city’s arguments that apart from the illegality of closing a zoned school without the approval of the CEC, they really have no reason to close PS 25, at least no reason that they were willing to make public at this time.

Soon thereafter, however, Eva Moskowitz went on the warpath.  On June 11, she sent out a press advisory, announcing she would hold a rally in front of City Hall the next day, to protest that the DOE was denying space to “Success Academy Lafayette Middle School”, a school,  which by the way, did not yet exist. 

She claimed that the Mayor was waging “bureaucratic trench warfare against Success — the latest episode of a long-running political vendetta,” by denying middle school seats to the fourth graders about to graduate from the Success Cobble Hill elementary school, and that the city had reneged on a promise to her that they would be able to attend a new middle school in the PS 25 building:

 “70 kids are set to begin fifth grade at the school, located in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn, in just 10 weeks. In a complete about-face, City Hall is now threatening to prevent the school from opening — and leave the building with 900 empty seats — due to a bureaucratic paperwork issue.”

I had known that a Success elementary school, Success Bed Stuy 3, had already moved into the PS 25 building in the fall of 2016.  PS 25 was originally a K-8 school, but several DOE’s decisions had contributed to its enrollment shrinking over time. As of 2004-2005 school year, PS 25 had 773 students throughout grades K-8. In the fall of 2006, the upper grades of PS 25 were separated from the elementary school, creating the Upper School at PS 25 (IS 534), leaving PS 25 to serve only grades K-5. Then in 2016, IS 534 was moved half a mile away and merged with PS 308 Clara Cardwell, a far less successful school with an impact rating of .30, the same year that Success Bed Stuy 3 moved into the building. 

I had heard murmurings about a Success middle school, as Eva Moskowitz had been insistent that DOE had to provide her with more middle school seats, but I hadn’t paid this issue much attention as the DOE had had said that it had no plans for the space that PS 25 would vacate.  The only mention oat f this issue in the EIS proposing PS 25’s closure, dated January 5, 2018, was that: “Pursuant to Chancellor’s Regulation A-190, the NYCDOE may issue an EIS for the future use of space in K025, if applicable.”  

Chancellor’s regulation A-190 in accordance with NY education law Section 2590-h requires that any change in the utilization of a public school building must follow a certain legal process, including the posting of an EIS at least six months ahead of the next school year, followed by public hearings and a vote of the Panel for Educational Policy.

At the the Success rally in front of City Hall on July 12, Eva Moskowitz excoriated the mayor: “The de Blasio administration throwing kids out onto the street? Does this sound familiar? But this might be a new low for the mayor. Can you imagine how the mayor would react if this was his own kids?”

The day of the rally, she put out a press release, claiming that the school was being “evicted” and that the de Blasio administration was “employing a bureaucratic paperwork loophole to block the school from opening. …. Officials could fix this problem with the stroke of a pen, yet they’ve refused to do so for purely political reasons.”

Note that word “evicted”, though these students had never been in the building in the first place. The press release went on to argue:

How did it come to this? Earlier this year, the city Department of Education agreed to let Success open four additional middle schools across the city, including Success Academy Lafayette in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn. SA Lafayette was a stopgap solution because the city claimed to need more time to find a location in District 15 for Cobble Hill and Williamsburg families, who have been waiting for a permanent middle school location for nearly four years. Out of necessity, Success proposed converting an existing elementary school (SA Bed-Stuy 3) into a middle school and transferring the elementary school students to two nearby Success schools. The city agreed to this plan. [emphasis mine].”

However whether adding a middle school into the building or converting Success Bed Stuy 3 into middle school and moving its current students elsewhere, would entail a change in school utilization, and legally require the process described above. An EIS would have had to be posted no later than March 5, given the six-month mandate outlined in state law and Chancellor’s regs. This never occurred, and it would be too late to occur now, at the end of the school year.

Eva tried to dispute that an EIS would be necessary, but then conceded, “However, even if DOE were correct that an EIS were now required, there is a simple and easy solution.” She proposed that the chancellor skip the required six-month process, by latching on to an exception in the law:

“In the event that the chancellor determines that …. significant change in school utilization is immediately necessary for the preservation of student health, safety or general welfare, the chancellor may temporarily…. adopt a significant change in the school’s utilization on an emergency basis. —Education Law §2590-h(2-a) (f)”.

Yet this section in the law is supposed to be contemplated only in the cases of actual emergencies, like hurricanes or other disasters rendering school buildings uninhabitable, so that entire classes of students would have to attend school in other buildings; it would surely be illegal to cite this exception to allow charter schools to move into buildings at the last minute, with no such rationale.

The day before, Deputy Chancellor Elizabeth Rose had responded to Eva Moskowitz’s press advisory, with a letter, released to the press, that laid out alternatives for space that could be provided to her middle school class of 70 students.

These alternatives included a list of facilities that Success already occupies in Brooklyn, or would next fall that are all within .7 and 3.7 miles of PS 25, totaling more than three thousand available seats, arrayed in four DOE-owned buildings and two stand-alone buildings.

Because three of these buildings would only house Success students, including one in a DOE-owned building, Rose added the following notation in the right-most column of the chart: “No EIS for this building”– suggesting that no public process or vote would have to occur to change the building’s utilization, itself a rather questionable interpretation of the law.  There is no exception in the law that allows changes in school utilization to evade the required public process, even in the case of DOE-owned buildings that only contain charter schools.
Yet Rose also admitted that there had indeed been an unpublicized agreement with Eva that her middle school could be inserted into the PS 25 building, that is, before the court ordered that PS 25 should remain open:
The Panel for Educational Policy unanimously voted to approve the closure of P.S. 25 at a public meeting on February 28, 2018. Success Academy requested additional rooms in K025 for the 2018-­‐2019 school year to serve fifth grade students from Success Academy Cobble Hill. The DOE agreed to this request, for one year only, under the assumption that Success Academy Bed-­‐Stuy 3 would be the only other school operating in K025 during the 2018-­‐2019 school year….
First, Rose’s statement that the vote to close PS 25 was unanimous is false.  As the PEP minutes of the February 28 meeting confirm, the vote was 8-5, as is usual with controversial proposals, with every mayoral appointee voting yes, and every borough appointee voting no.
 Second, the idea that this would be only a “temporary” arrangement, and that Eva would agree to move the middle school out of the PS 25 building after one year is risible; especially as she is already claiming eviction when her school was never in the building in the first place.
Rose went on to argue that this insertion would have been lawful, but it was the litigation over PS 25 that now made it illegal:
“The lawsuit contesting the closure of P.S. 25 commenced shortly after the vote. As part of the litigation, DOE has been stayed from closing P.S. 25, which has the effect of staying the siting of any other school there. In addition, Success Academy notified families—though not the DOE—that it would close Bed-­Stuy 3 at the end of this school year, leaving no PEP approved Success Academy school in the building. Unfortunately, in light of this litigation and related developments, Success Academy Cobble Hill fifth graders cannot legally use building K025 next year.”
Yet whether or not PS 25 had closed, it would have been violation of both Chancellor’s regulations and Education Law 2590h to alter the utilization of the PS 25 building by moving a Success middle school in, without an EIS and a separate vote of the PEP.
Instead, the DOE could have proposed the Success middle school should be inserted into the building, and posted an EIS by March 5, or even earlier in December, when the proposal to close PS 25 was first released.  Why they didn’t do this, and insisted they had no additional plans for the building until now is hard to understand– unless Rose thought by doing so would provoke even more community opposition and suspicion that the real reason the DOE wanted to close the school was to enable Eva Moskowitz to further expand her empire.
This would not have been the first time the DOE cleared out an entire public-school building for Eva.  Check out the “East Flatbush” building with 1000 empty seats listed in the chart above, K864/K869 in District 22.  In December, one month before the proposal to close PS 25 was announced, the DOE proposed to move P.S. 361, an early childhood school,  out of its building, and move it into P.S. 269, despite the fact that the EIS predicted that this move would overcrowd PS 269 building up to 102%.  The school would also likely lose its science room, its space for ESL services, and more. All this, despite the fact that PS 269 is already a struggling “priority” school according to the state, and as a Community school, receives “wraparound” services from DOE.  The entire building K864/K869 will be given over to Success for its new East Flatbush middle school next fall.  
Following her rally at City Hall, Eva has continued her campaign to insert her building into PS 25.  She has written Chancellor Carranza, claimed that the DOE “ took away our school building”, and demanded that he meet with “the Committee to Save SA Lafayette Middle School, a group comprised of parents and educators whose children were evicted by City Hall from Success Academy Lafayette Middle School in Building K025.”
Note that word evicted, once again; though there was never a Success Academy Lafayette Middle School, it was never sited in Building K025, and once PS 25’s closure was halted by the court, the only school that was supposed to be evicted would be Success Bed Stuy 3, which Eva planned to move out to make way for her middle school.  
The press release claimed, once again unconvincingly, that “Officials could fix this problem with the stroke of a pen, yet they’ve refused to do so for purely political reasons.” She added:
Many of the parents in the Committee have children who attend or have graduated from Success Academy Cobble Hill, a diverse elementary school that has suffered the impacts of the DOE’s inaction….Success Academy Cobble Hill has a student body that is “33% Hispanic, 27% black, 10% Asian, 24% white, and 6% multiracial… about half receive free or reduced price lunch.”
So let us take a look at the stats of Success Academy Cobble Hill elementary school, as neatly laid out in the DOE performance dashboard
 In every respect, the need level of Success Cobble Hill students  less than PS 25’s -- and less, for that matter than the students at Bed Stuy 3, that Eva had planned to move to make way for her new middle school
At 12 percent, the percentage of Cobble Hill’s disabled students is only about half of the citywide average.  It has a lower economic need index than average and far fewer English language learners.  Its impact rating is high at .89 – but not as high as PS 25’s at .93.
Moreover, the demographic snapshot for Success Cobble Hill elementary school suggests a significant rate of attrition at the school.  In 2013, there were 105 1st graders, with that number falling to only 68 fifth graders this year.
Compare the student composition of PS 25: last year 85 percent of students were economically disadvantaged, and this year 99 percent are in poverty, according to the DOE’s demographic snapshot. In every respect they are needier than the city average.
And while its total enrollment is small, PS 25 does not appear to be losing significant numbers of students over time, unlike SA Cobble Hill.
There is little information on the dashboard for students at Success Bed Stuy 3, whom Eva was prepared to move out the building, or “evict”,  to make way for her more “diverse” middle school.

Yet the DOE demographic snapshot also shows that the poverty level of Bed Stuy 3 has dramatically increased from 52.4% to 74.3% this year.  Perhaps that’s why Eva is so eager to displace its students, to provide room for the more advantaged (though yes, diverse) Success Academy Cobble Hill students.
In any case, Eva continues to regularly send out press releases and is currently engaged in a petition campaign, urging the Mayor and the chancellor to give into her demands.  Reporters continue to run stories about her claims, though none of them have pointed out the absurdity of her repeated use of the term “evicted”, even as she is content to entertain the prospect that other students, including the students of PS 25 and the students of Success Bed Stuy 3, should be moved elsewhere to make space for her middle school.  And no reporters have yet challenged the questionable legality of her prior if secret agreement with DOE. 
When PS 25 parents learned of the judge’s decision, they were thrilled, and its teachers were ecstatic. A little boy who attends the school later told me that while he had cried when he heard that the school was closing, he was so happy when he heard it would stay open for another year. Please send a letter to Chancellor Carranza to rescind the DOE’s decision to close PS 25 and allow the school to grow by putting a PreK and a 3K class in the school for next year.

Breaking: Oneatha Swinton Will Not Be Giving Out Diplomas at this morning's graduation

Superintendent will be handing them out. This is a sign that Swinton's days are numbered as interim acting principal. The bad press is what the DOE cares about. Watch Swinton disappear into a cushy 6 figure job at DOE headquarters.

We reported on this situation over the weekend.

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Mulgrew Comments on Janus and NY Law Offering Cover

UFT President Michael Mulgrew talked about the Janus case at the June 20 Delegate Assembly. One of the reasons the DA was postponed from last week was the hope the decision would be out in time for the delegates to be informed on union plans.

I usually don't go up to the 19th Floor to listen to Mulgrew's reports but since I've decided to temporarily suspend handing out materials at the DA I headed up after schmoozing with people downstairs. I wasn't going to go to the DA but  I went to help a parent activist hand out leaflets about a bad principal at Port Richmond HS. (See video: Oneatha Swinton Follow-Up: Video and Links

You might want to read this article I posted a few minutes ago:An Odd Twist: Might a Response to Janus Make Adjunct Organizing Easier in New York State? - New Labor Forum

Mulgrew said that there are 20 cases still to be released and they can keep them coming until the end of June. (Some of us have speculated that they are holding this case until school is out as a way to mute teacher union response.)

He talked about the law passed in the state legislature to have our backs -- the one pushed by Cuomo that allows unions escape from having to provide lawyers to those who leave the union.

Two NYSUT members, undoubtedly backed by anti-union forces, have already filed a law suit against the law. Mulgrew said they tried to make the law fool-proof against such suits. We'll see.

The law gives more access to unions to workers.
Mulgrew said the city hires 4000 every year -- the state law gives the union access. The first batch of 800 met and the UFT had access and signed up every one - in fact he said they ran out of cards. Here are some pertinent points in the law:
Within 30 days of employment or “reemployment” (or transfer into a new bargaining unit), the employer must provide the representing union with the name, address, job title, employing agency, department or other operating unit, and work location of the employee.[viii] Within an additional thirty days, the employer, “shall allow a duly appointed representative of the employee organization that represents that bargaining unit to meet with such employee for a reasonable amount of time
From Arthur Notes at the DA: http://nyceducator.com/2018/06/uft-delegate-assembly-june-20-2018-we.html
We have had two NYSUT teachers who’ve sued against anti-Janus law in NY State. We knew this was coming. We kept it quiet so it wasn’t scuttled while negotiating it. Similar suits in  NJ, PA and others. We expect to win lawsuit but opponents have unlimited funds.

This is why it’s so important to have a union in the first place. People were frustrated because we didn’t have it. Grassroots pushed this up. If there’s momentum we can do it. That’s collective action. If we had to wait, it would be part of our next negotiation, and we would get worse deal.

On Charters: Remember when charters said only certain ones could certify their own teachers? They lost. We sued them, and they lost.


An Odd Twist: Might a Response to Janus Make Adjunct Organizing Easier in New York State? - New Labor Forum

NY State law: unions will have the option not to represent non-members in grievance hearings (often related to unpaid suspensions or firings) which can consume a large part of unions’ financial resources and attention. As a result of this provision, each union will assess which path to take: continue to represent those who do not contribute to the union in the hopes of recruiting them in the near future, or cease to represent them, in theory incentivizing them to join... New Labor Forum
Aside from the interesting points raised by this article, note that the co-author is Marc Kagan, whose sister on the Supreme Court is one of the people ruling on the Janus case. Guess which way she will go?

The key is the analysis of the new NY State law which offers some interesting opportunities to unions.

I didn't include the initial points so go to the link to read it all. But did include the stuff about the law. Here is an important point that Mulgrew referenced at the DA - I will go into his comments in a companion piece.
Within 30 days of employment or “reemployment” (or transfer into a new bargaining unit), the employer must provide the representing union with the name, address, job title, employing agency, department or other operating unit, and work location of the employee.[viii] Within an additional thirty days, the employer, “shall allow a duly appointed representative of the employee organization that represents that bargaining unit to meet with such employee for a reasonable amount of time




http://newlaborforum.cuny.edu/2018/06/22/an-odd-twist An Odd Twist: Might a Response to Janus Make Adjunct Organizing Easier in New York State?

June 2018

Oneatha Swinton Follow-Up: Video and Links

Principal will still hand out diplomas days after fraud arrest --- While her students will be wearing caps and gowns Monday, Port Richmond High School interim principal Oneatha Swinton might want to consider donning an orange jumpsuit..... NY Post, Sue Edelman


Yesterday I posted this item:

Video: Parent Activist on Abusive Principal Oneatha Swinton, Arrested Yesterday

Below is a video I made with some background info. Before we knew about the arrest - the day before - we went to the UFT DA and the PEP - which we found had been moved from Brooklyn to Manhattan -- we found out when the translators who were also confused rushed out of the building to head to Manhattan. Annette Renaud actually asked them to give us a ride. There's no stopping her, which Oneatha Swinton, who was the principal when Annette was PTA president at the School of Journalism on John Jay Campus and once attacked Annette, is finding out.

https://vimeo.com/276717595



Here is the link to the Daily News article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-metro-staten-island-principal-busted-insurance-fraud-20180622-story.html

NY1: http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2018/06/23/interim-acting-principal-of-staten-island-school-arrested

And the NY Post:
https://nypost.com/2018/06/23/principal-will-still-hand-out-diplomas-days-after-fraud-arrest/

While her students will be wearing caps and gowns Monday, Port Richmond High School interim principal Oneatha Swinton might want to consider donning an orange jumpsuit.
The embattled educator is scheduled to hand out diplomas at the Staten Island school’s commencement ceremony — even though she was arrested last week on felony insurance-fraud charges.
School leaders dashed off a letter Friday to Chancellor Richard Carranza demanding Swinton’s “immediate removal,” citing the criminal case and complaints that she has mismanaged the budget.
But a city Department of Education spokesman on Saturday said Swinton will remain in the post “while we review the charges.” The DOE would not say if Swinton will show up for graduation.
Swinton, 39, is accused of registering two Lexuses at the Pennsylvania home of a city vendor she had hired, a scheme The Post exposed last November.
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro hit Swinton with four counts of insurance fraud, plus theft by deception and criminal conspiracy.
The vendor, Tanya John, a former city principal, is charged with insurance fraud and conspiracy for allegedly letting Swinton use her East Stroudsburg, Pa, address to get low-cost car insurance.
A defiant Swinton, who is seeking to be named permanent principal, refused to comment when confronted by a Post reporter at the school Friday.
But Swinton recently contended her critics are unfair.
“I know that people have done things to disrupt me or make me leave,” Swinton told a School Leadership Team meeting this month. “There are people looking to get me on an investigation.”
City Councilwoman Debi Rose, who has staunchly defended Swinton, is set to speak at Monday’s graduation ceremony. “​I understand that these allegations are serious, but individuals are innocent until proven guilty, so therefore we await the outcome the court proceedings,” Rose said in a statement to the Post.
In a criminal complaint, the Pennsylvania AG said John put her energy bill in Swinton’s name for three months in 2014 so that Swinton could show it as proof of residency to obtain a driver’s license. She also used the fake address to register two luxury cars, replacing one Lexus with another.
Swinton then bought car insurance using her fraudulent Pennsylvania license and registration — saving about $3,000 because rates are cheaper in rural East Stroudsburg than in NYC, the AG said.
She later filed two claims, both in September 2016, reporting damage to her car in Staten Island and Brooklyn fender-benders, costing the insurer $2,247 to repair.
After getting wind of the AG investigation in December 2017, officials said, she tried to cover her tracks by getting a New York driver’s license with her own Staten Island address, and changed the registration of her Lexus to New York State.
Swinton and John, who have not yet entered pleas, turned themselves in Thursday, and both were released on $5,000 bail. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for Aug. 15. Swinton called in “sick” that day, staffers said.
John, 44, is the CEO of Feetz LLC, which has collected at least $1.3 million in payments from DOE schools since 2012 to tutor students, run “character development programs,” and take kids on college tours.
Swinton hired Feetz at the Secondary School for Law in Brooklyn, where she was formerly principal. Soon after joining Port Richmond last year, Swinton planned to hire Feetz again, staffers said.
Swinton has endorsed Feetz on its website with a blurb saying “Teamwork really does make the Dreamwork!”
John, married to a DOE teacher, refused to comment.