DOE Stealth Reorganization Has Impact

An old post on Gotham about another stealth DOE reorganization is still getting comments. The title is misleading, as it is not unions that are nervous but advocates for children and parents.

A DOE plan to personalize bureaucracy is making unions nervous".
http://gothamschools.org/2009/03/10/a-doe-plan-to-personalize-bureaucracy-is-making-unions-nervous/

Author: Mark

I dont know how this is not called a Reorganization. Half my ISC contacts were told they would be laid off. As i finally became comfortable with my ISC contacts now everything is being reshuffled again. The D.O.E will NEVER retain top talent . The poor staff (which we rely on so often)are constantly being thrown around not knowing if they will have a job. Granted there are some staff that are a waste the majority are very professional and helpful. One ISC rep told me she has been with the DOE 6 years and every year she had to worry about keeping her job, while top management just continues collecting there $180,000 a year. Obviously they are the ones not doing a good job if every change they made does not seem to work.

See all comments on this post here.

SSO Spreadsheet

A spreadsheet of all NYC schools and the choices for SSO's they made is online at google. I sorted it by the SSO, then borough (city for Queens) then the zip code. If there better sorting options that make it easier to check for info, let me know or download your own version.

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=pgxRf3gM4qtydMYZmcxuvMw&output=html&gid=0&single=true

The embedded spreadsheet listing all city schools and their SSO choices has been removed due to the fact that it slowed up loading the blog. Click on the link above to view the spreadsheet on google.

And the winner is...

Empowerment (35%) ....

....with Judy Chin's (region 3) "Integrated Curriculum" network a close second (27%) followed by Marsha Lyles (region 8)(12%), Laura Rodriguez (region 2) (8%) with Kathy Cashin (region 5) (7%) bringing up the rear for the LSO's.

New Vision let the PSO's with 5% but they have been tabbed as extortionists in the past as they steal entire schools when large high schools are closed.

Many decisions are political. It will be interesting to see the brough breakdowns based on where the 4 former regional supt came from.

Other than empowerment which may be coming from the newer principals without deep political ties to the old districts or regions...

Queens R 3's Judy Chin's team ran a great campaign. She also has a rep as the most benign Supt. Most of R 3 probably stayed put. She made the Supt of R 4 Charles Amundson a deputy and a lot of R4 went with her. She may have captured a bunch of region 5 schools that did not go with Cashin. Did some of Cashin's constituents vote with their feet? Or is there some factor working here considering the Times article on her made the point that she did not follow Tweed dictums lockstep and so few of her schools in R 5 went empowerment last year.

Marsha Lyles probably got most of region 8 - north Bklyn execpt for the R 5 Brooklyn schools which might have gone to Cashin. It will be interesting to see where Staten Island and south Brooklyn went. Also Manhattan. Laura Rodriguez with access to the Bronx was expected to do better than 8%.

Outside the territories of the 4 Regional Supt, a breakdown of which schools went where will be an interesting study. People looking for jobs have been waiting for the breakdown and now Chin will have tremendous hiring power over all the others.

See more on this at http://nycpublicschoolparents.blogspot.com/2007/05/schools-choose-their-partners.html

....where you can download an excel spreadsheet of all schools. If I get time, I'll update this post and put the spreadsheet directly on Google for direct viewing for those without Excel.

(Updated May 19, 9am)

The top 10 reasons to hold a rally to oppose the DOE reorganization

The latest ICE leaflet handed out at the Delegate Assembly on May 9th in support of the Manhattan high school chapter leaders resolution calling for a rally. The attempt failed but garnered enough votes to make the union leadership take notice. A more complete report of the DA, which saw a Deputy Mayor and all kinds of Tweedle Dees and Dums making presentations will be posted later. Email if you want to be sent a pdf of the leaflet to share with your colleagues.

Number Ten: Privatization –
The reorganization moves us towards the privatization of public education by allowing outside companies to increasingly manage and provide resources to our schools.

Number Nine: Schools continue to be measured by high stakes tests instead of a wide range of criteria and there will be more testing than ever –
Interim assessments (more tests) every 6-8 weeks will take away teachers’ ability to assess their students’ needs, instead allowing private companies to decide what each student should be working on. Design Your Own (DYO) schools will not receive additional funding giving little incentive for schools to design their own assessments. Testing every 6 weeks that will take up even more instructional time and cost enormous sums while teachers will be bogged down in accumulating data that will be 95% useless in terms of really assisting children.

Number Eight: Continues one-way accountability –
No accountability at the top for massive errors at Tweed as everyone is assessed but themselves. Grading system of accountability dumps the buck on principals. The accountability will likely force many principals to make decisions based on not getting a D or F rather than what is best for children’s education. Principals’ jobs will be based on test scores (85%) and only a little on graduation rates (and fake ones at that). This will give even more incentive to principals to punish teachers who they feel are not testing to the max and suspend, discharge, transfer, and get rid of low-performing students any way they can to bring up their grades and save their jobs (and get a nice bonus too boot.) None of those outcomes – and none of the missing students – will be measured anywhere on the school report cards.

Number Seven: Reorganization without evaluating effects of previous reorganizations –
The 3rd reorganization since Bloomberg/Klein took over the schools with no assessment of previous reforms will lead to another round of disruption. Instead of lowering class size and instituting programs that will improve conditions in the classroom, money will continue to be diverted into the hands of privateers lining up to feed at the public trough. From districts to regions and back to districts – U-turns – but this time with the twist that each school is an island that will be judged (harshly) based on a narrow range of data accumulated in a heartless and inhumane way by an $80 million boondoggle contract given to IBM for the Aramis system that even computer experts denigrate. As parent leader Tim Johnson and historian Diane Ravitch have said recently, when you make constant U-turns you end up going around in circles.

Number Six: Small schools push at expense of large schools –
Small schools will still not be equipped to handle the most at-risk students – causing overcrowding in the large schools and their subsequent closings. While creating small schools is not a bad thing, no matter how many small schools are opened there can never be enough to make a dent on the massive numbers of students in NYC. Solutions to problems in large schools must be found, which involves making an investment in hiring enough teachers, guidance counselors, social workers, etc to create a small school atmosphere in the context of a large school.

Number Five: Special education needs continue to be ignored –
Who will be responsible for making sure students are provided with services? Where do parents go to get assistance?

Number Four: The reorganization actually expands the bureaucracy –
Does anyone believe bureaucracy is being cut to put money into classrooms? Check the number of superintendents and deputies and other bureaucrats under this reorganization and it is clear that when added to the enormous cost of their multiple experiments and unproven schemes, these claims are no more than outright lies. As are the claims that schools will not be micromanaged.

Number Three: Parent/teacher surveys distributed without mention of class size, high stakes testing, and other crucial issues – and will be minimally taken into account.

Number Two: Funding formula even as modified harms higher salaried teachers –
There is no advantage for schools to hire teachers other than those at the low end of the salary scale. Full impact of Fair Funding Plan is only postponed. Even the modification of the fair student funding formula is a big loss for teachers with mid-high salaries as well as teachers at the top salary levels. A 6th year teacher contacted us with the following question: He doesn't want to leave his school just yet, but might one day. He has all his credits and is making around 60K. Beginning to understand the implications of the revisions in the budget and the UFT basic agreement to accept the Tweed plan (the school keeps the money if a senior teacher leaves but the principal can hire a new teacher and can use the difference to buy a 50 inch plasma TV for his office) he realizes that as his salary goes much higher, he is in danger of being stuck at his school for eternity. Or until a new administration comes in and decides to harass high salaried teachers no matter how good they are. Or if his school closes. With the UFT-touted Open Market System and all its flaws, the teacher is in a quandary. "Do you think I should make my move now even though I don't want to?" he asks. “What worries me is when I am in the salary range where they can get 2 new teachers to replace me.” Answer: He should be worried. Very worried.

And the Number ONE reason to hold a rally to oppose the DOE reorganization -–

MAYORAL CONTROL MUST BE FOUGHT AND HOLDING A RALLY AT THIS TIME WILL SEND A POWERFUL MESSAGE TO THE 3 P’S – PUBLIC, PRESS, AND POLITICIANS.

What do we gain from holding a rally?
The Mayor got what he wanted: to kill the momentum building toward the May 9th rally – a rally that would have exposed the Bloomberg/Klein “reforms” as a sham to the entire nation with little support among parents and teachers just as Bloomberg is gearing up to run for president on the backs of the educational community. For the first time we could have wrung real concessions and killed or severely maimed most of the schemes to turn the public schools into a playground for privateers. The Mayor put some crumbs on the table and unfortunately, they were snapped up.

Educators, Parents, Community Activists, and Concerned Friends of Public Education will have a chance to demonstrate the deep-seated opposition to the Bloomberg/Klein destructive overhaul of the system. It will build momentum towards an end of mayoral control. An opportunity was lost when May 9th was cancelled. Can we still reverse the reorganization? We have nothing to lose.

Reorganization + Co-optation does not equal Education

Chapter leaders call on UFT to hold rally to fight reorgnization

Actions will take place at Delegate Assembly on Wed. May 9th.

There will be an informal picket line before the UFT delegate assembly this Wednesday, May 9th by teachers who will make the point that the DOE reorganization needs a stronger fight than the UFT has been willing to put up. Following that, a group of Manhattan high school chapter leaders who voted 18-1 to call for a rally in the next few weeks to fight the reorganization will attempt to get the delegates to approve a rally. TJC and ICE members and supporters will be present to provide support to the effort. If the delegates turn down or deflect the motion, or if Randi Weingarten filibusters to such an extent that the motion doesn't get to the floor – one of the above is expected considering the operation of the Unity machine– there is a possibility the group might call a rally on its own.

Below is an article published in The Chief on the actions of the chapter leaders.

Still Angry With Mayor: UFT H.S. Group Seeks Protest
By MEREDITH KOLODNER

The Chief
May 11, 2007

The United Federation of Teachers Manhattan high school chapter chairs will try to convince this week's delegates assembly to hold a rally against Mayor Bloomberg's school reorganization in place of the May 9 protest it voted to cancel.

An April 24 emergency delegates meeting voted overwhelmingly to cancel the long-planned rally in the face of an agreement that pushed back some of the provisions of Mr. Bloomberg's restructuring plan that UFT officials found most onerous.

'Delegates Out of Touch'
But the following day, the chapter chairs voted 18 to 1 to bring a resolution to the May 9 delegates assembly to call for a new protest against aspects they still find objectionable, including measures they believe will punish senior Teachers and those that would privatize some school functions.

"Our view is that the delegates' vote doesn't reflect what Teachers in our schools feel," said Skip Delano, the chapter chair at Brandeis High School. "A lot of us based in the schools have seen a lot of anger about the reorganization and the attitude towards Teachers, and we think people should be given the opportunity to show that anger to the powers that be and to the public."

The chapter leaders were not convinced that the agreement between the Mayor, the UFT and a coalition of community and parents' groups addressed one of their key concerns: a disincentive to employ higher-paid Teachers.

Currently, when schools hire Teachers, their overall school budget is not affected by whether she or he is making the starting salary or the maximum.

Unchanged for 2 Years
The Mayor's original plan would have forced Principals to take into account a Teacher's salary when drawing up their budgets. In that case, if a Teacher making $90,000 applied for an open position, UFT leaders believed there would have been a disincentive to hire him or her over a Teacher making $45,000.

The new agreement assures that for the next two years, if a Teacher leaves a school, the school will not lose any of that Teacher's salary.

The chapter chairs point out, however, that a Teacher's salary is still part of the hiring decision, because even though the school may not lose a $90,000 salary, a Principal is allowed to hire a new Teacher at $50,000 and spend the extra money on something else, such as another Teacher or classroom supplies.

Conversely, if a $90,000 Teacher applies for a position vacated by a $50,000 Teacher, the Principal will have to supplement the higher salary using other school funds.

Tenure Worries
The chapter chairs also thought the tenure deal, which holds off changes for at least one year, was not secure enough. And many objected to private nonprofit groups playing a role in advising schools on instruction, professional development and other aspects of school administration.

"Not everybody agrees that the agreement is so hot," said Ellen Schweitzer, the chapter chair at Stuyvesant High School, "and if you look at the resolution [canceling the rally] that the delegate assembly did pass, it said we needed to continue to fight for changes in the reorganization plan that is flawed."

Ms. Schweitzer is part of the opposition caucus Teachers for a Just Contract. Three of the 18 chapter chairs who voted to push for a new rally are TJC members.

The Manhattan high school chapter leaders had been planning a protest against the re-organization before the May 9 rally was announced. After the protest was made public, they switched their efforts over to turning people out for that rally.

When they met on April 25, the group discussed the possibility of once again calling their own rally, but decided it would be better to seek the participation of the entire union. They are reaching out to other chapter leaders around the city in an effort to gather support for their resolution.

Parent Objections
They are also planning to bring other Teachers who support their resolution to lobby delegates entering the May 9 meeting.

A couple of groups representing parents and those opposed to high-stakes testing, who were part of the Put the Public Back in Public Education coalition but did not sign on to the agreement, are holding a press conference on that day at City Hall to express their ongoing opposition to the reorganization. Most of the major players in the coalition were included in the overall deal and will not be participating in the press conference. [NOTE: This has been cancelled since the publication of this article].

Many of the Manhattan high school chapter chairs were frustrated with what they saw as too little time devoted to discussing the May 9 rally cancellation at the delegates assembly meeting. They complained about an hour-and-15-minute-speech by President Randi Weingarten, with about 20 minutes allotted for delegates to discuss before they voted.

Mr. Delano emphasized that the resolution was not designed to attack the union leadership, but instead was part of the process of relating what members in their schools were saying. "We are a small voice," he said, "but since we have a contrary view, we felt we needed to bring it back to the union and let our colleagues know what we're hearing."

Klein explains the funding formula to principals

Someone explain exactly how the deal Weingarten made on school funding helps teachers in any way. Hey! She's a "responsible" union leader. Responsible to BloomKlein. No wonder Rod Paige has such affection for her.

Principals’ Weekly
April 24, 2007
Chancellor’s Memo [excerpt]

Empowering Principals to Drive Student Achievement

Under the new system, to a significantly greater degree than in the past, you will control your budget, and your choices about hiring will affect your school’s purchasing power. Fair Student Funding will no longer fund schools based on the salaries of teachers newly hired into those schools. This is already the rule when it comes to teachers hired with categorical funds or teachers not covered in the “base teacher” allocation. We’re just extending the principle on a gradual basis.

Here’s an example. Right now, if you are choosing between a $60,000 teacher and an $80,000 teacher for a base position, your decision changes your school budget. Absent other salary changes or attrition, your budget goes $20,000 higher if you choose the $80,000 teacher; you are effectively held harmless for the increased salary costs. Under Fair Student Funding, that won’t be true anymore. Your funding next year will not depend on the hiring decisions you make this year. Whatever your school’s funding level, you will need to spend your dollars as best you can to drive achievement for your students. If you choose to hire more costly teachers and their costs do not fit into your new budget, you’ll be responsible for those costs.

To take another example, if a teacher with a $75,000 salary resigns at the end of the current school year, then other things being equal, you will be able to hire a replacement teacher earning roughly $75,000 without driving up your school’s real costs next year. If you hire a teacher earning significantly less, then next year, you will have additional funds to spend on other student needs. If you hire a teacher earning significantly more, you will not be held harmless for the additional costs next year. Whatever the salary of your hire, you will also be accountable for funding any raises that teacher receives in future years.
In order to help you make better judgments about the costs of your hires, applications you receive through the Open Market system will contain information about the forecasted 2008 salary of the applicant. Applications through the Recruitment Management System will contain applicants’ answers to questions about their teaching history and education experience.

Some principals have expressed concern that the new system will shift the focus to money, not learning, and discourage the hiring of successful senior teachers. I disagree. In our new accountability system, principals are accountable for student achievement. You can never pocket financial “savings”; you can only spend resources on other supports that you believe will better serve your students. High-quality experienced teachers can contribute enormously to student achievement and mentoring younger teachers.